Yakabuski: Fin de la récréation pour Trudeau

2023/10/31 Leave a comment

Hard hitting but merited:

Depuis l’attaque des militants du Hamas contre Israël du 7 octobre dernier, le premier ministre Justin Trudeau se garde soigneusement de dévier de la position américaine sur le conflit, qui menace de se propager à d’autres pays du Proche-Orient.

Son refus d’appeler à un cessez-le-feu crée des remous au sein du caucus libéral. Pas moins de 23 députés libéraux ont signé une lettre lui demandant que le Canada « se joigne au nombre croissant de pays qui demandent un cessez-le-feu immédiat ». M. Trudeau leur a répondu cette semaine en se disant favorable « à l’idée de pauses humanitaires », qui permettraient l’acheminement d’aide aux civils piégés à Gaza tout en n’empêchant pas Israël de reprendre son assaut sur le territoire palestinien dans le but d’éliminer le Hamas.

Sa déclaration, mardi, est arrivée presque simultanément à celle du secrétaire d’État américain, Antony Blinken. Devant l’Organisation des Nations unies, à New York, il a, lui aussi, appelé à des pauses humanitaires.

Depuis son arrivée au pouvoir, en 2015, le gouvernement de M. Trudeau semble élaborer sa politique étrangère en fonction des désirs des clientèles ethniques de certaines circonscriptions clés, notamment de la banlieue de Toronto et de Vancouver. Dans beaucoup de cas, ses positions n’attirent pas l’attention du public en dehors de ces enclaves ethniques, où l’appui — ou pas — de la population sikhe, tamoule, chinoise ou autre peut tout changer entre une victoire ou une défaite des libéraux lors d’élections fédérales.

Puisque leurs mots et leurs actions ne pèsent pas beaucoup sur la scène internationale, les gouvernements canadiens, sauf de rares exceptions, ont tous traditionnellement eu le luxe de concevoir leur politique étrangère comme un bidule à faire gagner des votes. Toutefois, cette approche s’est retournée deux fois contre le gouvernement Trudeau dans la dernière année.

Il a longtemps cherché à minimiser les allégations d’ingérence chinoise dans les élections fédérales de 2019 afin de ne pas se mettre à dos les électeurs chinois des circonscriptions baromètres de Toronto et de Vancouver. Mais ce scandale a fini par lui éclater au visage, avec les révélations dans les médias des avertissements répétés sur l’ingérence chinoise que lui aurait lancés le Service canadien du renseignement de sécurité.

On est en droit de se demander si M. Trudeau aurait fait une sortie aussi dramatique pour annoncer que l’Inde serait impliquée dans l’assassinat d’un militant séparatiste sikh commis en banlieue de Vancouver en juin dernier s’il ne se préoccupait pas autant du sort des libéraux dans les circonscriptions où la population sikhe est majoritaire ou presque. La réaction du gouvernement indien à ses propos menace maintenant les relations du Canada avec le pays que tous nos alliés cherchent à courtiser pour contrer l’influence chinoise dans le monde.

Dans le dossier du conflit entre Israël et le Hamas, M. Trudeau, contrairement à certains de ses députés, ne peut pas contredire nos alliés sans qu’ils s’en aperçoivent. Tout comme pour la guerre en Ukraine, les enjeux de ce conflit sont trop importants pour que le premier ministre ose aller à contre-courant.

Certes, des divisions existent aussi au sein même de l’alliance occidentale, comme en témoigne la difficulté qu’ont les pays de l’Union européenne à s’entendre sur une position commune. Seul le premier ministre espagnol, le socialiste Pedro Sánchez, qui lutte pour sa survie politique après avoir perdu les élections en juillet, a jusqu’ici exigé publiquement un cessez-le-feu. Mais, dans son cas, toute autre position ferait éclater la coalition de partis de gauche qu’il essaie de préserver afin de garder le pouvoir et d’éviter la tenue d’élections, qui pourraient mener à sa défaite définitive.

Le président américain, Joe Biden, n’est pas prêt à appeler à un cessez-le-feu, même s’il dit déplorer les conséquences des actions militaires d’Israël contre le Hamas pour la population de Gaza et qu’il milite pour une accélération dans la livraison d’aide humanitaire. D’abord, parce qu’il sait que le Hamas, un groupe terroriste qui se consacre à la destruction d’Israël, ne respecterait jamais ses conditions. Ensuite, parce que toute clémence envers cette organisation serait perçue comme une invitation, pour les ennemis des États-Unis, à commencer par l’Iran, à semer la terreur à travers la région et le monde.

Tout au plus M. Biden demande-t-il à Israël d’exercer une certaine prudence en menant sa campagne contre le Hamas. Il sait pertinemment que cette situation est un bourbier géopolitique qui risque de plomber sa présidence et de mener à de multiples conflagrations militaires ailleurs au Proche-Orient et dans le monde. La dernière chose dont il a besoin, c’est de voir un gouvernement canadien soucieux de plaire à l’opinion publique lui compliquer davantage la tâche, déjà si délicate. M. Trudeau semble l’avoir compris.

Source: Fin de la récréation pour Trudeau

Filed under foreign policy, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Focus Canada: Public support for immigration falls sharply amid affordability concerns

2023/10/31 Leave a comment

Yet another poll showing a decline in support for current high levels of immigration over the past year given the impact on housing, in particular.

Public support for immigration has fallen sharply over the past year as Canadians increasingly tie affordability and housing concerns to a historic influx of newcomers, according to survey results published on Monday.

Forty-four per cent of Canadians think immigration levels are too high, up from 27 per cent last year, according to a survey conducted by the Environics Institute for Survey Research, in partnership with the Century Initiative, an organization that advocates for Canada’s population to hit 100 million by 2100. This was the largest change in sentiment between surveys that Environics has observed in four-plus decades of polling on the topic.

Just a year ago, public support for immigration was stronger than ever, Environics found. But since then, Canadians have been consumed by a number of economic worries, including high inflation, rising interest payments and a worsening housing crisis, which is pushing up resale prices and rents across the country.

At the same time, Canada is growing rapidly. Over the 12 months through June, the population expanded by around 1.2 million people, bringing the total number of residents to 40.1 million. At 3 per cent, this was the largest 12-month increase since 1957; international migration accounted for almost the entirety of the expansion.

