Netherlands Land Grab: MP is being prosecuted for two counts of sedition for encouraging civil disobedience
By Rhoda Wilson • The Exposé • October 6, 2023
Dutch Member of Parliament Gideon van Meijeren is being prosecuted for encouraging farmers to rebel against a tyrannical government that is attempting to steal their land.
It is almost universally agreed that democracy must allow for civil disobedience. Citizens also have the right to use violence to defend themselves against a tyrannical government that is using unlawful force against the citizens it is supposed to serve. Professor Mattias Desmet explains this in more detail.
In July 2021, Mr. van Meijeren made his first speech in the Dutch Parliament during which he confronted Prime Minister Mark Rutte about his connections with the World Economic Forum’s Klaus Schwab.
A year later, on 2 July 2022, Mr. van Meijeren spoke at a farmers’ protest in Tuil when farmers were demonstrating en masse against government plans to cut nitrogen emissions. According to NL Times, in his speech, Mr. van Meijeren “pointed out that it is permissible to violently resist the government if it were to expropriate farmers.” Van Meijeren told the gathered farmers that they’d never move the government to action with peaceful protests and by waving flags in the meadows, among other things.
NL Times goes on to say that on 13 November 2022 Mr. van Meijeren “speculated about overthrowing the government during an online interview.” The MP said he hoped for a revolutionary movement that would occupy parliament. Van Meijeren said he hoped this “velvet revolution” would be peaceful, although, according to him, past examples show that there are often casualties. “That is terrible, and let’s hope that we can prevent that and that everything remains peaceful. That is what I hope for in the end,” he said.
Last month, the Public Prosecution Service confirmed it would prosecute Mr. van Meijeren for two counts of sedition. “The suspect suggested that violence against the government was permitted and perhaps even necessary,” the Public Prosecution Service said about the two incidents last year.
The Dutch Farmers’ Protests and Incitement to Violence – Gideon van Meijeren
By Prof. Dr. Mattias Desmet
Dutch politician Gideon van Meijeren recently encouraged Dutch farmers who were protesting their government’s agricultural policies, which threaten to destroy their professions. The Public Prosecution Service has now announced that it will prosecute van Meijeren for sedition. There are quite a few people who won’t lose sleep over this. To them, van Meijeren is an extreme right-wing anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist with a history of making racist statements. Since I myself am regularly tarred and feathered, I’m inclined to take a closer look at such matters. And I would ask everyone to do the same, even if you feel you have nothing in common with van Meijeren. After all, it could be your turn sooner than you think.
According to the Public Prosecution Service, the charges against Van Meijeren have arisen from two statements. The first came as van Meijeren was addressing the protesting farmers. He spoke of Article 41 of the penal code, which states that the use of violence is not punishable by law if it is necessary to protect your own or someone else’s body, honour, or property from an unlawful assault. He made the second statement during an interview, in which he stated that tyrannical regimes can be overthrown in a revolutionary uprising if the population addresses Parliament to demand the resignation of the government. Not insignificantly: Van Meijeren proceeded both times to explain that he was not calling for violence, but for peaceful, non-violent protest.
According to the prosecution, van Meijeren’s words could “give people ideas.” Well. There are hardly any words that cannot “give people ideas.” If you start banning words on that basis, soon no one will be allowed to speak at all. So, before we go down such a path, let’s ask a few questions and raise a few concerns.
First of all, I wonder: Is van Meijeren correct when he states that people are allowed to (violently) resist the government under certain circumstances? I suppose everyone agrees that the answer to that question is “yes.” Or not? A government that demands strict nonviolence from its citizens should at least be strictly nonviolent itself. I myself have always emphasised that any resistance to the government must be non-violent, but I do so primarily for pragmatic reasons. I know that any form of violence will inevitably turn against the person who uses it. From a purely ethical standpoint, however, I believe it is a citizen’s right to use violence against a government that is itself using unlawful force against its people. This is also correct from a legal perspective.
