The Price of Speaking Truth
Dr. Martin Feeley and the cost of courage
By Trish Dennis | July 31, 2025
In April 2023, The Irish Times published a quietly devastating article under the headline:
This article told the story of Dr. Martin Feeley, a man who had already lived an extraordinary life before becoming a reluctant public dissenter during one of the most charged periods in Irish history.
A vascular surgeon by training, Martin Feeley was also an Olympian, representing Ireland in rowing at the 1976 Summer Games. Born in Lecarrow, County Roscommon in 1950, he qualified from UCD in medicine and later became a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. In 1985, he earned a Master’s in surgery, and by 2015, he had been appointed Group Clinical Director of the Dublin Midlands Hospital Group, one of the most senior medical administrative roles in Ireland’s Health Service Executive (HSE.)
By any measure, Dr. Martin Feeley was an exceptional person, not just accomplished, but genuinely liked and respected by his colleagues, patients, friends and everyone who knew him through the Irish rowing community. He was known and loved not just for his clinical expertise, but also for his warmth, integrity, intelligence and humour. Those who worked alongside him described a kind, principled man, generous with his time, supportive of younger colleagues, and unwilling to play politics with the truth.
A sample few of the many heartfelt tributes left in the Condolence Book on RIP.ie following Dr. Feeley’s death in December 2023, read:
“I had the privilege to work with Mr Feeley in AMNCH and that made all the difference to me. He exemplified integrity, empathy and good sense. Authentic, kind and encouraging, a Colossus amongst men and medics. And always brilliantly funny.”
“A decent man, a great teacher, much respected.”
A patient shares:
“Thank you Mr. Feeley for saving my life in 2013. Fly high with the Lord. RIP.”
What stands out in the many tributes is how deeply admired he was, not just for his medical expertise, but for his warmth, kindness and humour and the deep impression he left on those who worked with him. Again and again, the tributes spoke of his decency and integrity.
And yet, when it really mattered, during a period in Irish life when decency and integrity were needed most, it was precisely those qualities that cost Dr. Feeley his job.
During the Covid-19 pandemic, Dr. Feeley raised a profoundly important question, one that has aged far better than the policies it challenged: Was the State’s response proportionate to the actual risk faced by the population, particularly children and young adults?
Dr. Feeley did not deny the virus or downplay the risks. He simply raised a measured, evidence-based concern, which was that the restrictions being imposed were doing real and lasting harm. Drawing on clinical experience and moral clarity, he warned of the damage being done, especially to children and young people, through shuttered schools and colleges, cancelled sports, and the loss of everyday human connection. He believed that those at low risk could, in time, build natural immunity, helping to reduce the danger to the most vulnerable.
His critique wasn’t vague or emotional. It was specific, well-informed, and in hindsight, remarkably prescient. Among the key points he raised:
- Restrictions should have focused on those most at risk, not applied as blanket rules to everyone. Healthy younger people, he argued, could have built immunity more safely, helping society reopen sooner and more fairly.
- He condemned the government’s communication strategy, especially the daily case counts, calling them a form of “deliberate, unforgivable terrorising of the population.”
- His concerns were later echoed by others, including former HSE infection control chief Professor Martin Cormican who suggested that Dr. Feeley wasn’t alone in his thinking, just in his willingness to say it out loud.
- He examined ICU projections and found they didn’t match the alarmist tone of official briefings. On the ground, he was seeing only a handful of Covid patients in intensive care, far fewer than the public had been led to expect.
- He urged staff to keep perspective, pointing out that statistically, a healthy person under 65 was more likely to be injured cycling than to die of Covid.
- He objected to the new definition of a “case”, expanded to include any positive test result, even in people with no symptoms, a shift that he believed inflated fear and distorted the public understanding of risk.
And Dr. Feeley never backed down. If anything, he felt that the passing of time only confirmed the accuracy and necessity of what he said.
From the very early days of the pandemic, Dr. Feeley spoke with a compassion and honesty that few public health figures dared to match. In an article written in October 2020 for The Irish Times, written as Ireland entered a second lockdown, he captured the human cost in a single, unforgettable sentence:
“Life is not a video game which we can freeze-frame and restart when a vaccine arrives. All living is being suspended, but unfortunately all lifetime is passing, even for those with six months or a year to live, with or without Covid-19.”
This line “Life is not a video game which we can freeze-frame and restart when a vaccine arrives” gets to the heart of the problem with lockdown thinking. Real life cannot be paused. Time moves forward inevitably, especially for those who are elderly, ill, or nearing the end of life.
And it’s not only the old people who lost something. For young people too, there are moments in life, rites of passage, milestones, celebrations, that happen once and cannot be relived or recreated. Birthdays, graduations, first jobs, leaving school, falling in love, saying goodbye. These are not things you can reschedule. That time was taken from our young people, and it can never be given back.