This surge has led to a spirited debate about immigration and Canada’s ability to absorb so many people so quickly. The results from Environics are similar to other recent surveys, including a Nanos poll for The Globe and Mail that found more than half of Canadians want the country to accept fewer immigrants than Ottawa’s plan.

“We see these results as a clarion call for action,” said Lisa Lalande, the chief executive officer of the Century Initiative. “You cannot address demographic decline through immigration without having these corresponding investments” in housing and other areas.

The survey was published just before the federal government unveils its next three-year plan for immigration this week, covering 2024 to 2026. Last year, Ottawa said it was aiming to admit 500,000 permanent residents annually by 2025, part of a steady increase since the Liberal Party came to power in 2015.

As the Liberals struggle with weaker support in the polls, the Century Initiative is hoping the government doesn’t water down its immigration plans. “Now is not the time to pull back on immigration,” Ms. Lalande said.

Of late, the population increase is mostly driven by the arrival of temporary residents, such as international students and workers, many of whom wish to settle permanently in Canada. There are no limits on the issuance of temporary visas, although Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said last week that his government was considering a cap.

Under Mr. Trudeau, the Liberals have made high immigration a cornerstone of their economic agenda. They argue that not only will immigration lead to stronger growth, but it will also help fill jobs as Canada gets progressively older.

David Williams, vice-president of policy at the Business Council of British Columbia, said this is a naive view of how economies work. He pointed to a stagnation in gross domestic product per capita as a sign that average living standards were not improving, despite the high intake of newcomers. Furthermore, there is ample research that indicates immigration has little effect – positive or negative – on per-capita output or average wages.

“Canada’s immigration policy has really become disconnected from the academic evidence,” Mr. Williams said. “There seems to be a view in Ottawa that ever-increasing immigration levels is a panacea for all of the structural problems in Canada’s economy.”

Rupa Banerjee, a Canada Research Chair in immigration and economics at Toronto Metropolitan University, said the country has struggled for a long time to build homes in sufficient quantities. “People are getting this wrong impression that the immigration situation is causing the housing crisis,” she said.

The Environics survey found the largest declines in support for immigration in British Columbia and Ontario. There was a sharp divide by political party: Nearly two-thirds of Conservative Party supporters agreed with the statement that “there is too much immigration to Canada,” compared with 29 per cent of Liberals and 21 per cent of New Democratic Party backers.

Still, the results suggest that Canadians see the upsides of immigration. Around three-quarters of people agreed that immigration has a positive impact on the economy, down from 85 per cent last year.

The survey was based on telephone interviews conducted with 2,002 Canadians between Sept. 4 and 17. The results are accurate to within plus or minus 2.2 percentage points in 19 out of 20 samples.

The Century Initiative was co-founded by Mark Wiseman, chair of Alberta Investment Management Corp., and Dominic Barton, the former global managing partner of consulting giant McKinsey & Co. Mr. Barton also served as chair of the Advisory Council on Economic Growth, which recommended to the Trudeau government in 2016 that it raise its annual intake of permanent residents by 50 per cent over five years.

“We do not believe in growth at all costs,” Ms. Lalande said. “That growth must absolutely be accompanied by investments in infrastructure, both physical and social.”

Dr. Banerjee said the federal government could do a better job of communicating its plans for how these newcomers will integrate into Canada. Otherwise, she said, people are left with the impression that there is no plan.

“For several years now, I’ve been slightly concerned that we shouldn’t take this high support for immigration for granted,” she said. “It’s very precarious, to be honest.”

Source: Focus Canada: Public support for immigration falls sharply amid affordability concerns

Interesting to contrast Canadian and foreign-born along with party. Striking that more immigrants feel levels too high compared to Canadian born. Party differences less surprising:

Overall, there is too much immigration to Canada: Canadian-born 43 percent, Foreign-born 47 percent, Liberals 29 percent, CPC 64 percent, NDP 21 percent

Many people claiming to be refugees are not real refugees: Canadian-born 33 percent, Foreign-born 45 percent, Liberals 29 percent, CPC 49 percent, NDP 21 percent

There are too many immigrants coming into this country who are not adopting Canadian values: Canadian-born 48 percent, Foreign-born 46 percent, Liberals 38 percent, CPC 65 percent, NDP 27 percent

Overall, immigration has a positive impact on the economy of Canada: Canadian-born 72 percent, Foreign-born 81 percent, Liberals 85 percent, CPC 64 percent, NDP 89 percent

The other question that is interesting to look at the breakdown between Canadian and foreign-born pertains to those immigrants considered to be high priority. Not surprisingly, immigrants place higher priority on family immigration and international students but a lower priority on refugees. Both give priority to higher skilled compared to lower skilled:

People with good education and skills who move to Canada permanently: High priority: Canadian-born: 66 percent, Foreign-born: 67 percent

Family members of current residents of Canada, including immigrants: Canadian-born: 38 percent, Foreign-born: 43 percent

Refugees who are fleeing conflict or persecution in their own countries: Canadian-born: 58 percent, Foreign-born: 47 percent

Workers with specialized skills that are in high demand in Canada: Canadian-born: 76 percent, Foreign-born: 80 percent

Students who come to study in Canadian colleges and universities: Canadian-born: 29 percent, Foreign-born: 45 percent

Lower skilled workers who are hired to come to Canada for a short time to take on hard-to-fill jobs: Canadian-born: 34 percent, Foreign-born: 33 percent

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

Globe editorial: How Ottawa ignored its own warning and made Canada’s refugee crisis even worse

2023/10/30 Leave a comment

Good policy advice, not listened to.

And it appears from a variety of public opinion research that this ill-advised policy change is likely one of the changes contributing to declining public support for immigration:

There is a thicket of bureaucratic language in the eight-page briefing document from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada on the upside and downside of waiving temporary visitor visa requirements to get rid of a massive backlog of applications.

…

Source: How Ottawa ignored its own warning and made Canada’s refugee crisis even worse

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Sean Speer: The Left has a self-policing problem

2023/10/28 Leave a comment

Yep:

A key feature of a political movement’s health is its ability to self-police against ideological excesses or reactionary forms of politics. It’s not easy to do. There are powerful incentives that tilt against it, including the risk of alienating prospective supporters, harming personal relationships, and granting political ammunition to one’s opponents. There are also practical limits in a distributive democracy where there are rarely points of authority that can plausibly claim to speak for a political movement as a whole. 