Second, do those in favour of van Meijeren’s prosecution believe that there is a right to civil disobedience? Since Henry Thoreau introduced this concept in 1849, it has been almost universally agreed upon that democracy must allow for it. Has this changed?
Third, for those who think that Gideon is wrong, and therefore that farmers have no right to resist, what about social phenomena such as Extinction Rebellion? These climate activists deface monuments and paintings in museums, block highways, storm airports, and so on. If you think that these “climate warriors” and other “social justice warriors” should not be criminally prosecuted and yet that Gideon van Meijeren should, is that not the same as saying that those who adhere to a politically correct ideology are allowed to do just about anything whereas those who adhere to an incorrect ideology may not?
Fourth, and related: what do the people who support the prosecution of van Meijeren think of, for example, French President Emmanuel Macron’s statements that: “We are going to make life hell for the unvaccinated”? We could list any number of statements by politicians that have been undoubtedly more seditious than van Meijeren’s and yet for which no public prosecutor ever saw fit to prosecute.
So, let’s be honest: The prosecution’s charge makes no sense. If Gideon van Meijeren is prosecuted for sedition, then anyone can be prosecuted for sedition. I hereby appeal to everyone who disagrees with Gideon van Meijeren and possibly sees him as a political opponent: Don’t let this happen. Speak out. Say that you do not want people to be treated this way, including those with whom you disagree.
That is the best thing that can come out of these chaotic times: A group of people united, not by having the same opinion, but by honouring each person’s right to his own voice. The mother lode of the Enlightenment tradition was not so much idealising rationality but valuing openness of mind and this fundamental right to one’s own opinion. I propose that we remain faithful to the Enlightenment in this respect, also with regard to people whose opinions we experience as contrary to ours, including those we even consider completely irrational.
Mattias Desmet is recognised as the world’s leading expert on the theory of mass formation as it applies to the covid-19 pandemic. He is a professor of clinical psychology in the Department of Psychology and Educational Sciences at Ghent University, Belgium, and a practising psychoanalytic psychotherapist. He is well-known in academic circles for his research on fraud within academia.
He is the author of over one hundred peer-reviewed academic papers and is the author of the books ‘The Psychology of Totalitarianism’, ‘The Pursuit of Objectivity in Psychology’ and ‘Lacan’s Logic of Subjectivity: A Walk on the Graph of Desire’.
He publishes articles on a Substack page which you can subscribe to and follow HERE.
Netherlands sued for stopping ship deliveries to Russia
RT | October 4, 2023
The largest Dutch shipbuilder is seeking compensation from the government for damage caused by the sanctions on Russia, which have prevented it from honoring a number of contracts.
The ongoing legal battle, which started in May with a suit filed by Damen Shipyards Group at the district court in Rotterdam, was revealed by Bloomberg on Tuesday. Company spokesman Rick van de Weg later confirmed the pending proceedings to other media outlets.
Damen is a 90-year-old Gorinchem-based family-owned business which builds various types of vessels, from warships to luxury yachts. Days before the hostilities in Ukraine erupted in February last year, the company delivered a dredger to Russia for duty in the Arctic, according to Bloomberg.
Sanctions banning most business transactions with Russia, which the EU imposed in retaliation for the conflict, have prevented Damen from fulfilling its obligations under several contracts. It has also suspended its engineering branch in the country.
The Western sanctions supposed to cripple the Russian economy and force Moscow to concede defeat in Ukraine have not been as efficient as their architects had hoped.
The G7 oil price cap, a mechanism intended to force Russia to sell crude at or below $60 per barrel, does not appear to be working, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen admitted last week. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandr Novak stated on Tuesday that the impossibility of enforcing the price cap was apparent to Moscow from the start.
The EU’s decision to decouple from cheap Russian gas undermined the competitiveness of its heavy industries, in some cases forcing energy-intensive manufacturing to shut down.
Nevertheless, Germany is likely still consuming natural gas originating in Russia, Uniper CEO Michael Lewis said last week. The German wholesaler buys liquified natural gas in the open market and cannot be certain about where it comes from, he explained.
