'Australia will recognize the State of Palestine,' Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: Count 'em all — Trump has no authority to muck with 2030 Census Bureau count
Not caring about the U.S. Constitution is a regular refrain for President Donald Trump, who now wants to exclude undocumented people from the 2030 census count — a nonstarter as much else is in this bizarro world we now inhabit, promulgated via a screed on his Truth Social platform — is both a terrible idea and certainly a rehash. Trump attempted something similar during his first term in office as the 2020 census closed in, deciding to suddenly include a citizenship question in the count, a move promptly blocked by the courts. Now Trump's trying to go whole hog and exclude the undocumented altogether, in doing so going against the plain language of the Constitution, which unambiguously mandates the count 'of the whole number of persons' in each state. The chief executive certainly seems to care less about the letter of the law and the orders of judges this time around, though these will still slap him down. It's worth noting, though, that even if and when a judge makes the easiest ruling of a career and strikes down any directive to exclude from the census anyone based on citizenship or immigration status, that's not necessarily mission accomplished. Trump and Stephen Miller's all-out campaign of shock and awe and terror against immigrants around the country is designed at least in part to create an environment of fear and concern that will discourage people from participating in all facets of civic and public life, including the mandated decennial count. The Census Bureau itself found that it probably failed to count up to millions of noncitizens, largely because many declined to participate out of a fear that it would put them on the administration's radar and target list. So Trump was able to accomplish some of his aims, even without the directive technically being in place, and that was in an environment less hostile than now. New York infamously lost a House seat because it came up just 89 people short in the 2020 count, which is almost certainly a partial result of Trump's meddling last time around. That extra seat could have made a real difference in a House of Representatives that is so narrowly controlled by the GOP, which itself seems to understand itself as a mere arm of the Trump administration. Neither Trump, nor his top echelon of grifters and ideologues are going to be personally conducting the census count, though. That is left to a small army of temporary public servants overseen by career officials within the Census Bureau, and these folks will hopefully recall that their responsibility is to this important constitutional mandate and not to Trump. The one-time real estate promoter is fully incapable of seeing anything except in terms of monetary or political gain, and probably sees an attempt to exclude the undocumented from the census as good red meat for the base. However, the census guides everything in the United States — not just apportionment and representation in the Congress and the Electoral College, but disaster planning, disease preparedness, allocation of federal resources, and all manner of private-sector uses like demographic data for business development and so on. Ironically, huge chunks of those that would go uncounted under Trump's illegal decree would be in the red states like Florida and Texas, which Trump claims to want to support. The whole idea is pointless, damaging and unconstitutional. _____
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Former top general says reviewing medals for Afghan vets a 'no-brainer' for Carney
OTTAWA — A former top general who led the military during the Afghanistan conflict is urging Prime Minister Mark Carney's government to revisit the files of soldiers who served there to see if any of their awards should be upgraded to the Victoria Cross. Rick Hillier said that despite the failure of recent attempts to trigger such an independent review, he thinks the odds are better now that Ottawa is bent on revitalizing the Canadian Armed Forces. "I am more optimistic right now. I think for the government, this should be a no-brainer," Hillier, chief of the defence staff from 2005-2008, told The Canadian Press. Hillier is part of the civil society group Valour in the Presence of the Enemy, which has been pressing Ottawa to consider awarding veterans of the 2001 to 2014 Afghanistan campaign the country's highest military honour. He said commendations awarded to Afghanistan veterans should be examined in light of new information to see whether any of them qualify for the Victoria Cross. "Let's do an independent review, not committing to anything, which is right and appropriate," he said. "And if we should find that one or two or more individuals are deserving of the Victoria Cross, what a shot in the arm that would be for our soldiers and aviators and sailors." In 2022, former Conservative leader Erin O'Toole pushed to have a the House of Commons endorse the creation of a review panel that would take a second look at military decorations. Hillier said it may have been a strategic error to have the former leader of the opposition bring that proposal forward, since it "almost guaranteed" that the governing Liberal party would oppose it. The issue is being brought to the fore again through a parliamentary petition sponsored and endorsed by Liberal MP Pauline Rochefort which also calls for a review panel. Twenty Stars of Military Valour — Canada's second-highest military award — and 89 Medals of Military Valour were awarded to soldiers who served in Afghanistan. No serving Canadian soldier or veteran has been awarded the Victoria Cross since the Second World War. The Government of Canada says just 81 Canadians have ever been awarded the Victoria Cross — 4 from the Boer War, 64 from the First World War and 13 from the Second World War. Gen. Walter Natynczyk, chief of the defence staff from 2008 to 2012, ordered a review in 2012 of the 20 Stars of Military Valour awarded for the Afghanistan conflict. Ottawa has resisted calls in recent years for another review. Department of National Defence spokesperson Andrée-Anne Poulin said in an emailed statement the awards process is designed to be insulated from political influence and public pressure. "All honours for the Afghanistan mission have been processed and the time limits for such nominations (two years between the action and the nomination for Military Valour and Bravery Decorations) have now elapsed," she said. "These time limits ensure events are judged by the standards and values of the time, are compared with other contemporary examples, past decisions are not second-guessed and history is not reinterpreted." Many have cited the case of Jess Larochelle of North Bay, Ont., as one that deserves a closer look. The late army private's supporters maintain he should be awarded the Victoria Cross for his heroic actions in holding off a 2006 Taliban attack on an observation post after sustaining serious injuries. Hillier, who chaired the committee that awarded Larochelle his Star of Military Valour, said details of his story that came to light in the years since make his case worth a fresh look. "I don't think we made a mistake, but having done something doesn't mean that it's cast in stone forever and ever," he said. Hillier said new details about "how badly injured" Larochelle was during the battle, and the fact that he volunteered to take the position, should merit a reappraisal of his case. Retired lieutenant-general Omer Lavoie suggested the Department of National Defence may be reluctant to reopen awards files because it would be a complex project that would stir up grim memories of the conflict — and because it could quickly give rise to claims of unfair treatment if veterans of other wars aren't also honoured. Hillier also observed that Canadians tend to be hesitant about lavishing praise on individual acts of greatness. "We in Canada have forever been loath, reluctant, slow to recognize the very top acts of courage and valour," he said. "Throughout our history, we seem to have this sort of group-thought process sometimes, where it keeps people all in one level." This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 13, 2025. Kyle Duggan, The Canadian Press
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
N.S. man purposely violates ban on entering woods, gets handed $28K fine
A Nova Scotia man has been slapped with a fine worth more than $28,000 after deliberately violating the province's ban on woods travel, a move he says was necessary to challenge the provincial proclamation in court. In an effort to prevent wildfires in the midst of a drought, the Nova Scotia government has imposed a ban on anyone entering the woods — including hiking, fishing and camping — until Oct. 15 or until conditions improve. There is also a ban of open fires. The fine for violating the proclamation under the Forests Act is $25,000. A victim surcharge and HST also apply to the fine, bringing the total to $28,872.50. Last Friday, Jeff Evely of Coxheath, N.S., arrived at the Department of Natural Resources office just outside Sydney and declared he would be walking into the woods nearby. He recorded audio and video of his encounter and posted it on his Facebook page. "I want to challenge this order in court, and the only way for me to do that is to get the fine. I'm not trying to make trouble for your guys," he told the official. "I'm ordering you to not," the worker replied. "Does somebody want to follow me out there?" asked Evely. He is later seen walking into dense woods before heading back into the office. Evely is then handed a summary offence ticket. Evely, a retired veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces who ran as a candidate for the People's Party of Canada in the April federal election, argues the ban is too restrictive and an example of government overreach. "There is no logical connection to the goal of preventing wildfires to barring my sneakers from the woods," said Evely in an interview at Petersfield Provincial Park, where he regularly walks his dog. "It goes too far." This isn't the first time Evely has legally challenged a ban on entering the woods. In fact, it was the outcome of that case that led him to purposely violate the restriction this time around. A similar ban was put in place in May 2023 as two major wildfires burned in Halifax and Shelburne counties, destroying hundreds of homes and forcing the evacuation of thousands of people. WATCH | Nova Scotia isn't the only province telling the public to stay out of the woods: About two weeks after the ban was lifted, Evely filed an application for judicial review of the natural resources minister's proclamation, arguing his rights were infringed since the two wildfires did not impact his Cape Breton community. He also argued the provincewide ban was put in place arbitrarily. In a decision dated Jan. 22, 2024, Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice Jamie Campbell ruled Evely did not have standing, meaning he did not have a legal basis to bring the case to court, given there were no charges or fines against him. Campbell noted Evely was seeking a declaration saying that the minister's decision was unreasonable and beyond the authority granted under the Forests Act. "But the proclamation issued by the minister has been revoked. The court cannot declare something invalid that is no longer in force," Campbell wrote. He ruled the application therefore could not proceed. Evely said he believes the court has no choice this time around but to examine the legality of the restrictions and whether they are constitutional. Toronto lawyer Marty Moore will help represent Evely. Moore leads a team of lawyers at Charter Advocates Canada, which is funded by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. Moore said there are a few avenues they may take, including an application for a judicial review. The team is reviewing the case and will decide how to proceed in the coming days and weeks. "It's an arbitrary restriction. It's not rationally connected to stopping forest fires, by preventing people from doing activities that have nothing to do with the creation of forest fires," said Moore. "You can't cause a forest fire simply by walking through the forest. And in fact, you might be in a position to prevent a forest fire by reporting an early combustion or even reporting someone who's intentionally going out into the woods to set a forest fire." Moore said he believes Evely does have standing for a judicial review in this case, given he was issued a summary offence ticket and fined. 'Widespread support' for ban: Natural Resources Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston has said the ban was put in place following recommendations from experts. "So the experts gave the advice. I agreed with it. I'm happy to make sure that we're doing everything we can to protect people, to protect property and try to just get through this fire season," Houston told reporters last week. In a statement Tuesday, the Department of Natural Resources said the decision was not made lightly. It said the current conditions are extremely dangerous. "We're asking all Nova Scotians to take seriously the precautionary measures we've put in place.… Our teams and experts analyze data on a daily basis to make the best decisions for the protection of Nova Scotians and their homes and communities," the statement said. "We have seen widespread support from across multiple business sectors and from Nova Scotians who want to do the right thing." Bans also in place in N.B., N.L. Ken McMullen, president of the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, said such bans are imposed for a reason and it's better to err on the side of caution. "I know that this might appear inconvenient. I understand that it might seem over the top. The reality is desperate times may call for desperate measures," said McMullen, who is fire chief for the City of Red Deer in Alberta. Scott Tingley, manager of forest protection with Nova Scotia's Department of Natural Resources, has repeatedly noted that the vast majority of the province's forest fires — 97 per cent — are caused by humans. Newfoundland and Labrador, where multiple wildfires are burning, has vowed to impose lofty fines on people who violate its fire ban. Fines now range from $50,000 to $150,000, as well as up to a year in prison. New Brunswickers are being asked to stay out of the woods, and the province has banned all access to Crown land as crews battle 10 active wildfires, including two major ones. But it has not imposed a hefty fine. MORE TOP STORIES