Yet just because it’s hard doesn’t mean that there isn’t some onus—particularly among elite actors—to call out and, where necessary, isolate radicalism within their ranks. 

At its apogee in the second half of the twentieth century, National Reviewmagazine played this role on the American Right. Its founder, William F. Buckley Jr., famously wrote the John Birch Society out of the mainstream conservative movement that he was assiduously building. He similarly published a scathing review of Ayn Rand’s book, Atlas Shrugged, by one of the magazine’s editors, Whittaker Chambers, that signaled to the world that Rand’s objectivism didn’t have a home in it either.

In the ensuing decades, the American Right has ceased to self-police. At this point, not only are its political leaders merely trying to stay ahead of their most radical voices, but within the adjacent world of conservative ideas and thought, it can at times be hard to distinguish between the elites and the fringe. 

Canadian conservatism has generally had less of a reactionary problem. There are doubtless various factors including the Westminster model’s emphasis on top-down leadership and party discipline, the country’s more moderate political culture, and its lower racial salience. 

The Hub has nevertheless, in the two-and-a-half-years since its launch, taken seriously a sense of responsibility for calling out conservative excesses including the reactionary parts of the movement that disposed Jason Kenney as Alberta’s United Conservative Party leader, the conspiratorial impulsesbehind some of the conservative criticism of the World Economic Forum, and the growing trend of online ideas and voices radicalizing young men. 

We know that these instances have antagonized some conservatives who believe that it’s a tactical mistake to cede any ground to the Left. They’ve probably cost us some number of donors and subscribers. We also recognize that there are inherent limits to our ability to neutralize some of these excesses. No one is asking our permission before tweeting or driving their transport truck onto Parliament Hill for that matter. But we still think it’s ultimately healthy for The Hub as an institution and conservatism as a whole to speak out when we feel it’s called for. 

This notion of self-policing is something that I’ve thought a lot about in recent years. I wonder what I would have done if I had been a Republican in 2015 and 2016. I don’t know. It’s easy to look the other way or rationalize bad ideas on one’s own side. 

But the lesson of the past several years in the United States is that even if there are downsides for those who are prepared to be self-critical, there’s not a lot of upside for those who aren’t. Ask Republican congressional leaders like Kevin McCarthy or Jim Jordan. Do their choices in hindsight look better or shrewder than Liz Cheney’s? The answer is self-evidently no. 

I share this context because the reaction of the Canadian Left to Hamas’s terrorist attacks against Israel has revealed a self-policing problem. It’s become clear that the movement’s intellectual and political leaders have permitted radical ideas and voices to occupy an outsized place in today’s progressivism. The consequences have alarmingly played themselves out in recent weeks on university campuses, the streets of the country’s major cities, and even inside our mainstream politics. Put bluntly: the Left has an antisemitism problem. 

Even that however doesn’t seem to fully capture the magnitude and nature of the problem. It’s not merely the fringe expressions of outright Jew-hatred that we’ve witnessed. It’s actually something far deeper and more mainstream that may be the bigger cause for concern.

The Left’s strong attachment to radical ideas such as “decolonisation”, “oppressor versus oppressed” frameworks, and the so-called “right to resist” has created an intellectual context in which acts of terrorism and violence can find affirmation and support. 

There are different factors that have contributed to the problem. One is that progressives have so convinced themselves that the rise of the so-called “far right” represents an existential threat that they’ve been prepared to make alliances with radical political figures and organizations (“no enemies to the Left”) or opted to overlook the rise of radicalism within their movement. To the extent that they may acknowledge it, there’s been a tendency to minimize these intellectual trends as merely a form of campus politics or faculty lounge theorizing. 

Another is that the problem on the Left is essentially the opposite of the one on the Right. For conservatives, self-policing is mainly about conservative elites trying to constrain the excesses of the right-wing masses. For progressives, the excesses are among left-wing elites themselves. Radicalism finds its strongest expression among university faculty, law school students, and the panoply of non-profit organizations that comprise the modern Left. It’s not obvious therefore who’s supposed to be doing the policing. 

But it needs to happen. North American scenes of anti-Jewish rallies and full-throated defences of Hamas’s horrific terrorist attacks rooted in left-wing theories of anti-colonialism and anti-settler resistance are signs that radicalism has spilled out from university seminar rooms into the streets. 

These protests and rallies—including ones that have targeted Jewish restaurants and cultural centres—have exposed these problems for everyone to see. They’ve forced us to confront the interrelationship between these Manichean ideas about identity and power promulgated by left-wing voices and antisemitism. This should lead to a reassessment of the public good case for subsidizing various forms of critical theory education and scholarship which often seem like a thin veneer of academic rigour for what is otherwise a set of retrograde intellectual propositions about race, gender, sexuality, and society. 

But that’s probably a necessary yet insufficient response to what has played out in recent weeks. This is in large part a progressivism problem that progressives themselves must address. Progressive elites who lament the rise of the far right need to reckon with the rise of the far left and their own role in galvanizing it. Self-policing is hard—especially when it requires serious introspection—but it’s necessary. It’s time for the Left to police its own side. 

Source: Sean Speer: The Left has a self-policing problem

Filed under Multiculturalism, Politics Tagged with , , ,

Kheiriddin: Pro-Palestine protesters ignore history — and their own causes pay the price

2023/10/28 Leave a comment

Valid questions for those who openly support Hamas and its actions, as distinct from those who support a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel:

By now, the world has been treated to countless demonstrations in support of Palestinian self-determination, most of which conveniently whitewash the Oct. 7 atrocities committed by Hamas as a justifiable “resistance” against Israel. The latest was a protest on Thursday by students in Toronto.

This mirrors another walkout a couple years ago, in which Toronto high school students were photographed holding a sign reading: “From the River to the Sea Palestine will be Free.” As a parent, that one felt the most disturbing.

Do these young people understand what that slogan means? Do they know who they are “allied” with by chanting those words? I suspect not. Kids know what they are fed on TikTok and Instagram, where disinformation is rampant and history, both recent and ancient, is conveniently ignored. And they aren’t the only ones who ignore it.