Dr. Feeley’s point was that by trying to preserve life at all costs, we ended up suspending the very things that made life worth living, human connection, care, life experiences and milestones. When he said “all life time is passing even for those with six months or a year to live”, it was a stark reminder that waiting for a vaccine wasn’t just a pause for some, it was a loss they would never get back. It challenged the technocratic idea that society could be put on hold without consequence, and called for a more humane, proportionate approach, one that saw people not as data points but as human beings living in real time.
And yet, for speaking so clearly and ethically, he was punished.
In September 2020, Dr. Feeley was forced to resign from his role as Clinical Director of the Dublin Midlands Hospital Group under pressure from the HSE following a series of media interviews. In that April 2023 article from The Irish Times, Dr. Feeley is quoted as saying that “within days” of airing his objections to the restrictions he was removed from his position. He specifically stated:
“I was forced to resign as opposed to just walking away.”
He attributed responsibility for his exit to the former HSE Chief Executive Paul Reid, although Reid denied involvement.
He was further quoted in that article of having said about his decision to speak publicly against the lockdowns from inside the HSE:
“The only stupid thing I did,” he said, “was to say what I thought. I should have kept my mouth shut.”
Those words should shame us. Because they don’t just reflect one man’s bitter experience, they reflect a sick and dishonest culture. A culture that punished integrity and rewarded compliance and where the cost of speaking truth was professional exile. In Dr. Feeley’s case, the silence of Irish medicine was not only deafening, it was shamefully complicit.
Following Dr. Feeley’s death in 2023, tributes poured in across social media. Colleagues, former patients, independent politicians, and members of the public remembered him not just as a brilliant surgeon, but as a man of deep principle and uncommon courage. Independent TD Michael McNamara called him “a doctor unafraid to question the consensus.” Another tribute read: “If only we had more men like him in this country. We lost a good one. RIP Dr Feeley.” One especially searing comment captured the public mood: “This poor man was shunned… by the HSE… for challenging the ‘science’ that caused untold damage… RIP.”
These aren’t just empty or generic eulogies, they’re heartfelt tributes from people who understood and valued what he stood for.
At this stage in the game, five years on from that bleak chapter, I shouldn’t be surprised by the Irish establishment’s failure to learn anything meaningful from all of this, and yet somehow I still am. Despite everything we’ve seen and lived through, I remain both astonished and disheartened by how little reflection or change seems to have taken place.
Not only has the Irish state failed to reckon with the silencing of Dr Martin Feeley and others like him, it now appears poised to reward the chief architect of the very policies they dared to question. Dr Tony Holohan, who served as chair of the National Public Health Emergency Team (NPHET) during the pandemic and was widely seen as the public face of Ireland’s Covid response, is now reportedly being considered for the highest office in the land, the Irish Presidency.
Often described as Ireland’s answer to Dr Anthony Fauci, Dr. Holohan became synonymous with the government’s lockdown policies. Under Dr. Holohan’s watch, Ireland implemented one of the strictest lockdown regimes in the EU, including the longest closure of public venues across Europe. On a global level, Ireland had the fourth most stringent lockdown in the world, behind only Cuba, Eritrea and Honduras.
Whether or not this presidential bid ultimately materialises, the very suggestion that Dr. Holohan could be a contender for the most prestigious office in the state, is a striking example of the Irish establishment doubling down on steroids. Rather than reassess, Ireland appears intent on enshrining its mistakes.
To elevate Dr. Holohan now is to consecrate a version of history in which men like Dr. Feeley were cast as dangerous and disposable, and those who imposed sweeping harms on the Irish population are hailed as statesmen. It sends a chilling message that in Ireland, telling the truth as you see it, even from a place of expertise, ethics, and professional integrity is punishable. That the architect of Ireland’s extreme lockdowns, a man who dictated when we could hug our loved ones, is now being considered for the Irish presidency is not only shocking but morally obscene.
In fact, were he still with us today, Dr Martin Feely is exactly the sort of person the Irish people should have elected as their President, being someone who truly stood for the people of Ireland. He did his utmost, against all odds, to advocate for their rights and to stand firm against the harms he knew were being inflicted upon them.
Dr. Feeley’s voice may be silent now, but what he stood for must continue to be heard. He spoke with reason, compassion and integrity in a time of hysteria and institutional cowardice. He recognised the true human cost, not just in lives lost, but in lives unravelling, in relationships strained or severed, in connections broken, and in communities turning on themselves.
Dr Feely understood that this harm was not abstract but deeply personal and that it fell heaviest on those least equipped to bear it, those children and young people whose milestones were stolen, the elderly who were isolated and forgotten, and the already marginalised who were pushed further to the edges of society.
To honour him now is to face what we did, not in blame, but in truth. We must reject the whitewashing of history that elevates bureaucrats and silences decent and honest people. We have to ensure that in any future crisis, conscience will not be a sackable offence.
We lost Dr. Feely too soon, and with him, a voice the Irish people sorely needed. I would have loved the chance to meet him, shake his hand, and thank him for speaking up for all of us, for humanity, and for decency. I wish I could have told him that in person. Still, I write it now in the hope that someone, somewhere might read about this remarkable man and find courage and inspiration in his example.