Biden rival labels F-16s for Ukraine ‘a disaster for humanity’
RT | August 20, 2023
The looming delivery of US-made F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine will not prevent the “collapse” of the country’s military and will only benefit the military-industrial complex, Democrat presidential hopeful Robert F. Kennedy Junior has claimed.
The Ukrainian conflict should be resolved through negotiations, RFK Jr. argued in a thread on social media platform X (formerly Twitter), stating that supplying F-16s to Kiev was a “great decision for the defense industry, but a disaster for Ukraine and humanity.”
“F-16s won’t stop the collapse of the Ukrainian military (which some experts say is imminent). These planes require a lot of training and maintenance. This isn’t the movies,” Kennedy stressed.
The presidential hopeful has long-opposed the enduring Western aid to Ukraine, spearheaded by Washington, arguing that the US should admit its “failure” in the country and focus on domestic issues instead. Kennedy’s criticism of the fighter-jet delivery comes after Washington enabled its European allies to re-export older planes to Ukraine, and hours before the move was officially announced by Denmark and the Netherlands.
The upcoming delivery was heralded by Dutch PM Mark Rutte on Sunday as he hosted Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky at a military airbase in Eindhoven.
“Today we can announce that the Netherlands and Denmark commit to the transfer of F-16 aircraft to Ukraine and the Ukrainian Air Force, including cooperation with the United States and other partners once the conditions for such a transfer have been met,” Rutte said at a press conference.
Simultaneously, the Danish Ministry of Defence released a statement confirming its pledge to provide Kiev with F-16s from its inventory, once certain “conditions” are met. The conditions “include, but are not limited to, successfully selected, tested and trained Ukrainian F-16 personnel as well as necessary authorizations, infrastructure and logistics,” it said.
Kiev has long-demanded modern aircraft, as well as other, increasingly sophisticated weaponry, from its Western backers, arguing the planes would help it turn the tide of the conflict with Russia, which has been going on since February 2022. Moscow has repeatedly urged the collective West to stop the military deliveries, arguing they would only prolong the hostilities rather than change their ultimate outcome.
Netherlands signs $305m deal for arms from Israel’s Elbit Systems
Tested on Palestinians
MEMO | May 18, 2023
Israel and the Netherlands signed a five-year arms’ deal worth $305 million, Israel’s Defence Ministry announced yesterday.
Israel’s Elbit Systems, a company which sells weapons to the Israeli military used in attacks on Palestinians, will supply 20 PULS artillery systems, including ammunition as well as training and support services.
The deal was signed by the International Defence Cooperation Directorate at Israel’s Ministry of Defence (SIBAT) General Yair Kulas in the Netherlands with his Dutch counterpart, Commander of the Royal Netherlands Army General Martin Wijnen.
“It is an honour for me to lead the first government-to-government defence contract with the Netherlands for the PULS long-range precise rocket artillery system,” said Kulas. “This significant event symbolises the strategic relationship between our countries and constitutes an opportunity to strengthen our partnership based on mutual values and morals.”
According to the Times of Israel, there have been previous Israeli arms and defence equipment sales to the Dutch nation, but those were considered to be private deals by various companies and not government-to-government contracts.
Moreover, the arms deal is one of the largest agreements signed between Israel and a European country in recent years.
Bezhalel Machlis, president and CEO of Elbit, added in a statement: “The acquisition of Elbit Systems’ PULS solution will enhance the Royal Netherlands Army’s ability to provide effective indirect fire support. It will also provide interoperability with NATO customers that have acquired these systems.”
No More Double Standards and Impunity. West Provokes Russia. Result: Nukes in Belarus on NATO’s Borders
Strategic Culture Foundation | March 31, 2023
The historic – and unacceptable – deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons in several European NATO states as well as the recent announcement by Britain of supplying depleted uranium weapons to Ukraine is the prologue to Russia’s decision to place tactical nukes in Belarus. The Western outcry following Russia’s decision is absurd and hypocritical.
The pattern is familiar and speaks of incorrigible arrogance. The United States and its NATO allies make reckless escalatory moves that are unprecedented in their aggression toward Russia; then Moscow makes a reciprocal move, and yet the Western governments and their dutiful news media become apoplectic with rage over Russia’s “threatening conduct” and nuclear blackmail.
Maybe one day, Western leaders will eventually choke on their own illogical apoplexy.
This week there was frothing and fuming in the West about Moscow’s decision to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, despite the move being fully in accord with the Minsk government, a longtime ally of Russia and fellow member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization. The CSTO is organically comparable with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), having a shared defense commitment between allied states that were formerly members of the Soviet Union.
In ratifying the deployment, Russian President Vladimir Putin was accused by Western powers of jeopardizing international security, threatening European neighbors and violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Belarus borders three NATO members: Poland, Lithuania and Latvia.
But the decision by Russia to install tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus (which Moscow would reportedly retain control over) was in response to the NATO move to supply its anti-Russian Kiev proxy with depleted uranium (DU) weapons. Britain announced last week that Challenger 2 battlefield tanks sent to Ukraine would be equipped with DU shells. It is understood that the United States is also ready to supply depleted uranium armor-piercing munitions to Ukraine with its Abrams tanks. Video footage from London’s Ministry of Defence shows Ukrainian troops being trained by British and American officers in handling DU shells.
Depleted uranium is a high-density metal – much denser than lead – which can penetrate modern armor. It ignites after penetration and turns into vapor at extreme temperature. While DU shells are not explosively fissile and do not cause nuclear blasts, they do release harmful radioactive contamination into the environment. Arguably, the munitions are therefore a form of nuclear weapon in the same manner as a low-yield “dirty bomb”.
The United States and Britain fired tonnes of depleted uranium shells during their decade-long illegal war in Iraq. NATO forces also used DU weapons in their war of aggression against former Yugoslavia. In both cases, the resultant radioactive contamination was correlated with high rates of cancer and birth defects in the civilian populations.
The Americans and British have never been held to account for their war crimes. That impunity partly explains their arrogance in regard to pumping weapons into Ukraine against Russia and in particular the latest iteration of radioactive uranium shells.
For the British regime to claim that DU weapons are “normal” munitions and acceptable to deploy potentially for hitting Russian territory is a demonstration of its depraved deception and utter lawlessness. It also shows that London and its NATO partners are willing to recklessly escalate the conflict in Ukraine against Russia by breaching a dangerous threshold regarding nuclear weapons.
Under Russia’s defense doctrine, it may use nuclear weapons if its national security is threatened by either nuclear forces or conventional forces. The U.S.-led NATO alliance is pushing the envelope in a way that is seemingly incorrigible, or tantamount to psychopathic behavior.
Perversely, this abysmal situation is distorted as somehow Russia taking a provocative step in placing tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus.
What Moscow is demonstrating is that the Anglo-American-led NATO alliance has no longer the presumption of impunity. The decades of unchecked aggression from NATO expansionism and criminal Anglo-American subterfuges in foreign countries are over. Moscow offered a diplomatic channel to create a security treaty in Europe, but that was haughtily dismissed by the arrogant imperialist powers. The result was the military-technical measures that Russia undertook with its intervention in Ukraine on February 24, 2022.
Arguably, Russia could take additional reciprocal measures that go further. The involvement of NATO members in massively arming the NeoNazi Kiev regime should, it could be contended, be met with military defensive action to destroy supply chains entering Ukraine.
This is the perspective for a proper understanding of the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus. It is not Russia upping the ante to jeopardize security and peace. It is NATO powers that are erasing the boundaries in a way that they are accustomed to doing for several decades.
Let’s recall that it is the United States that has rescinded several arms-control treaties including the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty, and the Open Skies treaty, and it is Washington that has chronically undermined the last-existing one, the New START governing strategic weapons.
There is also the existing anomaly of the United States storing nuclear weapons on the territory of five NATO members. They are Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey. These countries are signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, so arguably the basing of nuclear weapons in these states is a gross violation of the NPT, which is what the West is accusing Russia of in regard to Belarus.
Last year, too, Poland offered to house American nuclear weapons on its soil. That offer was not taken up but is presumably still on the table. Why is there not an outcry over that egregious destabilizing of arms control?
As usual there is a surfeit of Western double-think to go along with rank hypocrisy. The illogical mentality is a product of arrogance and hubris.
Furthermore, two NATO members Britain and France have their own national nuclear arsenals supposedly separate from Washington’s command. These two powers are actively hostile toward Russia through their arming of the Kiev regime.
Additionally, all 30 members of the NATO alliance are committed to assisting the United States in deploying nuclear forces with their conventional militaries under the alliance’s provision called Support of Nuclear Operations With Conventional Air Tactics (SNOWCAT).
In sum, clearly, the issue of arms control and security is badly out of balance, but it is the conduct of the United States and its NATO partners that has led to the imbalance. The arrogant presumption of impunity held by Washington and London in particular is a destabilizing factor that creates double standards that are completely unacceptable in a world supposedly under the rule of international law and the United Nations Charter.
The conflict in Ukraine can be solved if Western powers were to abide by international law and halt the weaponizing of the Kiev regime. Going forward, Ukraine must be a neutral state and NATO must halt its aggressive expansion. A serious policy of nuclear arms control must involve the withdrawal of such weapons from European NATO member states and the inclusion of British and French arsenals as part of a wider detente framework. Note, however, that the conditionalities for peace are in large part an onus on Washington and its Western allies to do the right and reasonable things. The disturbing question is though, can Washington and its imperialist lackeys be reasonable?
Until enlightened conduct prevails, Russia is quite correct to be intolerant of any double standards that the Americans, British and their NATO minions presume. Every aggressive move must be boldly and smartly reciprocated. Without that countervailing action, there is impunity, which is even more dangerous.
Holding Western powers to account is a powerful weapon of attrition because it exposes their corruption and fraud, their duplicity, and their fatal arrogance. Increasingly, the Western public is seeing the endemic bankruptcy of their supposed rulers.
Russian tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus – escalation or legitimate response?
By Drago Bosnic | March 27, 2023
On March 25, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia will start deploying its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus. Construction of designated storage facilities for the weapons is planned to be completed by July 1. The decision to transfer nuclear weapons to Belarus was made after Minsk issued a formal request, essentially mirroring Washington DC’s nuclear sharing agreements with several NATO member states. And while the decision was officially made after the United Kingdom announced it would supply depleted uranium munitions to the Kiev regime, the actual reasoning might have to do with much more sinister plans by the United States.
Namely, Warsaw and Washington DC have been floating the idea of transferring some of the US nuclear weapons stockpiled in Europe to Poland. The move has been mentioned several times in recent years, including in early October last year, when Polish President Andrzej Duda mentioned it in an interview with Gazeta Polska. The US has nuclear sharing agreements with the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Italy and Turkey, with approximately 100 (mainly air-launched) tactical nuclear weapons deployed in all five countries. Greece also took part in the program, but discontinued its participation in 2001, although it’s widely believed Athens still keeps the necessary storage facilities functional.
President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko advised against UK plans to deliver depleted uranium munitions to the Kiev regime and warned that Russia would soon supply Belarus with “munitions with real uranium”. However, Putin himself stated that “even outside the context of these events”, Belarus still has legitimate security concerns and that “Alexander Grigoryevich [Lukashenko] has long raised the question of deploying Russian tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of Belarus”. This clearly implies that threats to Minsk transcend the immediate danger of depleted uranium munitions deliveries to the Neo-Nazi junta in Kiev.
“There is nothing unusual in such a decision, as the United States has been doing this for decades. They have long placed their tactical nuclear weapons on the territories of their allies, NATO countries, and in Europe. In six states – the Federal Republic of Germany, Turkey, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Greece – well, not in Greece now, but there is still a storage facility,” Putin stressed, further adding: “[Russia and Belarus] will do the same, without violating our international obligations on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons”.
He added that Russia is indeed mirroring the United States in this regard and that it’s not transferring the ownership of its tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus, but that it’s simply deploying them to the country and training the Belarussian military to operate and use them in the case of a wider escalation by the US and NATO. The Russian military has already provided Belarus with the necessary upgrades to be able to deliver tactical nuclear warheads. At least 10 (presumably Belarussian Air Force) jets have been assigned and equipped to carry such weapons, although neither side specified what type of aircraft received the said upgrades.
Belarus operates several types of nuclear-capable fighter jets, including the recently acquired Su-30SM and the Soviet-era MiG-29. In addition to air-launched nuclear weapons, Russia already deploys ground-based assets in Belarus, including the “Iskander” systems capable of launching nuclear-tipped hypersonic and regular cruise missiles. Minsk also operates its own “Iskander” units, meaning that those too could be equipped with tactical nuclear warheads, further bolstering the country’s deterrence capabilities. This is particularly important as Belarus has also been targeted by US/NATO covert/black operations in recent years, including an attempted Maidan-style color revolution in 2020.
“We have handed over to Belarus our well-known and very effective ‘Iskander’ system that can carry [nuclear weapons],” Putin stated, adding: “On April 3, we will start training the crews and on July 1 we will complete the construction of a special storage [facility] for tactical nuclear weapons on the Belarussian territory.”
In addition to the “Iskander”, Belarus still maintains a number of Soviet-era nuclear-capable assets, including a substantial arsenal of “Tochka-U” tactical ballistic missiles. These could serve as a secondary delivery option given their shorter range and inferior accuracy when compared to the “Iskander” which boasts a 500 km range, high precision, extreme maneuverability at every stage of flight, as well as a hypersonic speed estimated to be at least Mach 5.9, although military sources indicate that it can go up to Mach 8.7. This makes the “Iskander” virtually impossible to intercept, as evidenced by its performance during the SMO (special military operation). The system also provides a significant advantage over NATO forces in Eastern Europe.
President Lukashenko strongly indicated that Minsk could host Russian nuclear weapons as soon as NATO implied it could deploy US B61 nuclear bombs to Poland, highlighting that his country’s Soviet-era infrastructure for such weapons remains intact despite US pressure to destroy it during the 1990s. Belarus is home to a growing arsenal of state-of-the-art Russian military units and equipment, including strategic assets such as the S-400 SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems, as well as the advanced Su-35S air superiority fighter jets and MiG-31 interceptors, including the K/I variants capable of deploying the already legendary “Kinzhal” hypersonic missiles, which are also nuclear-capable.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Moscow Summons Dutch Ambassador Over Attempts to Hold Russia Responsible for MH17 Case
Sputnik – 17.02.2023
MOSCOW – Dutch Ambassador to Russia Gilles Beschoor Plug was summoned to the Russian Foreign Ministry on Friday over the attempts of the Dutch authorities to hold Russia responsible for the MH17 crash.
In November, the Hague District Court ruled that two Russian citizens were guilty of the MH17 plane crash in eastern Ukraine in 2014, and of killing 298 of its passengers. Earlier in February, the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) said that the investigation into the crash of the MH17 failed to gather sufficient evidence to initiate new trials, so the investigation was halted. Later, the Dutch Foreign Minister, Wopke Hoekstra, said that the Netherlands and Australia will continue to hold Russia accountable for the MH17 crash.
“On February 16, Dutch Ambassador in Moscow Gilles Beschoor Plug was summoned to the Russian Foreign Ministry. It was demanded that the intrusive attempts of the Dutch authorities stop groundlessly holding Russia responsible for the crash of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 over Donbass on July 17, 2014,” the statement said.
The ministry underscored that Russia does not recognize the results of JIT’s investigation, in which it did not take part.
In addition, the Dutch ambassador was told about the unacceptability of obstructing the work of the Russian embassy and the performance of its direct functions, including those related to work with public and historical memorial organizations, as well as political science platforms.
Canada’s conservative leader Pierre Poilievre says no to digital ID
By Ken Macon | Reclaim The Net | February 13, 2023
The leader of the Canadian Conservative Party, Pierre Poilievre, said that if he were to be elected Prime Minister, he would not impose digital IDs. He made the comment on a campaign trail in Windsor, Ontario.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government announced its federal Digital Identity Program last August.
“And to answer your question, I will never allow the government to impose a digital ID,” Poilievre said.
Poilievre’s comment came a few days after Alberta and Saskatchewan’s premiers said that they were not interested in a federal digital ID.
“The government of Saskatchewan is not creating a Digital ID nor will we accept any requirements for the creation of a digital ID tied to healthcare funding,” said Saskatchewan’s Premier Scott Moe.
Alberta’s Premier Danielle Smith said that she fully supported what Moe said.
Transport Canada has recently announced that the Known Traveller Digital Identity (KTDI) project is ongoing, contrary to earlier reports suggesting that the project has been discontinued.
The KTDI is a collaborative effort between the World Economic Forum (WEF), Accenture, INTERPOL, various government entities, and the governments of the Netherlands and Canada. The project was initiated in 2018 to create a secure and decentralized digital identity system for travelers between the Netherlands and Canada. The system utilizes cryptographic encryption and distributed ledger technology to ensure the protection of travelers’ personal information.
Who designed global guidelines for puberty blockers?
Free West Media | January 13, 2023
Clinics around the world follow guidelines from the Netherlands for gender treatments in children. The basis for this is, among other things, a much-criticized study sponsored by a German hormone manufacturer.
More and more children and young people believe they have to question their gender identity. Some 60 minors were treated in the Netherlands in 2010, but the number has increased to around 1,600 last year. Another 1,800 people under the age of 18 were on the waiting list because gender clinics in the country are full.
Institutions around the world use a standard procedure developed in Amsterdam in the 1990s when it comes to the drug treatment of supposedly transsexual children.
A report by the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad has meanwhile cast doubt on the directive and the independence of gender research at the Amsterdam UMC hospital. As strict as the conditions for treatment may appear, several complications have been overlooked: The terrible side effects of the heavy drug has been brushed off by doctors as being the lesser evil.
Hormone manufacturer sponsored ‘puberty blocker’ study
The approach with puberty inhibitors has since been known internationally as the “Dutch protocol”. The protocol has become the basis for the “gender-affirming standard of care” used throughout the world. Tens of thousands of children are affected worldwide, and in the Netherlands certainly several hundreds, although no precise figures are available.
Scientists investigated whether hormone treatment in transsexuals is more successful if their puberty was initially suppressed with medication. The sponsor of the study was the German hormone manufacturer.
Ferring Pharmaceuticals, the company that markets the drug Triptorelin as a puberty inhibitor had a strong commercial interest in the outcome. Primarily, treatment relies on administering hormones from the opposite sex: men are given oestrogen to become more feminine, women testosterone to become more masculine. But teenagers are additionally administered puberty inhibitors, which prevent boys from developing a low voice and beard growth and girls from developing breasts and other feminine shapes.
There are many criticisms of the study. Questionnaires were inconsistent, there was no control group at all, and the researchers used random samples from the 196 treated children for the results.
Several countries are moving away from ‘puberty blockers’
In the meantime, there is objection in more and more countries to the treatment of children with “puberty blockers”. Not only are they said to impair the physical sexual development of minors, but they can also cause osteoporosis, anorgasmia and infertility. According to the NRC, the drug is said to sometimes even impair the ability to make rational decisions.
Worldwide, there is increasing criticism of the scientific content and non-existent empirical basis of the Dutch protocol developed at the gender clinic of the Free University of Amsterdam. In several countries, health authorities have already decided to treat children mainly psychologically and prescribe puberty inhibitors only exceptionally. In Sweden, they concluded that “the risks currently outweigh the possible benefits” and spoke of possibly the country’s “worst medical scandal”.
In the UK, criticism of the Dutch protocol was so serious that the Tavistock gender clinic, the largest in the world, was closed by the authorities.
Sweden, Finland and Great Britain only want to prescribe the drug in rare, particularly severe cases. Instead, they are increasingly relying on psychological support for patients.
Since February last year, Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare has followed the Karolinska Institute’s policy regarding hormonal interventions for gender-dysphoric minors. Karolinska’s pediatric gender services at Astrid Lindgren Children’s Hospital (ALB) has ended the practice of prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to gender-dysphoric patients under the age of 18.
Marketing redundant drugs for the wrong condition
In the US, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has been investigating two pharmaceutical companies for advertising puberty blockers to children. This is a condition they are not approved to treat.
In December, Paxton announced investigations under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act into Endo Pharmaceuticals and AbbVie Inc., the two companies that sell puberty blockers. The drugs were approved to treat precocious puberty and forms of prostate cancer but were being marketed and prescribed off-label to treat gender dysphoria.
“These drugs were approved for very different purposes and can have detrimental and even irreversible side effects,” Paxton said. “I will not allow pharmaceutical companies to take advantage of Texas children.”
Moscow Slams Dutch Court’s Politically-Motivated Verdict in MH17 Trial
Samizdat – 17.11.2022
The Russian Foreign Ministry has criticized The Hague District Court’s verdict in the MH17 case, stressing that the course and results of the trial in the Netherlands show that the proceedings were based on a political order to reinforce the version about Russia’s alleged involvement in the downing of the Malaysian plane.
Moscow expressed regret that the court in The Hague neglected the principles of impartial justice for the sake of political expediency and ignored the fact that all the conclusions of the prosecution are built upon anonymous testimonies.
The ministry pointed out that the court wasn’t even perturbed by the fact that the Ukrainian side refused to provide radar data or recordings of communication between air traffic controllers and the plane crew. The Dutch court also ignored documents that were declassified by the Russian Defense Ministry in 2018 concerning the missile, whose debris was found at the crash site.
The MoD declassified documents showing that the serial number found on debris from the Buk missile was cross-referenced with a log book, showing it was produced in 1986. The missile was then delivered to a military unit in Ukrainian SSR and had since not left Ukraine.
At the time, the ministry also stated that some of the videos provided to investigators showing the Buk system being transported from Russia to Donbass were manipulated.
Earlier on Thursday, The Hague District Court found three out of the four defendants in the case guilty. Two Russians, Igor Girkin and Sergei Dubinsky, as well as Ukrainian national Leonid Kharchenko were given a life sentence in absentia, while Oleg Pulatov was acquitted.
The trio was ordered to pay compensation to the relatives of the 298 victims of the plane crash.
What Happened to Flight MH17?
Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 was en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur when it was downed over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014 as the region was mired in a conflict with the new government following a coup earlier that year. As a result, all 298 passengers – mostly Dutch – and crew on board were killed in the crash.
Following the tragedy, Kiev and the then-self-proclaimed republics in the Donbass region blamed each other for the downing, with the latter contending that they had no military equipment that would allow them to shoot down an aircraft at that altitude. The United States and a number of European nations, for their part, rushed to allege that Russia was responsible for the incident – a claim that was made even before an official investigation was launched.
Shortly thereafter, the Netherlands set up a Joint Investigative Team (JIT) to probe the MH17 case, but left Russia out of the process despite the latter’s consistent offers to assist in the investigation.
The JIT’s probe concluded that the aircraft was downed by a Buk missile, allegedly launched from a Russian anti-aircraft missile brigade ordinarily stationed in the city of Kursk, not far from the Ukrainian border. At the same time, the Dutch-led team refused to share concrete evidence to corroborate the claims that Russia was responsible for the downing.
In 2019, JIT announced that international arrest warrants would be issued for four suspects, Russians Igor Girkin, Sergei Dubinsky, Oleg Pulatov, and Ukrainian Leonid Kharchenko, on charges of murder, with a trial over the MH17 case beginning in the Netherlands in March 2020.
Moscow has repeatedly slammed JIT’s conclusions as “openly biased” and “one-sided” and emphasized that after being denied access to the formal probe, Russia had carried out its own investigation, which concluded that it was an older version of the missile made in 1986 and belonging to Ukraine that downed the ill-fated plane. Dutch investigators, however, ignored the information.