How is it that feminists can cheer a “resistance” that raped women so badly, they were found with their pelvises shattered, and that paraded half-naked, half-dead young women the streets? Perhaps because they conveniently ignore that violence against women is also endemic in Gaza: in 2019, the Palestinian Bureau of Statistics reported that 41 per cent of women there had experienced domestic violence.

How can LGBTQ+ groups shout and scream for a “free Palestine” when earlier this month, a gay Palestinian man was beheaded in Hebron, his head and torso dumped near his family’s home, for the “crime” of being LGBTQ+? How can they support an organization like Hamas, which killed one of its own commanders in 2016 after accusing him of having gay sex?

How can Black Lives Matter (BLM) post an image on Twitter of a paragliding terrorist with the caption, “I stand with Palestine”? (BLM subsequently took it down, but stated that, “We must stand unwaveringly on the side of the oppressed.”)

How is it that BLM turns a blind eye to Hamas’s Black slave trafficking in the early 2010s to fund its terror operations? Why don’t they mention that up to 800,000 Africans were trafficked to the Middle East during the late 19th and early 20th centuries — and that slavery continued to be legal in much of the Mideast as late as the 1960s?

Why? Because to concede any of these things would spoil the left-wing narrative that binds these “allies” together: oppression is solely the purview of white, heterosexual, colonizing westerners, and any group that is “west-adjacent,” such as the Jews. It also undermines their belief that any means, including terror, is justified in order to resist it.

What we are witnessing is intersectionality gone amok. It’s also a story that is over 200 years old, again buried in the mists of time.

The year was 1789, and the event was the French Revolution. The Jacobins and their allies revolted against the French ruling class, including nobility, clergy and anyone who smelled of privilege, on behalf of the peasants who were starving, miserable and oppressed.

But they didn’t just revolt. They launched the Reign of Terror, formally declaring in the French National Assembly that, “Terror is the order of the day.”

In the words of their leader, Maximilien Robespierre, “Terror is nothing more than speedy, severe and inflexible justice; it is thus an emanation of virtue; it is less a principle in itself, than a consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing needs of the patrie (homeland).”

For the next five years, the French terror crew gave Hamas a run for their money. They held public executions by guillotine, filling the streets with blood. They slaughtered entire towns. When they ran out of guillotines, they used cannons.

In the worst district, the Vendée, they slaughtered thousands of people, including women and children. They held mass drownings in the Loire River, where if victims managed to free their hands from shackles, troops in boats were there to hack off their arms. The latter event was even immortalized by artist Pierre-Gabriel Berthaul as one of the “great moments” of the revolution.

By the time the Reign of Terror ended in July 1794, 17,000 people had been officially executed, and as many as 10,000 had died in prison or without trial.

The left has copied this playbook consistently since then. The Bolsheviks deployed the Red Terror in Russia between 1918 and 1922; Stalin presided over the genocide of an estimated seven-million people in the ’30s and ’40s; Mao Zedong’s government sent between 500,000 and two-million Chinese to their deaths during the Cultural Revolution of 1966 to 1976. All justified in the name of overthrowing the “oppressors” to liberate the oppressed.

Today’s “allies” ignore this history. To them, the end justifies the means — even if those means contradict every social-justice principle they claim to espouse.

The irony, of course, is that the end they seek would not be the paradise they envision. It would not be a state where women, LGBTQ+ and Black lives are respected. It would not be one of equality and human rights.

A Palestinian state under Hamas would be no different than any other murderous theocratic or ideological regime, where the government uses terror and oppression to keep people in line. And where you can bet that kids wouldn’t be allowed to skip school and hold protests on the street.

Source: Pro-Palestine protesters ignore history — and their own causes pay the price

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Rioux: La tête et le coeur

2023/10/28 Leave a comment

Money quote: « Comment écraser la tête de l’ennemi sans qu’il nous dévore le coeur ? »

Dans leurs pires méfaits, les nazis ont toujours tenté de cacher leurs abominations. Ils brûlaient les corps, broyaient les os, enterraient les carcasses, tentant chaque fois de préserver un lourd silence sur l’horreur de leurs crimes. Avec un certain succès d’ailleurs, puisqu’il faudra des années après la guerre pour déterrer l’inimaginable au fond des sols endormis comme au creux des mémoires qui s’étaient dépêchées de faire le vide.

Pardon de revenir sur un événement morbide dont l’actualité frénétique voudrait nous laisser croire qu’il s’est produit il y a deux ans déjà. Un événement qui, à l’échelle d’Israël, a fait plus de victimes que le 11 Septembre. Car, il y aura un « avant » et un « après » 7 octobre 2023. C’est ce que le torrent de l’actualité tente habilement de nous cacher, avec la bénédiction de ceux qui croient béatement que toutes les horreurs se valent.

Après la guerre de Six Jours, en 1967, Israël était sorti du conflit avec la fausse assurance de sa supériorité militaire et d’être dorénavant le maître des horloges. Une assurance que commença à fragiliser dès 1973 la guerre du Kippour survenue à la surprise complète des états-majors. La seconde intifada, au début des années 2000, avec ses attentats kamikazes visant au plus près des familles innocentes et des enfants revenant de l’école, mettra fin dans les esprits à toute perspective d’État palestinien dans un avenir prévisible.

Une étape supplémentaire vient d’être franchie avec l’attentat sauvage du 7 octobre. Il a non seulement prouvé que les frontières d’Israël étaient vulnérables, mais aussi que le pire pouvait se produire sur son territoire. Oui, un vrai pogrom semblable à ceux commis au siècle dernier en Europe de l’Est où l’on égorgeait femmes et enfants. Et tout ça sur le territoire d’un pays créé de toutes pièces pour que ça n’arrive plus.

« Cela va rester le plus grand choc de l’histoire juive post-Shoah, déclarait dans Le Monde la sociologue Eva Illouz. C’est toute la réalité ontologique d’Israël qui a été remise en question. Les nazis essayaient de cacher les atrocités, pas de les diffuser. La mort elle-même est devenue un motif de propagande. Il y a là un changement de régime de l’atrocité. »

L’autre nouveauté de cette guerre, c’est qu’on a crié « Allah Akbar » aussi bien à Paris qu’à Berlin, Bruxelles et Melbourne. Ce qu’on a appelé la cause nationale palestinienne semble aujourd’hui pris en otage par une idéologie islamiste mondialisée provoquant en même temps une fabuleuse internationalisation du conflit qui le rend chaque fois plus insoluble. Car les revendications nationales palestiniennes n’intéressent pas plus les fous de dieu que les potentats arabes corrompus.