Martin, may you rest in peace. You were one of the good ones. You stood for what was right when it mattered most. We remember you with gratitude, respect and love.
Irish High Court Rejects X’s Challenge to Online Censorship Law
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | July 31, 2025
The Irish High Court has thrown out a legal challenge by X, dealing a blow to the company’s pushback against Ireland’s new censorship rules for online video-sharing services.
X had taken aim at Coimisiún na Meán, the country’s media watchdog, accusing it of stepping beyond legal limits with its Online Safety Code.
The rules demand that platforms hosting user-generated videos take active steps to shield users from “harmful” material. The company had described the regulator’s actions as “regulatory overreach.”
Mr Justice Conleth Bradley, delivering judgment on Wednesday, found no merit in X’s application for judicial review. The court concluded that the regulator’s code was lawful and that its provisions fell within the scope of both the EU’s Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) and Ireland’s 2009 Broadcasting Act.
According to the ruling, the code does not clash with the Digital Services Act and can function in tandem with EU law.
Responding to the outcome, Coimisiún na Meán said it welcomed the decision and intended to examine the ruling closely before offering more detailed comment.
The case comes as X begins rolling out new age verification systems to meet obligations under the Irish code, alongside compliance efforts aimed at satisfying UK and wider EU digital censorship regulations.
The ruling marks a significant moment in the ongoing struggle over who decides the boundaries of online speech and content moderation.
While the court’s backing of the state regulator reinforces governments’ ability to impose strict platform controls, it raises deeper concerns about the growing normalization of surveillance-based compliance measures and centralized authority over digital expression.
Ireland Clashes with EU Over Hate Speech Laws as MEP Michael McNamara Denounces Brussels’ Legal Threats

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | May 23, 2025
Ireland’s refusal to fully adopt the European Union’s “hate speech” directives has ignited tensions in Brussels, with Independent MEP Michael McNamara voicing staunch opposition to what he calls a misguided and authoritarian push to punish noncompliance. He dismissed the EU’s legal threats as deeply flawed, asserting that there is no evidence” that these laws accomplish their stated goals of reducing discord or promoting unity.
According to McNamara, attempts to legislate acceptable speech do little more than sow fear and resentment. “People resent the fact that they’re threatened with prosecution for expressing their views,” he said, highlighting a growing unease across Europe as more individuals feel unable to voice opinions, whether popular or not. He warned that such policies do not alter underlying beliefs, they simply force them underground.
Instead of fostering a more harmonious society, McNamara argued that these measures build resentment. “It doesn’t affect how people think in any way, it just affects what they are afraid to say and what they resent,” he said. He drew a parallel to the United Kingdom, where, he noted, citizens are witnessing elderly individuals facing prosecution for speech offenses, while police resources are increasingly diverted from public safety to policing online expression.
“Hate speech laws are counter-productive. They are also profoundly illiberal. They’ve damaged the UK and we don’t want the same,” he wrote in a message on X, calling on the European Commission to abandon any proceedings against Ireland related to speech legislation.
The EU’s position, outlined in a recent notice from the Commission, faults Ireland and Finland for not yet implementing legal measures to criminalize specific categories of speech, including statements denying historical atrocities or inciting hatred against protected groups. While Ireland has made partial moves, Brussels remains unsatisfied and has issued formal opinions giving the two nations two months to comply before potential escalation to the European Court of Justice.
Despite an earlier attempt to introduce hate speech legislation, one that passed easily through the Dáil, the lower house of the Irish parliament, the Irish government eventually shelved the bill.
Resistance from the Seanad and significant public discontent led to its demise, with many viewing the proposal as a direct threat to civil liberties.
That backlash is widely believed to have influenced the outcome of the March 2024 referendums, where voters rejected two constitutional amendments by wide margins.
McNamara reiterated his stance before the European Parliament, stating plainly that pressing charges against Ireland over its refusal to implement these rules would be “misguided.” He urged the Commission to reconsider, framing the issue as one of national integrity and democratic principles rather than regulatory compliance.
Ireland’s War on Dissent Gets a Digital Upgrade
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | April 22, 2025
Ireland’s authorities have published the National Counter Disinformation Strategy, recommending a number of censorship tactics such as “fact-checking” and “pre-bunking.”
At the same time, a potentially powerful demonetization tool – the online advertising system – is to be used against whatever is branded as “disinformation.” Even if these are, in reality, often simply dissonant policies and voices.
Yet the Irish government’s plan is to make this a broad “collaboration” between itself, the private sector, and other participants.
While turning online advertising into a tool for suppressing speech has at this point been recognized as unacceptable in the US (as the GARM saga illustrates well) – in Ireland, this is still clearly considered a viable option to control online narratives.
Media outlets long since positioned as government sidekicks, namely, legacy media, are branded “high quality” – while those that can be financially stomped out (i.e., demonetized) for supposed “disinformation” include voices exercising that top democratic principle – free speech.
Free speech includes lawful political and social dissent – while another key value defining democracy is the ability to express that dissent without fear of repercussion or discrimination.
And so, never formally banned, and therefore the cases not raising too much dust – dissenting online sources would be easy to shut down. Cutting off revenue (through “collaboration” with the advertising industry) would become a way to continue flying the authoritarianism flag on the radar.
Another requirement the strategy seeks to impose is that platforms comply with legal obligations – including laws that enact censorship by any other name.
In order to cement the “disinformation” narrative, civil society and research organizations are to be given access to platform data – which then often becomes the basis for low-stakes campaigns disguised as research, aimed against policies, parties, and media outlets.
These “non-binding” papers may never end up holding any professional water – but what does that matter, once “high quality” legacy media pick them up and work them into their “news” narratives.
Ireland inevitably seeks compliance with the EU bureaucracy. One of those rules is the “EU Code of Practice on Disinformation” – to fight anyone harming “our society by eroding trust in institutions and media.”
Both the EU and the Irish government still pretend they don’t know the ones doing that particular “harm and eroding” work here – are in fact, themselves.
More: Ireland Enacts Hate Offenses Act, Dismissing Concerns Over Free Speech and Censorship
Israel wants European nations to take displaced Palestinians
RT | February 6, 2025
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz has instructed the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to prepare a plan to encourage Palestinians to emigrate from Gaza, according to a post he made on X on Thursday.
The minister also suggested that refugees should be taken in by European countries that opposed West Jerusalem’s military action in the enclave. Katz said that it would reveal their “hypocrisy” if these nations declined to accept Gazans.
It follows US President Donald Trump’s remarks on Tuesday that the US would “take over the Gaza Strip” and take charge of reconstruction. He added that Palestinians living there should leave, to be provided for by “neighboring countries of great wealth.”
Katz has praised Trump’s “bold initiative” to relocate Palestinians from Gaza.
Among possible destinations, he mentioned Spain, Ireland, and Norway, claiming they have “falsely accused Israel” over its war against the Gaza-based Hamas militant group and therefore are “legally obligated to allow Gazans to enter their territory.”
Commenting on Katz’s remarks, Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares has rejected the suggestion that Spain should accept displaced people from Gaza.
”Spain makes decisions sovereignly and independently. No third party should tell us what to do,” Albares told broadcaster RNE.
The minister stressed that “Gazans’ land is Gaza” and that “Gaza should be part of the future Palestinian state.” He added that the debate about whether Palestinians should leave Gaza is “closed,” and Spain “is introducing our humanitarian aid as much as possible to help the people.”
Ireland, which formally recognized Palestine as a state last year, also rejected Katz’s comments about receiving war refugees.
In an emailed statement to Reuters, the Irish Foreign Department stressed that “The objective must be a massive scale-up of aid into Gaza, return of basic services and a clear framework under which those displaced can return,” adding that “any comments to the contrary are unhelpful and a source of distraction.”
Ireland’s Online “Hate Crime” Law Passes, Sparks Major Future Free Speech Concerns
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | November 1, 2024
In Ireland, the controversial Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offenses) Act 2024 has become law.
President Michael Higgins on Tuesday signed the bill – as Green Party leader Roderic O’Gorman welcomed the development, and vowed that if still in power after the November election, this party would “certainly” work to get even more “hate speech legislation” adopted.
This remark has to do with a temporary removal of some of the current bill’s controversial provisions, the implication being that those might make a comeback in some “new hate speech” bill.
The parts removed concern some incitement to violence and hatred and hate speech provisions; however, those on hate crime have been left in the text.
Prior to being signed into law, the amended Criminal Justice Act 2024 – known as the “Hate Crime Bill” – cleared the country’s parliament in a 78-50 vote earlier in the month, despite strong criticism both from politicians and free speech groups.
The general argument used by the law’s opponents is that it is criminalizing free speech in a number of ways, with the most ardent critics seeing the legislation as moving Ireland closer to oppression and the rule of tyranny.
One of the controversial parts of the law revolves around the definition of gender, which is both extensive and expansive: “(…) the gender of a person or the gender which a person expresses as the person’s preferred gender or with which the person identifies and includes transgender and a gender other than those of male and female.”
And if the chosen gender – such as it is defined here, is found to be the reason for “hatred” expressed against someone – then from now on, this is to be treated as an aggravating factor, bringing with it a greater sentence than would have been the case had the “protected characteristics” not played a role in the consideration of an offense.
Speaking of protected characteristics, the act defines them as religion – including “absence of religious belief” – race, ethnicity, gender (as defined), sexual orientation, disability, and also, “references to sex characteristics shall be construed as references to the physical and biological features of a person relating to sex.”
During the debate in parliament, the bill’s sponsors made sure to note that this legislation – in the way it criminalizes certain behaviors – is the first of its kind in Europe.
Ireland rejects Israeli request to withdraw peacekeepers from Lebanon border
Palestinian Information Center – October 5, 2024
DUBLIN – Ireland has rejected an Israeli request asking it to withdraw its peacekeeping troops from an outpost along the Lebanon-Israel border.
According to The Irish Times, the request was made on Friday through the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and came as Israel continued to pound Lebanon.
Ireland and UNIFIL has made it clear that the peacekeeping force will remain in place despite Israeli threats.
Ireland has a single outpost designated as post “6-52” on the border, known as the Blue Line. It is one of the several countries contributing troops to UNIFIL.
The Irish platoon stationed at the post is tasked with observing and reporting any incursions along the border.
Recently, the Israeli army made several failed attempts to invade southern Lebanon, amid ongoing aerial and artillery attacks that killed and injured hundreds of people.
Ireland – mass-immigration and the Great Reset
By Gavin O’Reilly | Strategic Culture Foundation | July 21, 2024
On Monday morning, Ireland would awake to reports of unrest in the Dublin suburb of Coolock, when after months of peaceful protest by local residents over plans to move upwards of 500 male migrants into a disused paint factory in the working-class neighborhood, tensions would come to a head when Irish riot police cleared the on-site protest camp in a heavy-handed early morning raid. In response, work vehicles intended to convert the site would be set ablaze, leading to scenes reminiscent of the north of Ireland in the late 60s or early 70s.
As the day progressed, the parallels between Coolock and the Ireland of half a century ago would grow. Heavily-militarised police, under the direction of Garda commissioner and former RUC Deputy Constable Drew Harris, would soon arrive in the North Dublin suburb, resulting in scenes akin to Belfast or Derry in 1969. Local residents, including women, children, and the elderly, would be brutalised, a popular video streamer and citizen journalist would be arrested, and a number of elected representatives, who had arrived on the scene in a bid to calm tensions, would be pepper sprayed by police. By the end of the day, 15 people would be arrested and charged, with their names and addresses highly-publicised by the Irish media, an effective warning to others to not protest against the current immigration policies being imposed by Leinster House, which has seen large numbers of male migrants being placed into wildly unsuitable locations such as an inner city office block and childrens primary school, with no prior consultation being held with local communities beforehand.
Indeed, similar scenes would erupt in the small rural village of Newtownmountkennedy in late April, when again, after weeks of peaceful protest by local residents in opposition to plans to house male migrants in a disused hospital in the locality, police would once again carry out a heavy-handed early-morning raid on an on-site protest camp. In the ensuing hours, local residents would again be brutalised, a female journalist would be pepper sprayed, and martial law would effectively be imposed on the sleepy town.
In a grim irony, less than a week later, the southern Irish state would issue a statement condemning the response of the Georgian government to protests against its Transparency of Foreign Influence law, the previous week’s scenes in Newtownmountkennedy being wilfully ignored by Leinster House.
The current tensions surrounding immigration in Ireland began in November 2022, when, using the Russian intervention in Ukraine as a pretext, upwards of 300 migrants were moved into a disused office block in East Wall, a working-class neighbourhood in inner city Dublin. Protests would begin immediately amongst local residents, citing the unsuitability of the location and the lack of consultation with community representatives beforehand. Similar protests would take place at other sites in Dublin and throughout Ireland.
One year later, the tensions regarding immigration policy in Ireland would explode in their most notable manner so far. On the 23rd of November 2023, three children and their teacher were stabbed outside their Gaelscoil (Irish-language school) in central Dublin. With it soon emerging that the attacker was an immigrant previously subject to a deportation order, matters would come to a head. Calls for a protest in Dublin later that night would quickly spread throughout social media, seemingly attracting an opportunistic element who would engage in looting and the burning of vehicles. The Dublin riots would gain worldwide attention, with the focus seemingly more on the damage done to outlets such as McDonald’s and Footlocker, than the attack on the children and their teacher.
In the days following the riots, Security Minister for the southern Irish state, Helen McEntee, announced that facial recognition technology laws would be introduced in response, thus revealing the true intent behind current immigration policy in Ireland.
In addition to the devaluing of labour and the lowering of wages on behalf of industrialists, the mixing of vast amounts of people from different cultural, religious and ethnic backgrounds that mass-immigration entails, ultimately leads to tensions. Tensions that, in tight-knit areas such as working-class neighbourhoods and small rural villages, will inevitably spill over.
As a result, the government-corporate alliance is presented with a ready-made pretext to implement solutions that align with their agenda. In this case, the same facial recognition technologies that are outlined in the Great Reset, the initiative launched by the World Economic Forum in 2020, using ‘Covid’ as a pretext, intended to create even further integration between the public and private sector worldwide.
With the issue of migrants arriving into Ireland without proper identification also receiving mainstream media attention, it is likely this is being done with the intention of directing the narrative towards the introduction of mandatory digital ID; which, combined with facial recognition technology, will lay the groundwork for the dystopian digital surveillance state that the Great Reset envisages.
Indeed, upon the recent election of WEF aficionado Keir Starmer as British Prime Minister, Taoiseach Simon Harris announced that it marked a ‘great reset’ in relations between both countries. A deliberate choice of words, indicating that like his predecessor Leo Varadkar, he is also a World Economic Forum ‘Young Global Leader’, fully intending to continue the Davos agenda in Ireland.
‘Scary Experiment’: Denmark to Tax Livestock Emissions, Critics Say Small Farmers Are Real Target
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 9, 2024
Denmark is set to become the first country in the world to tax farmers for the greenhouse gasses emitted by their livestock, in a deal reached June 24 between the Danish government and representatives of the farming industry and unions.
The tax, which specifically targets methane emissions by cows, pigs and sheep, will take effect in 2030, pending final approval by the Danish Parliament, The Associated Press (AP) reported.
Beginning in 2030, farmers will be required to pay a tax of 300 kroner (approximately $43) per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent. This will increase to 750 kroner ($108) by 2035. After a 60% tax deduction, the respective amounts will be 120 kroner ($17.30) and 300 kroner.
CNN, quoting Denmark’s “green think tank” Concito, reported that Danish dairy cows emit, on average, 5.6 tonnes (6.2 U.S. tons) of CO2-equivalent emissions per year. This would result in a tax of 672 kroner per cow ($96) in 2030 and 1,680 kroner ($241) in 2035.
The respective emissions figure for all Danish cows is an average of 6.6 tons of CO2-equivalent annually, according to the AP, which reported that the Danish government aims to reduce the country’s greenhouse emissions by 70% from 1990 levels by 2030, citing Taxation Minister Jeppe Bruus.
According to CNN, the proceeds from the tax will be used to support the agricultural industry’s green transition in the first two years, including the investment of 40 billion kroner ($3.7 billion) for measures including reforestation and establishing wetlands.
After two years, the tax will be “reassessed.”
Denmark is a significant exporter of pork and dairy products, CNN reported. Agriculture is the country’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. The AP reported that, as of June 2022, there were nearly 1.5 million cows in Denmark.
Tax will encourage farmers ‘to look for solutions to reduce emissions’
Proponents of the tax emphasized that Denmark is the first country to enact such a policy, characterizing it as a step toward greater environmental sustainability.
“We will take a big step closer in becoming climate neutral in 2045,” Bruus said.
“We are investing billions in the biggest transformation of the Danish landscape in recent times,” said Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen in a statement quoted by CNN. “At the same time, we will be the first country in the world with a (carbon) tax on agriculture.”
According to Torsten Hasforth, Concito’s chief economist, “The whole purpose of the tax is to get the sector to look for solutions to reduce emissions,” CNN reported. Hasforth noted that farmers could, for instance, change the feed they use, as part of their efforts to reduce emissions.
The Danish Society for Nature Conservation called the tax “a historic compromise,” in remarks quoted by the AP. The organization’s president, Maria Reumert Gjerding, said, “We have succeeded in landing a compromise on a CO2 tax, which lays the groundwork for a restructured food industry — also on the other side of 2030.”
And Ben Lilliston, director of Rural Strategies and Climate Change at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, told PBS NewsHour that methane emissions are “a huge problem … a huge challenge.” He argued that while methane remains in the atmosphere for fewer years than CO2, it has “about 80 times the potency.”
“If you reduce methane, you can get more near-term results and allow us to have a little longer of a window to reduce carbon dioxide emission,” Lilliston said.
Carbon tax on farmers a ‘scary experiment’
Denmark’s carbon tax was enacted despite recent farmers’ protests throughout Europe, including large protests in Brussels, the de facto capital of the European Union (EU) and center of EU policymaking.
The farmers voiced grievances over new environmental regulations and the corporate takeover of European farming.
In recent years, EU member states such as Ireland and the Netherlands have also pursued plans to limit farming and cull livestock, leading to protests in those countries.
New Zealand planned to enact a carbon tax, set to take effect in 2025. The tax, passed by the country’s previous center-left government, was repealed last month by New Zealand’s new center-right governing coalition, according to the AP.
Criticisms are now being levied against Denmark’s new carbon tax, with some experts arguing that it amounts to an added burden for the agricultural sector — particularly small farmers.
CNN quoted Danish farmers’ association Bæredygtigt Landbrug, which described the new policy as a “scary experiment.”
Peder Tuborgh, CEO of Arla Foods, Europe’s largest dairy company, told CNN that the new tax is “positive,” but farmers who “genuinely do everything they can to reduce emissions” should be exempt.
In remarks shared with The Defender, Catherine Austin Fitts, founder and president of the Solari Report, said, “Emissions are a cover story to achieve steps in the central bankers’ ‘Going Direct Reset.’”
According to Fitts, the goal of this “reset” is “to consolidate control over the food supply, shifting to corporate-controlled ‘Pharma Food’ and to shift energy availability from the general population to feed an electrical control grid that will supply AI [artificial intelligence], robotics, digital IDs and an all-digital financial system.”
“We are trading fresh food and freedom for digital concentration camps and lab-grown meat,” Fitts said. “On Wall Street, we used to call this ‘a bad trade.’”
Other critics told The Defender the Danish government’s new tax has less to do with protecting the environment and reducing emissions, and more to do with achieving the United Nations’ (U.N.) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the objectives of global entities such as the G20 and the World Economic Forum (WEF).
Dutch attorney and activist Meike Terhorst told The Defender :
“I think the measures have nothing to do with sustainability but with power. A group of companies, the so-called globalists/banks/investors, such as the WEF, work together with governments, such as the G20, and together they can force the small farmers off their lands.”
Tim Hinchliffe, editor of The Sociable, said small farms will bear the brunt of the new tax.
“Small farmers will be the first to go, and their land will most likely be used to house a variety of so-called ‘green initiatives,’ such as fake meat labs, acres of solar panels and wind turbines as far as the eye can see, new AI data centers that require tons of water, energy and land, and possibly even nuclear power plants to power those data centers,” he said.
Similarly, Terhorst said the goal is to “close down the small farmers as part of the ‘Agenda 2030’ — U.N. SDGs — or the corporate takeover agenda.”
Terhorst said this agenda aims “to ensure that small farmers are to be removed from the land and replaced by ‘digital’ farming” — meaning “replacing meat and milk with factory-made insect food or milk and lab-grown meat.”
Critics also questioned claims that policies like carbon taxation help promote “sustainability.”
“When unelected globalists at the WEF and the U.N. talk about sustainability, they don’t mean self-sustainability for the individual. They don’t want that at all. They want to ensure sustainable control, influence and power for themselves for decades to come,” Hinchliffe said, adding:
“As I see it, the real goal here is to take control of prime agricultural land and to tax farmers out of existence. Once the taxes get too expensive and the farmers can’t keep up, that’s when public-private entities swoop in to take control of the land.
“If they really believed that flatulent farm animals were responsible for the weather, they would just plant more trees to absorb the carbon, and their imaginary crisis would be solved, but they’re not doing that because what they’re really after are land grabs, money, and total control of our food systems.”
According to Hinchliffe, global organizations also aim to change human habits — including meat consumption. He said:
“On a nutritional level, groups like the WEF and the U.N. want us eating less meat and more bugs, and this will only make us weaker and more docile as a species over time.
“It also makes us all dependent on very centralized sources of protein, so if there’s an outbreak or a contamination, citizens all over the world will suffer because there’ll be no alternative. The local farmers will have disappeared due to the carbon taxes and land grabs.”
“The bio meat industry was organized and financed by the investors and banks that are part of the WEF,” Terhorst said. “If we want to become sustainable, we have to limit the powers of the investors and WEF and support small farmers.”
Hinchliffe added, “When carbon taxes fail to quash the human spirit completely, they already have plans to tax just about everything else in nature, including the air we breathe, the water we drink and the very soil upon which we walk.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Protests and demonstrations around the world condemn the Israeli massacres in Gaza
Palestinian Information Center – May 29, 2024
European and Arab cities and capitals on Tuesday witnessed solidarity protests, marches, and vigils with the Gaza Strip, condemning the ongoing Israeli massacres against the displaced in Rafah in the south of the enclave.
The protesters demanded an end to the war and the punishment of the Israeli officials responsible for the genocide in Gaza, and also called for a halt to supplying Israel with the weapons it uses to kill women and children and destroy residential buildings in the enclave.
In Britain, thousands of supporters of Palestine demonstrated in the streets of the British capital London, condemning the continued Israeli massacres in the city of Rafah.
The protesters rallying in the vicinity of Downing Street, the official residence and office of the prime minister, called on the British government to condemn the Israeli aggression and stop arms exports to Tel Aviv. They raised banners condemning the continued aggression on Gaza and demanding an immediate ceasefire.
Dozens of protesters blocked the entrance to the Israeli arms factory belonging to the “Elbit” company in the British village of Chineham, in support of Gaza and condemning the crimes of genocide.
In Belgium, the Belgian police dispersed protesters in the capital Brussels with water cannons as they tried to reach the Israeli embassy as part of a protest against the bombardment of Rafah.
In Ireland, Palestinian, Arab and Irish activists supporting the Palestinian cause demonstrated in front of the Irish Parliament in Dublin, coinciding with the Irish government’s recognition of the State of Palestine.
The protesters raised the Palestinian flags and banners in support of Palestinian rights in front of the parliament garden, which witnessed the raising of the Palestinian flag for the first time.
In France, thousands of people demonstrated on Tuesday evening in Paris for the second day in a row, protesting the Israeli massacres in Rafah.
The place de la République in the center of the capital was crowded with people, and Palestinian flags were placed on the statue in the center, with a large banner reading “Stop the Genocide”.
In Norway, a demonstration was held in front of the Norwegian Parliament building to celebrate the government’s recognition of the State of Palestine, and to demand the withdrawal of Norwegian investments from Israel and pressure for an immediate and sustainable ceasefire.
The demonstrators raised Palestinian flags and banners calling for an immediate ceasefire, and banners accusing Israel of committing a war of extermination. The demonstrators called for the punishment of those responsible for the genocide in Gaza.
In the Netherlands, dozens of supporters of Palestine held a silent protest in front of the city hall in Utrecht, to condemn the burning of tents and the killing of civilian children and women in Tel Sultan, west of Rafah.
The protesters laid on the ground in front of the building to represent the scene of the victims’ deaths in Gaza, raising Palestinian flags and chanting slogans condemning the Dutch government’s support for Israel since the beginning of the aggression, and calling for the protection of Rafah.
In Canada, the city of Toronto witnessed a massive demonstration on Monday evening to condemn the massacre of the tents committed by the Israeli army in the Palestinian city of Rafah.
The activists marched through the streets of the city, chanting slogans condemning the ongoing Israeli crimes, and calling for an end to the ongoing genocide in Gaza and a ceasefire.
In Mexico, pro-Palestinian supporters held a protest demonstration in front of the Israeli embassy in Mexico City, condemning the Israeli massacre in Rafah and rejecting the continued aggression on Gaza.
Many of the demonstrators tried to storm the embassy building and pelted it with stones, amid clashes with the Mexican police.
In Jordan, hundreds of Jordanians demonstrated around the Israeli embassy west of the capital Amman, condemning the ongoing genocide in Gaza against the besieged civilian population.
The protesters chanted slogans supporting the Palestinian resistance, calling for the need to deliver humanitarian and medical aid.
They also condemned normalization with Israel and called on the Jordanian government and Arab governments to end all diplomatic and economic agreements with Israel.
In Yemen, protesters organized rallies and marches condemning the Israeli massacres in Rafah, according to the Saba news agency.
Hundreds of students participated in marches in the governorates of Sanaa, Amran and Hajjah, in support and solidarity with the resistance in Gaza and in solidarity with the oppressed Palestinian people.
In Morocco, hundreds of Moroccans, including human rights activists, organized a rally in front of the Parliament building in the capital Rabat, in solidarity with Gaza and condemning the recent massacres in Rafah.
Through banners calling to “Stop the Rafah Massacres”, the participating protesters expressed their rejection of Israel’s defiance of all international conventions and rulings of the International Court of Justice through its continued massacres in Rafah, calling on international institutions to activate their mechanisms to deter it.
Many Moroccan cities, including Tangier, are witnessing similar protest marches, at an almost daily pace, in solidarity with the Palestinian people and rejecting normalization.
Norway, Spain, Ireland to formally recognize Palestinian statehood
The Cradle | May 22, 2024
Norway, Ireland, and Spain announced on 22 May that they will formally recognize Palestine as a state next week, drawing the ire of Israel as the country immediately recalled its ambassadors to Dublin and Oslo.
“There cannot be peace in [West Asia] if there is no recognition … In the midst of a war, with tens of thousands killed and injured [in Gaza], we must keep alive the only alternative that offers a political solution for Israelis and Palestinians alike: Two states living side by side, in peace and security,” Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store said on Wednesday.
Shortly after Oslo’s announcement, Irish Prime Minister Simon Harris said his country would also recognize a Palestinian state.
“Today, Ireland, Norway, and Spain are announcing that we recognize the state of Palestine,” Harris said at a news conference. “I’m confident that further countries will join us in taking this important step in the coming weeks,” he added.
Foreign Minister Micheal Martin said via social media that the recognition will become official on 28 May.
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez followed suit, announcing Wednesday that the country’s council of ministers would also recognize an independent Palestinian state on 28 May. He also accused his Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu of putting the two-state solution in “danger” with his policy of “pain and destruction” in Gaza.
In response to the news, Tel Aviv immediately recalled its ambassadors to Ireland and Norway and pledged to recall its envoy to Spain. The foreign ministry also summoned the ambassadors from the three European nations to “reprimand” them.
Israeli foreign minister Israel Katz called the show of support for Palestinians a “folly,” adding that recognizing Palestinian statehood “[sends] a message to the Palestinians and the world: Terrorism pays.”
Palestinian officials welcomed the announcement by three European nations, with Hamas calling it an “important step.”
“We welcome the announcement by Norway, Ireland, and Spain of recognition of the State of Palestine, and we consider it an important step on the path to consolidating our right to our land and establishing our independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital,” the statement by the Palestinian resistance says.
“Historical moments in which the free world triumphs for truth and justice after long decades of Palestinian national struggle, suffering, pain, occupation, racism, murder, oppression, abuse and destruction to which the people of Palestine were subjected,” the Secretary-General of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) said via social media.
Nine European countries — Bulgaria, Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia, Hungary, Sweden, Malta, and the Greek Cypriot administration — have already recognized Palestine as a state.