Si le président français, Emmanuel Macron, a eu raison de rappeler qu’il n’y aura pas de paix dans la région sans la création d’un État national palestinien, force est de reconnaître que cet État sera une utopie tant que le Hamas demeurera ce qu’il est et qu’il transformera cette guerre de libération nationale en un conflit religieux opposant les juifs de Palestine à l’Oumma tout entière. Or, le plus dramatique n’est pas tant de découvrir l’horreur dont est capable le Hamas — on savait depuis longtemps à quoi carburaient ces extrémistes religieux —, mais de prendre conscience que cette organisation terroriste qui instrumentalise la lutte nationale des Palestiniens au nom du prophète jouit du large soutien d’une population galvanisée. En Palestine comme ailleurs dans le monde.

« Il faut donc libérer la Palestine des Israéliens qui veulent la voler, mais aussi des “Arabes” et des islamistes qui veulent la vendre et l’acheter et lui monter sur le dos », écrivait avec courage Kamel Daoud. Et l’écrivain algérien d’ajouter qu’il faut en finir avec « cette solidarité au nom de l’islam et de la haine du juif […] qui ferme les yeux sur le Hamas et sa nature pour crier à l’indignation ».

Éradiquer le Hamas est un objectif noble et nécessaire. Mais il exigera une longue lutte où il faudra éviter le piège de l’après-11 Septembre, comme l’a subtilement rappelé Joe Biden à Jérusalem. Une lutte qui ne saurait se résumer à envahir Gaza pendant quelques semaines au prix de milliers de vies palestiniennes. Et pour rendre Gaza à qui ensuite ? Sachant qu’Israël ne souhaite pas administrer ce territoire depuis qu’Ariel Sharon s’en est retiré en 2005.

Qu’il faille écraser le Hamas, à la fois pour Israël et pour l’honneur même du peuple palestinien, ne devrait pas faire de doute. Mais comment le faire sans se déshonorer ? Toute la complexité de la réaction d’Israël tient à cette question tragique qu’a admirablement posée l’écrivain Fabrice Hadjadj : « Comment écraser la tête de l’ennemi sans qu’il nous dévore le coeur ? »

Source: La tête et le coeur

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Tasha Kheiriddin: Re-election is more important to Trudeau than supporting Canadian Jews

2023/10/27 Leave a comment

A bit over the top but yes, diaspora communities influence all parties and governments. But I fully expect the PM will visit Café Landwer and his initial messaging was strong. But of course the changing demographics have an impact. That 23 Liberal MPs called for an immediate ceasefire, along with recent mixed messaging, reflects, in part, that there are 114 ridings where Muslims form more than 5 percent of the population, compared to 13 ridings where Jews form more than 5 percent:

The Israel-Hamas War has shocked the world on many levels: the brutality of the Oct. 7 attacks against Israeli civilians, the propagation of disinformation by supposedly reputable news outlets, and the overt antisemitism on display in academia, politics and public demonstrations. The concept of decolonization, so fashionable in left-wing circles, has been turned against a people who for over a millennium have been persecuted, stateless, and the victim of racial hatred. Yet today, Jews are being cast as villains, in a manner that would make even Shakespeare blush.

In Canada, the conflict has also done something else. It has definitively exposed the true motivations for Liberal government’s seemingly incoherent and milquetoast foreign policy. Instead of standing for principle and the interests of our nation and its allies, the Trudeau Doctrine is dictated by diaspora politics and his party’s re-election prospects. This is true not only of its positioning on the current conflict, but on every major foreign policy issue in the past year.

It began with the Liberals trying at all costs to avoid a public inquiry into Chinese electoral interference. In February 2023, the Globe and Mail broke the story of how China implemented a sophisticated strategy to engineer the return of a Liberal minority government and defeat opposition Conservative politicians in the 2021 election. Allegations about this had been swirling for months, including reports on Chinese interference in the previous 2019 election.

But instead of seeking answers, Trudeau sought cover. He appointed “special rapporteur” David Johnston to examine the issue, effectively kicking the can down the road. Months later, Johnston quit in disgrace when the House of Commons demanded he resign after he had conveniently concluded that interference claims were based on “limited and partial intelligence” and thus did not warrant an inquiry.

Yet months later, when Trudeau was given information by CSIS that the agency was “actively pursuing credible allegations of a potential link”  between India and the killing of a Canadian Sikh separatist gunned down in the parking lot of a temple in Surrey, the government leapt into action.

Trudeau first raised the issue privately with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at a G20 meeting in New Delhi. When that didn’t achieve the desired result, Trudeau publicly accused India of involvement in the crime in September, setting off a diplomatic firestorm that continues to burn. Canada’s trade mission to India was cancelled, 41 of our diplomats in India have been recalled, and our Indo-Pacific Strategy lies in ashes less than a year after it was unveiled.

Why did Trudeau act in such an incoherent way on these issues? Well, it’s math. A glance at the Canadian electoral map shows the importance of the Sikh and Chinese diaspora vote in both British Columbia and Ontario. There’s also the matter of Trudeau’s supply and confidence agreement with the NDP, led by Jagmeet Singh, who was strongly supportive of Trudeau’s stance.

And now, as war rages once again in the Middle East, there’s the Muslim vote to worry about, in electoral districts in Scarborough and the 905 belt around Toronto, as well as in Montreal. With the Conservatives soaring in the polls, ridings like Mississauga-Lakeshore, which the Liberals kept in the past byelection, could be in jeopardy if Muslim voters switch allegiances or stay home.

So once again, Trudeau is letting domestic policy dictate foreign policy. And this time, he’s not only throwing the Jewish community under the bus, but the values Canadians cherish, including the protection of minorities from hatred. And this weekend provided yet another example of that.

On Oct. 21, Trudeau visited a mosque and tweeted, “As members of the Palestinian, Arab, and Black Muslim communities gathered for prayer yesterday, I wanted them to know this: We know you’re worried and hurting. We’re here for you. We will not stop advocating for civilians to be protected and for international law to be upheld.”

Yet on the same day, a Jewish-owned business in Toronto was targeted by protesters waving Palestinian flags and screaming to boycott the “Zionist café.” Social media was flooded with images of hundreds of people mobbing the windows of Cafe Landwer while frightened patrons sat helplessly inside.

Trudeau’s response? We’re still waiting.

Source: Tasha Kheiriddin: Re-election is more important to Trudeau than supporting Canadian Jews

Filed under foreign policy, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Nicolas: Les mots et leur pouvoir

2023/10/27 Leave a comment

Of note:

Trois réflexions autour des mots et de leur pouvoir, alors que l’Histoire se joue sous nos yeux.

1. Liberté de presse. Trois journalistes israéliens comptaient parmi les victimes de l’attaque du Hamas du 7 octobre dernier. Depuis, un journaliste libanais a aussi été tué lors d’une attaque d’Israël contre le Hezbollah. Et 19 journalistes palestiniens sont morts à Gaza, pour la plupart dans les bombardements de l’armée israélienne. Samedi, Reporteurs sans frontières a lancé une alerte : « Israël suffoque le journalisme à Gaza ». Pourquoi ? En gros, parce que des journalistes sont tués, sévèrement blessés ou forcés de fuir en laissant tout derrière, mais aussi parce que des salles de nouvelles entières sont détruites par les bombardements et que l’on coupe une partie de l’accès à Internet sur le territoire. Résultat : les nouvelles qui nous arrivent de Gaza sont partielles, tout au plus.

Pourquoi les grandes salles de nouvelles, qui nous avaient assuré qu’elles étaient Charlie, restent-elles silencieuses sur cette question, elles qui sortent habituellement de leur réserve pour dénoncer les attaques contre la liberté de presse ?

2. Sentiment d’impuissance. Il est fascinant de lire entre les lignes des communications diplomatiques américaines. Depuis la semaine dernière, le président Joe Biden exhorte le premier ministre israélien, Benjamin Nétanyahou, à ne pas répéter les erreurs commises par les Américains au lendemain du 11 Septembre, alors que les États-Unis étaient « enragés ».

Mardi, Barack Obama, avec la liberté de parole permise à la retraite, allait plus loin. Il écrit, dans une déclaration publiée sur le Web, que « la décision du gouvernement israélien de couper la nourriture, l’eau et l’électricité à une population captive menace non seulement d’aggraver une crise humanitaire, elle pourrait aussi durcir les attitudes palestiniennes pour des générations, éroder le soutien international à Israël, faire le jeu des ennemis d’Israël et miner les efforts à long terme pour la paix et la stabilité dans la région ».

Son texte donne pour référence une chronique de Thomas Friedman dans le New York Times, qui pousse encore plus loin — un ancien président ne renvoie pas ses lecteurs à une chronique sans implicitement l’appuyer. On y écrit qu’il « n’y aura personne pour aider Israël à soutenir plus de deux millions de Gazaouis — pas si Israël est mené par un gouvernement qui pense et agit comme s’il pouvait exercer justement sa vengeance sur le Hamas alors qu’il construit injustement une société s’apparentant à un apartheid, menée par des suprémacistes juifs, en Cisjordanie ».

Entendons-nous : personne, parmi ces personnalités américaines, ne demande encore un cessez-le-feu, pourtant urgent. Cela dit, le changement de ton par rapport à Nétanyahou est notable. Et ce réajustement politique semble prendre racine dans une conscience de l’opinion internationale (et américaine) de plus en plus sensible à la souffrance palestinienne.

Plusieurs se sentent écrasés par un sentiment d’impuissance et se demandent si les manifestations ou les partages d’information sur les médias sociaux valent quelque chose. Quand on décode ce qui se dit sur les canaux diplomatiques, la réponse est oui, les expressions de solidarité ou d’inquiétude populaires comptent. Les gouvernements regardent les manifestations, voient ce qui se dit sur Meta et ce qu’on recherche sur Google. Les choses commencent à bouger. Trop lentement et trop tard pour tellement de vies de civils, mais peut-être assez vite pour en sauver d’autres.

3. Sensibilité à la critique. Cette critique montante d’Israël suscite beaucoup de douleur et de désarroi dans une bonne partie des communautés juives nord-américaines. Ce n’est pas tout le monde, bien sûr, qui se sent ainsi lié à Israël, au contraire. Mais ce lien est fort pour plusieurs, et il est important de chercher à comprendre pourquoi.

« Une terre sans peuple pour un peuple sans terre. » Cette expression sioniste populaire contient à la fois l’effacement du peuple palestinien et cette idée d’Israël comme refuge pour un peuple juif privé de sécurité durant des siècles. Le rêve d’Israël comme symbole de sécurité enfin possible est transmis à bien des enfants d’ici, dès le plus jeune âge. On comprend donc que l’émotion puisse être forte lorsqu’il en est question.

On comprend aussi pourquoi la critique d’Israël est souvent plus difficile ici qu’en Israël même. Dans toutes les diasporas, les langues se délient plus facilement dans la sécurité de l’entre-soi que lorsque l’on craint que nos mots soient récupérés par une majorité qui nous a longtemps opprimés. Pour voir l’état de conscience de la gauche israélienne, d’ailleurs, il faut aller lire les pages du Haaretz. Disons qu’on n’y mâche pas ses mots et que l’horreur de ce que font subir l’armée aux Gazaouis et les colons aux Cisjordaniens y est clairement nommée.

On en comprend que, si l’idée de sécurité est encore liée pour beaucoup à cet ailleurs, c’est notamment qu’il subsiste encore, ici même, un sentiment d’insécurité. Plusieurs m’ont écrit pour me dire qu’ils ne peuvent s’empêcher de sentir que le monde est en train de leur tourner le dos et qu’ils seront bientôt seuls, comme les Juifs l’ont trop longtemps été.

Il y a dans cette crainte de l’abandon imminent un trauma intergénérationnel hérité de l’Holocauste et des pogroms — et un constat de notre échec à nous, non-Juifs, à contribuer à un sentiment de sécurité communautaire ici même, au Canada, alors que l’antisémitisme est en hausse.

Je crois qu’il y a tout à fait de la place pour continuer à être témoin de l’Histoire, dénoncer la guerre là-bas, les morts de tous les côtés, ainsi que les déplacements forcés, et tout autre crime de guerre et abus envers les Palestiniens, vu notamment le déséquilibre inouï des forces entre les acteurs en présence, et, au même moment, refuser de laisser une partie des communautés juives d’ici se débrouiller seules avec leur propre douleur et leurs propres traumas ainsi réveillés, et renforcer notre engagement envers leur sécurité et leur dignité.

Non seulement il doit y avoir de la place pour le faire, mais ça me semble la seule chose juste à faire.

Anthropologue, Emilie Nicolas est chroniqueuse au Devoir et à Libération. Elle anime le balado Détours pour Canadaland.

Source: Les mots et leur pouvoir

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

USCIS Changes H-1B Visa Lottery, Extends Cap-Gap For Students

2023/10/27 Leave a comment

Interesting proposed shift from multiple registrations per applicant to unique identifiers, among other proposed changes:

Employers, international students and H-1B professionals will like some elements of a proposed H-1B visa rule, although other measures will generate opposition and invite litigation. The most significant change for many individuals will be how U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services conducts the H-1B lottery. USCIS published the notice of proposed rulemaking on October 23, 2023, and it is subject to a 60-day comment period that could result in revisions. A proposed narrowing of the degrees that would allow a position to qualify as an H-1B specialty occupation might be the rule’s most controversial measure. (See article here.)

Changing The H-1B Lottery

USCIS uses a lottery when companies file more H-1B applications (or registrations) than the annual limit of 85,000 (65,000 plus a 20,000 exemption for advanced degree holders from U.S. universities). According to USCIS, registrations for FY 2024 increased largely due to multiple registrations submitted for the same individuals. Still, due to the low annual H-1B limit, USCIS would have rejected over 75% of H-1B registrations for FY 2024, even if beneficiaries with multiple registrations were excluded from the lottery.

USCIS proposes a solution—selecting H-1B registrations by unique beneficiaries—recommended in a May 1, 2023, Forbesarticle. Many employers will likely approve of the change.

“Under the proposed update to the random selection process, registrants would continue to submit registrations on behalf of beneficiaries and beneficiaries would continue to be able to have more than one registration submitted on their behalf,” according to USCIS. “Selection would be based on each unique beneficiary identified in the registration pool, rather than each registration. Each unique beneficiary would be entered in the selection process once, regardless of how many registrations were submitted on their behalf. If a beneficiary were selected, each registrant that submitted a registration on that beneficiary’s behalf would be notified of selection and would be eligible to file a petition on that beneficiary’s behalf.”

USCIS will use “valid passport information” to identify unique beneficiaries, and individuals would select among the employers that submitted H-1B registrations on their behalf. “DHS [Department of Homeland Security] proposes to require the submission of valid passport information, including the passport number, country of issuance, and expiration date, in addition to the currently required information. Registrants would no longer be allowed to select an option indicating that the beneficiary does not have a passport.”

USCIS anticipates a beneficiary could have more than one potential employer. “If multiple unrelated companies submitted registrations for a beneficiary and the beneficiary were selected, then the beneficiary could have greater bargaining power or flexibility to determine which company or companies could submit an H-1B petition for the beneficiary, because all of the companies that submitted a registration for that unique beneficiary would be notified that their registration was selected and they are eligible to file a petition on behalf of that beneficiary.”

USCIS will “extend the existing prohibition on related entities filing multiple petitions by also prohibiting related entities from submitting multiple registrations for the same individual.”

USCIS states, “The proposed change may also potentially benefit companies that submit legitimate registrations for unique beneficiaries by increasing their chances to employ a specific beneficiary in H-1B status.”

The controversy over multiple registrations obscures a stark reality for employers: H-1B registrations with only one employer increased by 66% between FY 2022 and FY 2024, illustrating the increasing demand for talent in the U.S. economy.

Extended Cap-Gap Protection For International Students

F-1 students, often working on Optional Practical Training, now receive “cap-gap” protection when changing to H-1B status. In a move students, employers and universities will welcome, the proposed rule provides automatic “cap-gap” protection until April 1 rather than the current October 1 (i.e., an additional six months). USCIS states this “would avoid disruptions in employment authorization that some F-1 nonimmigrants seeking cap-gap extensions have experienced over the past several years.”

Nonprofit Research Institutions

The proposed rule would allow more organizations to qualify as nonprofit research institutions. That would make them eligible to file H-1B petitions exempt from the H-1B annual limit. USCIS would change the definition of a nonprofit research organization from one “primarily engaged in basic research and/or applied research” to an organization with “a fundamental activity of” basic research and/or applied research. “This would likely increase the population of petitioners who are now eligible for the cap exemption and, by extension, would likely increase the number of petitions that may be cap-exempt,” according to USCIS.

H-1B Petitions For Entrepreneurs 

Due to the regulatory definition of an employee-employer relationship, USCIS rules make it difficult for entrepreneurs to qualify for H-1B petitions. USCIS recognizes this causes many high-skilled foreign nationals to not found a company or wait until they acquire permanent residence. “Nearly two-thirds (64%) of U.S. billion-dollar companies (unicorns) were founded or cofounded by immigrants or the children of immigrants,” according to research by the National Foundation for American Policy, indicating what the U.S. economy loses when restricting foreign-born entrepreneurship.

“DHS is proposing to add provisions to specifically address situations where a potential H-1B beneficiary owns a controlling interest in the petitioning entity,” according to the proposed rule. “One of the proposed conditions is that the beneficiary may perform duties that are directly related to owning and directing the petitioner’s business as long as the beneficiary will perform specialty occupation duties authorized under the petition a majority of the time.”

Initial approvals for H-1B petitions when the H-1B beneficiary “possesses a controlling ownership interest in the petitioning” business “will be limited to a validity period of up to 18 months.”

Codifying H-1B Petition Amendments

Beginning July 2015, USCIS required amended H-1B petitions when employers received a new labor condition application (LCA) from the Department of Labor. This followed the agency labeling the Simeio Solutions case an Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) precedent decision binding on adjudicators. The decision raised costs for many employers.

“Any change in the place of employment to a geographical area that requires a corresponding labor condition application to be certified to USCIS is considered a material change and requires an amended or new petition to be filed with USCIS before the H-1B worker may begin work at the new place of employment,” under the proposed regulatory language. An employer does not need to file an amended petition if the H-1B visa holder moves “to a new job location within the same area of intended employment as listed on the labor condition application.”

Requiring Compliance With Site Visit Requests

For many years, USCIS has conducted site visits at the employers of H-1B visa holders. However, attorneys argue the authority to conduct such site visits is suspect. USCIS seeks to change that with the proposed rule by mandating compliance with the agency’s visits.

“The proposals must be viewed in the context of how much the government will charge for access to H-1B visas,” said Lynden Melmed, a partner with Berry Appleman & Leiden (BAL) and a former chief counsel of USCIS. “The fee rule, which is expected to be released at any time, could be more impactful than any of the changes proposed this past week.”

Source: USCIS Changes H-1B Visa Lottery, Extends Cap-Gap For Students

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Lisée: Bonne semaine pour la haine

2023/10/26 Leave a comment

On “useful idiots” and fanaticism:

Au moment où ces lignes étaient écrites, les missiles israéliens avaient déjà quintuplé la mise. En riposte aux actes barbares du Hamas contre 1000 civils et militaires israéliens, les bombes de l’État hébreu ont fait plus de 5000 victimes civiles, hommes, femmes et enfants agonisant sous les gravats. À ce point du récit, et alors que se réunissent les conditions du débordement du conflit du Liban au Yémen à l’Iran, l’exigence d’un cessez-le-feu immédiat, suivi d’une mise sous tutelle de Gaza par l’ONU, semble à mon humble avis la seule posture prudente et humaine possible.

Il n’est pas étonnant que, sur le globe, les passions s’enflamment. Que, parmi les pro-israéliens, on entende des appels à éradiquer le Hamas, quoi qu’il en coûte en victimes civiles. Que, chez les propalestiniens, on mette en cause l’existence même de l’État d’Israël.

Dans le tumulte, les idiots utiles s’expriment. Telle la lettre où 74 étudiants en droit (en droit !) de l’Université métropolitaine de Toronto affirment « être solidaires de la Palestine et de toutes les formes de résistance palestinienne », ce qui, par définition, n’exclut pas les techniques infanticides du Hamas. Deux associations étudiantes de l’Université York, à Toronto, ont diffusé un communiqué similaire, comme l’ont fait plusieurs groupes étudiants d’universités américaines.

L’outrance épistolaire juvénile est certes condamnable, mais ces exagérations tendent à s’estomper avec l’âge. Plus graves sont les paroles et les gestes des foules multigénérationnelles ces derniers jours. À Toronto, toujours, une manifestation propalestinienne d’un millier de personnes se tenait la semaine dernière devant un immeuble où avait lieu une assemblée pro-israélienne. Dans la vidéo de l’événement, on entend clairement quelqu’un crier au micro : « Que fait-on avec les Juifs ? » Et des manifestants répondre : « On leur coupe la tête. » À répétition.

En Australie, sur les marches du magnifique opéra de Sydney, autant de manifestants ont scandé un slogan qui optait pour une autre abjecte solution : « Gazez les Juifs. » Samedi dernier, à Montréal, des manifestants propalestiniens ont lancé crachats, roches et briques en direction de manifestants pro-israéliens. La police a procédé à 15 arrestations. À Amsterdam, tous tabous tombés, quelques manifestants ont fièrement brandi d’énormes drapeaux noirs du groupe État islamique.

Le plus étonnant est de ne pas voir des images de pacifistes, égarés dans ces manifs, fuyant à toutes jambes lorsqu’ils entendent des appels à l’éradication d’un peuple et d’une religion. Il est vrai qu’une autre religion est présente, puisque parmi les slogans on entend aussi régulièrement « Dieu est grand », la divinité en question étant, toujours, Allah. Dans plusieurs villes européennes, et à Toronto, certaines manifestations se transforment en prières musulmanes collectives, dans la rue, devant un poste diplomatique israélien. C’est l’utilisation politique de la prière.

Je n’ignore pas que des actes antimusulmans abjects ont été commis, ici comme ailleurs. Mais on ne voit pas, dans nos villes, de foules réclamer l’annihilation de tous les Arabes ou de tous les musulmans.

L’appel par le Hamas à une journée de « djihad mondial » s’est soldé par une poignée d’attentats en Europe. On peut penser que le nombre de djihadistes prêts à passer à l’acte fut faible. Mais on doit constater qu’ils disposent d’un écho favorable plus important qu’on ne pouvait l’espérer. Après que l’un d’eux a assassiné un enseignant français à Arras, une minute de silence fut organisée dans les écoles de l’Hexagone. Le ministère de l’Éducation a relevé 500 cas de perturbations, par des élèves, au moment du recueillement. Parmi eux, 183 élèves ont été suspendus pour « menaces à l’encontre d’enseignants » ou « apologie du terrorisme ».

Au lendemain de l’assassinat par un djihadiste de deux touristes suédois en Belgique, des élèves musulmans d’une école voisine ont demandé à leur professeur de faire une prière… pour le tueur. L’enseignant d’une autre école belge rapporte : « J’ai été choqué de voir que les élèves s’échangeaient entre eux des photos des personnes tuées […] Ils rigolaient. »

L’école doit être le lieu premier de socialisation, mais des élèves musulmans sont en contact permanent avec un autre univers, explique ce prof. « C’est via TikTok et d’autres sites qu’ils fabriquent leur islam, leur religion. Ils écoutent des prêcheurs sur Internet. La mosquée, elle est sur leur téléphone ! » Manifestement, ajoute-t-il, « certains élèves sont fanatisés par les réseaux sociaux ».

À la télé française, l’entrevue d’un ami du tueur d’Arras a levé le voile sur le type de discussion qui se tient dans ces milieux. « On avait les mêmes idéologies, dit-il, sauf pour aller tuer les gens, ça ne m’a jamais intéressé. Et puis, ce n’est pas normal, sauf dans une guerre sainte. » Sauf dans une guerre sainte. Bon à savoir.

J’insiste sur la distinction entre l’opinion outrancière, qui peut évoluer, et la conviction religieuse, qui est par nature fixée une fois pour toutes — sauf si on en sort —, car dite d’inspiration divine.

L’écrivain roumain Emil Cioran le résumait ainsi il y a un demi-siècle : « Le fanatisme est la mort de la conversation. On ne bavarde pas avec un candidat au martyre. Que dire à quelqu’un qui refuse de pénétrer vos raisons et qui, du moment que l’on ne s’incline pas devant les siennes, aimerait mieux périr que céder ? »

Source: Bonne semaine pour la haine

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →