#Canada Future Leadership

[hypelens]

Justin Trudeau Faces Intense Scrutiny Amid Resignation Pressure: What’s Next for Canada?

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau finds himself at the center of a political storm as speculation about his potential resignation dominates headlines. A combination of mounting domestic challenges, political controversies, and shifting public sentiment has placed his leadership under a microscope. This article unpacks the key developments, public reactions, and potential outcomes as Trudeau faces one of the most challenging periods of his political career.

Resignation Rumors: Fact or Political Maneuver?

Reports of Trudeau's potential resignation emerged following weeks of criticism from political adversaries and even some within his party. These rumors have sparked nationwide debate about the future of Canadian leadership. According to sources, Trudeau is facing mounting pressure from both Liberals and Conservatives to address ongoing issues, including economic concerns, environmental policies, and foreign relations.

CNN reported live updates as political commentators speculated whether Trudeau could weather the storm or step down to preserve party unity. The Wall Street Journal highlighted growing dissatisfaction among Canadians, citing polls that reveal declining approval ratings for Trudeau's government.

Domestic Challenges Amplify Pressure

Trudeau’s tenure has been marked by significant achievements but also numerous challenges. Recent events have exacerbated public frustrations, including:

Economic Woes: Rising inflation and housing affordability issues have left many Canadians struggling to make ends meet.

Environmental Policies: Critics argue that Trudeau's government has failed to strike a balance between promoting green initiatives and supporting the energy sector.

Ethics Controversies: Past scandals, including the SNC-Lavalin affair, continue to haunt his administration and erode public trust.

These issues have provided ample ammunition for opposition parties, who are leveraging the public’s discontent to call for a change in leadership.

Trump’s “Merger” Comment Sparks Controversy

Adding a bizarre twist to the story, former U.S. President Donald Trump made headlines by suggesting a “merger” between the United States and Canada under his leadership. Speaking at a rally, Trump claimed that such a union would solve many of Canada’s economic and political challenges.

The suggestion, while widely dismissed as impractical, has drawn sharp criticism from Canadian officials and media outlets. The Hill reported that many viewed Trump’s comments as an opportunistic attempt to undermine Trudeau’s credibility during a vulnerable moment.

Public and Political Reactions

The Canadian public remains divided on Trudeau’s leadership. While some laud his progressive policies, others argue that his government has failed to address pressing national concerns effectively. Social media platforms are ablaze with discussions, reflecting a polarized electorate.

Political opponents have seized the moment to push their agendas. Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre has called for Trudeau’s immediate resignation, citing the need for “fresh leadership to restore confidence in the government.” Meanwhile, members of the New Democratic Party (NDP) have urged Trudeau to refocus on economic reforms rather than stepping aside.

International Implications of Trudeau’s Leadership

Trudeau's leadership extends beyond Canada’s borders. As a prominent global figure, his decisions impact international relations, particularly with the United States, European Union, and China.

Key concerns include:

Trade Relations: A change in leadership could alter Canada’s stance on key trade agreements, affecting industries on both sides of the border.

Climate Change Commitments: Trudeau has been a vocal advocate for climate action, and his resignation could create uncertainty around Canada’s environmental policies.

Geopolitical Alliances: As tensions with China and Russia escalate, Trudeau’s departure could shift Canada’s foreign policy approach.

What’s Next for Trudeau and Canada?

While Trudeau has not publicly confirmed or denied rumors of resignation, political analysts suggest several possible scenarios:

Trudeau Steps Down: This could trigger a leadership race within the Liberal Party, with key figures like Chrystia Freeland and Mark Carney emerging as potential successors.

Trudeau Stays On: He may attempt to rebuild public trust and navigate his government through this turbulent period.

Snap Election: If the political climate remains unstable, a snap election could be called, giving Canadians the opportunity to decide the country’s direction.

Conclusion: A Pivotal Moment for Canadian Politics

Justin Trudeau’s leadership is at a crossroads, and the decisions made in the coming weeks will have lasting implications for Canada’s political landscape. Whether he chooses to step down or continue leading, the challenges he faces underscore the complexities of governing in today’s polarized and unpredictable world.

Stay tuned for further updates as this story develops, and Canada navigates through a critical chapter in its history.

[intheupside]

Crosby to be Canada's 'security blanket' as captain at 4 Nations Face-Off

Indeed, is anyone more deserving of the title of Captain Canada?

“He’s up there,” Tocchet said. “And look, I don’t want to embarrass Sid. But from sitting in the locker room across from Wayne Gretzky, the way Wayne’s demeanor is, the way he acted around his teammates, the way he acted in front of the public, Sid’s got that.

“And then you’ve got the Mark Messier type, not afraid to say things to your teammates if needed at the right time. And I’ve seen Sid do that too, using his voice to let them know something is unacceptable. He’s willing to do that. That to me is a great leader. In all facets. One hundred percent.

“The bottom line: When he puts that jersey on, you can sense the calmness come over the entire country of Canada. It’s almost like he’s our security blanket.”

“From the time I first met him, it’s just the way he always looks to raise the bar,” Bergeron said. “We’ve been teammates and linemates in a lot of these tournaments, and he’s never satisfied. He’s always looking to the next thing. He’s able to enjoy the success but at the same time wanting more. It’s his drive, his determination, there’s a lot of reasons why he’s been so clutch and so important in, what you could say, [is] history.

“He commands respect. I think the country is proud of who he is as a person and how he represents us on the international stage. There’s no missteps. It’s been going on since he’s been 14 years old when they started aiming cameras on him. He’s never had a misstep.”

Bergeron is considered one of the top leaders of his era and won the Mark Messier NHL Leadership Award in 2021, an honor Crosby received in 2010.

“I accomplished a lot in my career,” Bergeron said. “But I have to say, I’m so proud that in my time playing, that Sidney was the face of our league and for Canadian hockey. Well deserved.”

Crosby already had his eyes on the 4 Nations prize five months ago, long before he would officially be given the “C” for Team Canada.

Back in early September, Crosby helped organize an unofficial training camp of sorts under the watchful eye of Andy O’Brien, his longtime trainer, in Vail, Colorado. Among those invited to the event were some of Canada’s top players, including Avalanche center Nathan MacKinnon, who like Crosby is from Cole Harbour; Edmonton Oilers center Connor McDavid; and Toronto Maple Leafs forward Mitch Marner.

Crosby insists it wasn’t an official Canada team-bonding exercise, pointing out that there were players from other countries there as well. At the same time, he admits it was productive for some of the Canadians on hand to get the opportunity to develop chemistry and play together, something that could come in handy at the 4 Nations and the 2026 Olympics.

Marner, for one, was appreciative of the invite extended him by Crosby and O’Brien.

“It was great,” he said. “Getting to know Sid and some of those guys both on and off the ice, well, I was grateful that they asked me to join them.

“You get to know them on and off the ice a bit. Such great guys. And so much talent out there with guys like Sid, MacKinnon and McDavid.”

And, according to Team Canada and Tampa Bay Lightning coach Jon Cooper, it was just another example of Crosby’s leadership ability to bring players together for a common goal.

“It’s what he does,” Cooper said. “It’s who he is.

“Look at what he did [last] month when we were in Pittsburgh.”

Cooper was referring to a postgame scene after his team had defeated Crosby and the Penguins 5-2 on Jan. 12, a game in which Tampa Bay scored three goals in the final 3:03 to break a 2-2 tie. The uber-competitive Crosby was upset that victory had eluded the Penguins, but still took time to see Cooper afterward to chat about the 4 Nations.

At one point, Crosby asked Cooper to bring out Lightning forwards Brayden Point, Brandon Hagel and Anthony Cirelli, his future 4 Nations teammates, to talk about the upcoming tournament.

“He here is, angry that his team had just lost a game, and he put that aside to talk Team Canada with them,” Cooper said. “They sat there for 20 minutes. They were like kids in a candy store.

“That right there is what true leadership is.”

And, according to Tocchet, what Crosby is all about.

“It’s unbelievable,” Tocchet said. “He’s a guy that carries the torch, and is willing to pass the torch on when he’s done.

“That’s what he’s doing with Cirelli, Hagel, those guys. He basically comes in and says, ‘Hey, you guys are my teammates in a month, I just want to get to know you real quick and let you know what’s at stake.’ He’s done it with other players. I just think it goes so far with his teammates. They legitimately badly want to play with him, to be his teammate.”

[unsuitablepet]

If you are Canadian:

Please, for the love of God, write your MP, your MPP, and all the relevant cabinet ministers, and ESPECIALLY the premiers of Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Quebec (where most of our critical minerals are), and beg them - actually, demand that they cut off critical minerals to the United States.

This is not about tariffs or a trade war. It is about crippling their military as best as we can and ceasing their supply of the uranium required to build bombs. We as their neighbours are not safe and we are currently actively supplying them with the materials with which to hurt us. Much more immediately - their own people (and I am especially counting undocumented migrants and indigenous people who are currently being sent to camps) are not safe and we are supplying them with the equipment with which to oppress and commit horrific acts of violence against them.

This isn't a game, this isn't funny, and it isn't theoretical. Fascism has arrived in America and it keeps teasing genocide. They have announced the plan to create an Iron Dome for America - something that they would not at all need if it they weren't concerned about foreign intervention... if they weren't planning on doing something worth intervening on. So long as we are fueling the growth of their military, we are complicit in the horrors that they are hoping to inflict on their people and eventually on ours. There are limits to what we can do from here, but we can demand this.

I have drafted a template letter below. Please feel free to use it and share it as needed.

To the Honourable [Representative's Name - use their honorarium],

I am writing to you as a concerned Canadian citizen to urgently request that the Government of Canada, in collaboration with provincial leadership—especially in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Quebec—take immediate and decisive action to halt the export of critical minerals, including uranium, to the United States.

This appeal is not driven by economic considerations or trade disputes but by a profound moral and security imperative. The current trajectory of political developments in the United States poses an escalating threat to both regional and global stability. The militarization efforts south of our border, particularly the proposed establishment of an "Iron Dome" and the amplification of their military capabilities are deeply troubling. This, in combination with the dismantling of women's and LGBTQ rights, the establishment of offshore "camps" for migrants, and the surrender of classified information and critical government departments to an unelected oligarch, signal preparations for actions that could have devastating humanitarian and geopolitical consequences.

Canada's critical minerals are integral to the United States' military-industrial complex. As one of their largest suppliers, we are inadvertently enabling the potential for domestic oppression within the U.S., including actions against marginalized communities such as undocumented migrants and Indigenous populations, and increasing the likelihood of future aggression that could extend beyond their borders, directly impacting our own national security.

History has shown us that the facilitation of authoritarian regimes through resource support can lead to dire outcomes. As a nation that prides itself on upholding human rights, democracy, and international peace, Canada must not be complicit in actions that contradict these values. In continuing to supply their military with materials critical to their growth at this time, we are actively acting against these values, to potentially devastating consequences.

I respectfully but firmly demand that:

The Federal Government initiate immediate discussions to suspend all exports of critical minerals to the United States.

Provincial governments in all provinces collaborate to enforce these measures, recognizing their pivotal role in critical mineral production.

A comprehensive review be conducted to assess the ethical implications of Canada’s resource exports in relation to global security and human rights.

This is a matter of urgent ethical responsibility and national security. The time to act is now, before irreversible harm is done.

I look forward to your response and urge you in your capacity to take leadership in driving decisive action on this critical issue.

Sincerely,

[Your Full Name]

[jackied0minguez]

Remote Work Redefined: TopDevz CEO Ashkan Rajaee on the Future of Flexible Business

In a world where remote work has rapidly shifted from a temporary solution to a long-term strategy, TopDevz CEO Ashkan Rajaee is leading by example. Speaking ahead of the Ft. Lauderdale International Boat Show, Rajaee shared insights on how his company has seamlessly integrated remote operations into its DNA—and why he believes this model isn’t just a passing trend.

A New Kind of Software Solutions

TopDevz isn’t your typical tech firm. Comprising an elite team of software developers, designers, project managers, and quality assurance specialists based in the United States and Canada, the company tackles the unique challenges that conventional off-the-shelf software can’t resolve. Rajaee explains that while standard solutions can cover 80–90% of business needs, the remaining nuances often cause significant inefficiencies. TopDevz fills this gap by offering custom solutions designed to address those critical details, ensuring that their clients achieve peak operational efficiency. With an impressive 96% workforce retention rate and 63% of their business coming through referrals, the company’s model speaks volumes about its effectiveness and employee satisfaction.

Mastering Remote Operations

Long before the global pivot to remote work, TopDevz was already thriving in a fully virtual environment. Rajaee emphasizes that the success of remote operations lies in having the right infrastructure and clear communication channels. “Working remotely isn’t as simple as logging in from home,” he notes. “It demands disciplined processes and a commitment to best practices—elements we’ve honed over the years.” His team’s seamless transition during the pandemic only reinforced the idea that a well-organized remote workforce can outperform traditional office setups.

The Indefinite Future of Remote Work

For TopDevz, remote work isn’t a temporary workaround—it’s the future. Rajaee envisions a business landscape where companies can lower overhead costs while empowering employees to work from anywhere. This flexible model not only drives client satisfaction by reducing expenses but also enriches employees’ lives by allowing them to choose environments that inspire creativity and well-being.

Rajaee even shares a personal touch: his passion for working from a yacht. Equipped with reliable Wi-Fi and satellite services, his unconventional workspace symbolizes the freedom that remote work offers. “If your current job doesn’t support the lifestyle you aspire to, it’s time to consider other opportunities,” he advises. His own journey from renting a yacht to eventually making it part of his regular work life underscores the importance of aligning one’s career with personal values and ambitions.

Empowering the Next Generation of Remote Entrepreneurs

Beyond leading TopDevz, Rajaee is passionate about sharing his remote work philosophy. Through his “RemotePreneur” initiative, he provides aspiring entrepreneurs and professionals with a playbook for building successful remote companies. This resource addresses the nuanced challenges of remote business management—from overcoming financial stagnation in traditional roles to confronting the inevitable criticisms that come with venturing off the beaten path. Rajaee’s message is clear: true freedom in work comes from rethinking established norms and embracing the possibilities that remote operations can offer.

Embracing a New Era

As businesses around the globe continue to navigate the evolving work landscape, Ashkan Rajaee’s vision serves as a powerful reminder that remote work, when executed with precision and passion, can unlock unprecedented opportunities. His leadership at TopDevz demonstrates that with the right approach, remote operations can not only sustain but also drive innovation, employee satisfaction, and overall business growth.

In a time when flexibility and adaptability are more important than ever, Rajaee’s insights offer a compelling roadmap for companies eager to thrive in a remote-first world.

[eretzyisrael]

By JUDY SIEGEL-ITZKOVICH

The bestial crimes carried out by thousands of Hamas-led terrorists on October 7, 2023, were unspeakable – but the authors of a newly released 79-page report want the world to speak about them and spread the word.

Writing for the Civil Commission on October 7 Crimes by Hamas against Women and Children, they have even given it a name because at no time in history had this exact type of crime been committed. They called it “kinocide” – the targeting of families, calling it a new crime against humanity.

In preparation since February 2024, the report is authored by Dr. Cochav Elkayam-Levy, Dr. Michal Gilad, and Dr. Ilya Rudyak from the civil commission. The Raoul Wallenberg Center for Human Rights (RWCHR), under the leadership of former Canadian justice minister Irwin Cotler, with whom Elyakim-Levy decided on the term “kinocide.”

The horrific assault in southern Israel resulted in over 1,200 deaths and the kidnapping of more than 250 people, including men, women, children, infants, the elderly, and disabled people, all in one day. The heinous acts of murder, torture, gender-based violence, and abduction spurred the immediate formation of the commission.

What is Kinocide?

By coining the term kinocide, the report exposes the deliberate, widespread exploitation and destruction of familial bonds to intensify victims’ suffering, highlighting the profound and lasting harm inflicted on individuals, communities, and societies. She noted that the Dvora Institute calls for urgent international recognition of the term as it describes a new, distinct international crime against humanity and presents legal and policy recommendations to close gaps in international criminal law, ensure accountability, and prevent such atrocities in the future.

GENOCIDE, AS practiced by the Nazis, is directed against a group of people – “national, ethnical, racial or religious,” according to the UN’s 1948 Genocide Convention – but kinocide is a specific type of assault against a group, using the relationship between family members and their emotional, identity, cultural, symbolic, material and other bonds, as a way to maximize the intended harm of the attack.

In an interview with The Jerusalem Post, Elkayam-Levy – a leading international law expert who teaches at Reichman University in Herzliya and who founded and chairs the commission – said that the world must know. This includes government and religious leaders, the UN, parliamentarians, legislators, and members of the Hague International Criminal Court, which has castigated and “tried” in absentia Israeli leaders and threatened them and IDF officers with imprisonment.

She has already presented the report to 300 very influential leaders at the Halifax International Security Forum, an annual summit for international government and military officials, academic experts, authors, and entrepreneurs, held in Nova Scotia, Canada.

The acts of terrorist inhumanity included cutting women in their homes, murdering them, forcing their children to watch or coercing parents to watch what was done to their children, and then sending photos and videos to all the contacts on the victims’ mobile phones. There were 17 minutes of video in which families were murdered at a balloon-and-blood-filled party for a daughter’s 18th birthday.

Elkayam-Levy said that the commission is assembling an archive of videos, texts, photos, and more – many produced by Hamas – to document these crimes, giving a voice to the victims and raising awareness of war crimes committed against women, children, and families. For this work, she was awarded the prestigious 2024 Israel Prize, Israel’s highest civilian honor in the field of Solidarity, topping many other prestigious awards she has received.

The archive, she declared, will serve as a vital resource for research, education, and advocacy, ensuring that the stories of those impacted are preserved, recognized, and remembered for generations to come. “We will bear witness! The murders weren’t random but carried out systematically to create the most vicious effects,” she said.

[mariacallous]

What would a force hostile to the United States—a nation whose power has been the envy of the world for more than seven decades—do if it were able to set up an influential pipeline for policy ideas directly to the White House? Or, better yet, if it could somehow burrow into the mind of its president?

With so many points of U.S. strength, it is hard to know where to begin. One might start by fanning a backlash against the long-standing, if halting, trend in U.S. society toward inclusiveness, which has gradually sought to bring disfavored groups into the fold of the country’s prosperity. This might include waging a war against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives—one that, in its most Orwellian dimension, would extend to policing the use of words such as “bias,” “privilege,” and “equality” in government agencies.

One might pull the rug out from under a country sitting on the doorstop of Washington’s long-standing European allies, which has suffered invasion and continued assault from a revanchist autocracy bent on expansion. For instance, one might shy away from identifying Russia as the aggressor in Ukraine and sometimes blame the latter for the conflict, all while conceding major Russian war aims even before the start of peace negotiations.

One might criticize European democracies such as Germany for not providing more space to extreme-right political parties that have openly flirted with ideology reminiscent of the Nazis. Or one might disparage longtime friends and democratic allies, from Canada to Japan, saying that they are cheating the United States, imposing high tariffs on them, and demanding that they pay for the security protection they get from Washington.

One might ravage the staff and budget of the Internal Revenue Service, the body that collects the taxes that fund the government, while passing budget resolutions that will provide large tax breaks to the wealthy—all but ensuring massive increases in future budget deficits. While doing so, one might insinuate that Social Security—a pillar of the U.S. political compact since the Great Depression—is being fleeced by millions of phantom super-centenarians, whose relatives cheat the system by collecting benefit checks long after their deaths.

One might withdraw from United Nations bodies such as the Human Rights Council and the World Health Organization, thus ceding influence to countries that make no pretense of respecting human dignity and freedom, and ending U.S. leadership in combatting diseases that threaten people worldwide.

One might try to shutter the U.S. Agency for International Development, which provides technical assistance and funding to much poorer countries to boost their economic development while also bolstering U.S. soft power.

One might liquidate the country’s international broadcasting capacity, ending the delivery of relatively objective news to hundreds of millions of people who live under dictatorships, including in China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela.

One might seek to hinder the development of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind while pushing the acceleration of fossil fuel production, not only ensuring huge environmental damage, but also ceding U.S. leadership in a sector that is vital to future wealth and competition.

Why stop there, though? One could move to weaken a body such as the National Institutes of Health, which has long been a major force in the United States’ world-leading medical research, or even take a swipe at one its biggest recent triumphs: the breakneck development of the mRNA vaccine technology that helped the United States become a global leader in limiting the death toll of the COVID-19 pandemic.

There are so many ideas for how to sap Washington’s strength that one could imagine fatigue setting in among those charged with manning the pipeline to the president imagined at the outset of this column. But it turns out that U.S. President Donald Trump does not even need such a unit. And there is little sign of his administration slowing down its efforts to sap the country’s vitality. His team’s other ideas involve hindering nuclear safety and research for nuclear energy and weapons, degrading the country’s ability to monitor or even discuss global warming, and defunding weather forecasts. There are many more.

With a list as prodigious as this, it has taken me too long to get to perhaps the brightest, and most insidious, idea of all for bringing the United States down to the status of an average power: pursuing a campaign of destruction against the country’s world-leading universities. The Trump administration is already carrying this out on several fronts, with little sign that most Americans are concerned about or even aware of what is happening.

This campaign was signaled in advance by hostile rhetoric from conservatives such as Vice President J.D. Vance. Even before he was elected, Vance, himself a product of elite education, spoke of U.S. higher education as “the enemy.” Since Trump returned to office, his government has acted accordingly. It has moved to undercut federal support for university-based research, tightened visa access for international students, and made U.S. campuses a priority area in its war against diversity. Potentially most damaging of all, it has weaponized the idea of antisemitism as a tool to extend the government’s political control into university departments and classrooms.

Full disclosure: I have been a professor at Columbia University—ground zero for much of this campaign—for nearly two decades. Protests on my campus over Israel’s offensive tactics in Gaza have been the pretext for much of this; now, the Trump administration practically equates criticism of Israel with legally punishable antisemitism.

I lived and taught through the period of campus protests, and it is my sense that they were overwhelmingly peaceful, but I would never rule out the possibility that Jewish students were sometimes made to feel uncomfortable by the signs, slogans, or even taunts of some individual protestors. However, this should not be used to justify restricting one of the most vital U.S. freedoms and the essence of the country’s culture of excellence in higher education: free speech.

By arresting and seeking to deport Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia graduate and legal permanent resident of the United States, for participating in these protests, the administration has revealed its hand and shown that its war on education and war on speech are fundamentally intertwined. Not only has Khalil never been charged with a crime, but in interviews, Department of Homeland Security officials have been unable to clearly explain his alleged offense.

The punishments and supposed remedies run together. The Trump administration has canceled $400 million in government funding to Columbia unless the university fulfills a series of wildly unreasonable demands. This includes the requirement that Columbia’s department of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African studies be placed under “receivership,” which would remove oversight of the department from its faculty.

“We’re in the midst of an authoritarian takeover of the U.S. government. It’s been coming and coming, and not everybody is prepared to read it that way,” Lee Bollinger, Columbia’s longtime former president, said last week. “Our problem in part is a failure of imagination. We cannot get ourselves to see how this is going to unfold in its most frightening versions. You neutralize the branches of government; you neutralize the media; you neutralize the universities, and you’re on your way.”

Although routinely unacknowledged as such, the country’s universities are the crown jewel in its entire democratic system. Some, such as Harvard University, are considerably older than the nation itself. But more than that, the United States’ sense of itself—of law, of science, of the humanities—flows from its campuses and their great tradition of academic freedom, including free speech. This is also true of the United States’ economic, technological, and military prowess.

Universities have been able to buttress U.S. leadership largely because of their pull on ambitious people from all over the world, many of whom have fervently embraced U.S. ideals, becoming naturalized as citizens or spreading democratic values overseas. The powerful force that attracts them is built on more than individual hopes of wealth, or even of personal achievement. It is built on freedom, and once that ultimate value—practically an American brand—is destroyed, it may never be restored.

[fuckyeahmarxismleninism]

Haiti’s strife and chaos are in large part the result of a profound popular uprising by Haiti’s ever-growing lumpen-proletariat, led by an array of “ghetto” armed groups with different histories, ethics, levels of discipline, ideological outlooks, leadership styles, and survival strategies. But they all now agree (at least in principle) that Haiti’s “system” must change, and they are not willing to surrender the power that they now wield to the corrupt political class and its local bourgeois and foreign masters that once used them as pawns.

The imperialists are determined to crush this autonomous popular power, which could become even more dangerous if it learns, develops, embraces, and articulates more clearly a scientific, revolutionary, and consciously anti-imperialist and socialist outlook and programme in the near future.

In Washington’s eyes, this would be, in effect, the frightening emergence of another Cuba (only 50 miles away to the west) and that revolutionary virus could also “infect” the Dominican Republic, which shares the island of Hispaniola and is home to many Haitian migrants and Dominicans with Haitian parentage or family

[allthecanadianpolitics]

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will face mounting pressure from his caucus this week to step down from the leadership of the Liberal party. A group of backbench MPs, primarily from Atlantic Canada and southwestern Ontario, are in discussions to formally release an ask for the prime minister to consider the future of the Liberal party in making a decision about whether to stay at the helm of it. Though MPs for months have lamented behind closed doors, and yes even to reporters, that they were resigned in their belief the prime minister was staying on, things changed this week during caucus Wednesday.

Continue Reading

Tagging: @newsfromstolenland

[warrioreowynofrohan]

Books That Make You the Writer You Are

Thanks for the tag, @melestasflight!

I’m not sure how to answer this because I’m not used to thinking of myself as a writer! I never wrote fanfic or fiction of any kind until I fell into the Silm fandom in 2019 (like, I’d read the Silm many times before then, but I hasn’t discovered the online fandom), so I’m not really sure where it came from!

I’d have to say three big ones are 1) all of Tolkien’s works, especially The Silmarillion itself; 2) Jane Eyre; and 3) Les Misérables. All three are books that I reread regularly, and all three are ones thatI love for the combination of their prose, their themes, and their characters. A fourth is, honestly, The Bible, both in its themes and message and how The Silmarillion and Tolkien’s entire world is embedded in them, as well the effect of some of the writing (the Doom of Mandos feels like it could be from one of the prophets like Jeremiah).

Often the thing that will get me writing again if I’ve been stalled for a while is reading good prose. While I wouldn‘t say any of the following have necessarily made direct, specific impacts on my writing, some of my favourite books with great prose are Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier, Piranesi by Susanna Clarke, The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova, and parts of The Once and Future King by T.H. White. And in terms of poetry, the epic poetry of Sir Walter Scott (Marmion, The Lady of the Lake, The Lay of the Last Minstrel, Rokeby) has inspirational cadences, word choices, and images, and Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s Sonnets from the Portuguese has leant many vibes (not to mention a title) to my sole completed longfic, The Ashes at Thy Feet.

Though it’s less relevant to my fanfiction writing, I also love well-written non-fiction, so I’m just going to give a shout-out to some good ones. I wish we could recapture the old belles lettres style of historical writing that was meant to be beautiful rather than just informative, and combine it with the present day’s greater (in some cases) historical accuracy and rigour. Some of the better ones the present day has to offer are James McPherson’s Battle Cry of Freedom, on the American Civil War; Margaret MacMillan’s Paris 1919, on the negotiations at the end of the First World War and how they have shaped the modern world; Pierre Berton, Canada’s historian (the two best of his that I’ve read are Klondike, a great tale of the personalities and upheavals of the Klondike Gold Rush, and The Great Depression, an impassioned accounting of the failures and brutalities of governments – and the travails and achievements of regular people – in 1930s Canada; the latter will also give you an appreciation of FDR by showing a parallel case of a country that was in similar circumstances but lacked creative leadership); and pretty much anything by Ta-Nehisi Coates. For one piece of older writing, if you haven’t read Ulysses S. Grant’s Personal Memoirs, and you’re even slightly interested in the American Civil War, it’s a treat.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Taylor Noakes at TNR:

Though it has been something of a slow-burn news story on the American side of the world’s longest undefended border, President Donald Trump’s constant threats of annexation, along with his chaotic and unnecessary trade war, have accomplished something he probably never intended: He’s managed to unite Canada in a way few thought possible. What Trump doesn’t appear to realize is that doing so has also cost him, if not an ally, then at least a like-minded collaborator. It is perhaps the ultimate demonstration of Trump’s unmitigated ignorance that he may have ruined the prospects of the most Trumpian politician in Canadian history. Trump’s unjustified and inexcusable attack on Canada’s sovereignty has reversed the very political trends that have developed in Canada over the last several years that might have been to his advantage. Trump has united Canada against not only him but perhaps the United States as a whole, for generations to come.

The future of Canada didn’t look very promising throughout 2024. The federal government appeared weak and ineffectual while certain provincial premiers routinely challenged federal authority in key areas of jurisdiction. A general affordability crisis worsened as inflation grew and the value of the Canadian dollar fell to lows not seen in decades. Battered by decades of chronic underfunding, Canada’s health care system seemed on the verge of collapse. Calls for former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to resign grew with intensity throughout the year, while polling suggested his chief rival, Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre, would easily win the election scheduled for 2025 with a commanding majority. Poilievre was far from a unifying voice in Canadian politics; he opted instead for exceptionally divisive rhetoric designed to appeal to his die-hard supporters first and foremost. Among Poilievre’s preferred rhetorical devices was his assertion that “Canada is broken.” Much like Trump, Poilievre often seemed to be the one doing the breaking, and offering little more than catchphrases as a stand-in for real policy. Poilievre is unnecessarily combative and hostile with Canadian journalists, despite Canadian news media’s conservative bias. He has repeatedly called for defunding the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, or CBC—Canada’s national public broadcaster and a cornerstone of Canadian cultural identity—calling it a propaganda arm of the Liberal Party of Canada (sound familiar?), despite the fact that studies of CBC News coverage show it tends to benefit Canada’s conservatives.

Poilievre was also a major opponent of Canada’s generally successful Covid-19 pandemic response, and has unsuccessfully promoted legislation to oppose vaccine mandates for federal workers and the traveling public. More significantly, Poilievre was a visible supporter of the so-called Freedom Convoy of early 2022, a national protest movement against pandemic containment measures that ultimately evolved into a prolonged occupation of parts of downtown Ottawa, and which was arguably inspired by the January 6 riot. It was his support of this protest in particular that is credited with having given Poilievre an edge in the 2022 Conservative Party leadership contest over his more centrist rival. Poilievre has also received many of the same far-right endorsements as Trump, including those of Elon Musk, Jordan Peterson, Conrad Black, and Ben Shapiro. If Trump wanted Canada to be the fifty-first state, Poilievre might have made an excellent collaborationist governor. But, as Frank Sinatra once sang,“Then I go and spoil it all by saying something stupid.”

Trudeau finally capitulated to abysmal polling numbers and the very real threat that his Liberal Party might be wiped out in the 2025 election by announcing his resignation on January 6, 2025. Poilievre’s ascendancy to the prime ministership, with a majority government no less (guaranteeing him a minimum four-year term), seemed certain. Then Donald Trump started talking about annexation, slapped tariffs on Canadian exports, and started a trade war, falsely claiming that fentanyl was coming into the United States through Canada, and that the U.S. was “subsidizing” Canada to the tune of $200 billion per year. The reality is actually the opposite: Less than 1 percent of all fentanyl entering the U.S. comes from Canada, and there are at least three different ways in which Canada subsidizes the U.S., including via secure, low-cost energy exports.

[...]

Far more significant is the reversal of Poilievre’s once sky-high fortunes. Having built much of his political identity as an “anti-Trudeau,” antiestablishment faux populist, in the same vein as Trump and his ilk, Poilievre now finds himself both without a nemesis on which to blame all of Canada’s problems and appearing too close—in ideology as much as personality—to the number one enemy of the Canadian public. Recent polling suggests that not only has Poilievre lost his once formidable leadin the race to become Canada’s next prime minister but that Trudeau’s successor—the economist Mark Carney—may even lead the governing Liberal Party back to a parliamentary majority for the first time in six years. Put another way, if this occurs, it would be the single most startling reversal in Canadian political history, by a considerable margin. The ascendancy of Poilievre was all but guaranteed when Trudeau announced his resignation in early January. Had Trump not threatened Canada with tariffs, and instead simply waited for the federal election, he may very well have been negotiating with Poilievre.

And despite Poilievre’s more than 20 years serving as a parliamentarian—which has included stints as a junior Cabinet minister and his more recent foray into the leadership of Canada’s right-wing Conservative Party—he remains something of a political neophyte. Elected fresh out of college, Poilievre is the epitome of a career politician but otherwise has no career, nor profession to speak of. Moreover, a key Poilievre ally—Jamil Jivani—is close friends with Vice President JD Vance. Where this may have once been mentioned as a potential strength of an incoming Poilievre administration—a direct and personal connection to the White House—it is now seen as a major liability as Poilievre tries to rebrand himself as a patriot. Though it isn’t really helping, Trump has further insulted Poilievre by saying he’s “not a MAGA guy.” However much Poilievre may be trying to live up to Trump’s statement, it’s abundantly obvious in Canada that Poilievre is being dragged down by the same “Maple MAGA” movementthat convinced Trudeau to resign and brought Poilievre so close to the halls of power in the first place. It’s still not clear when Canadians will go to the polls to choose their next government (it could happen any time between late April and late October). Still, Mark Carney has momentum few observers ever would have imagined for an economist with no prior political experience. Carney’s experience running the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England is likely to appeal to a broad swath of Canadian voters. He has taken credit for steering Canada through the worst of the 2008 financial crisis and for keeping Great Britain afloat during Brexit. There are few people with his set of skills and professional experience, and it’s looking like this will be an easy choice come election time. If the results of the Liberal Party leadership race are any indication, Carney may secure a majority government for his party, demolish Poilievre, and perhaps even take down the personality cult that is Poilievre’s Conservative Party (Carney won on the first ballot, virtually unheard of, with 86 percent of the vote).

Though Carney is unlikely to feign progressive ideals, as Trudeau did to get elected a decade ago, Canadian progressives may see in him something better than simply the lesser evil. A Carney majority government would likely present a formidable challenge to Trump while simultaneously bringing about a sea change in Canadian politics. If current polling is accurate, not only will Carney vanquish Poilievre and his increasingly far-right Conservative Party, but he may also prove fatal to Canada’s traditional progressive party, the New Democratic Party, or NDP, including the potential loss of official party status. This may ultimately result in Canada’s conservatives moving back toward the center and encourage the NDP to move further left (Canadian progressives have blamed the party’s centrist slide for its poor performance in the last several federal elections).

This notwithstanding, a Carney victory would be an unambiguous message from the Canadian public that Trump must be opposed at all costs and therefore that the vulnerabilities of continental interconnectedness should be corrected as quickly as possible. If this means transitioning away from economic integration with the U.S., who better than Carney to manage such a transition? This may appeal to some Canadian progressives who recognize free trade with the U.S. as a foundational problem that has eroded Canadian political and economic sovereignty, as much as its social safety net and culture, for more than a generation. Though Carney is an exceptionally well-connected establishment figure with a decidedly neoliberal track record, Trump’s existential threat to Canada may necessitate a broad national effort to economic independence and self-sufficiency that’s incompatible with neoliberalism. Canadians seem eager to fight back as much as imagine a new, better, and perhaps more autonomous and independent future. They may end up with a shift in the status quo that doesn’t involve cozying up to the madman in the White House.

Donald Trump’s bullying of Canada managed to unite Canada together… against him, regardless of political leaning or language spoken.

The Liberal Party of Canada and its new PM, Mark Carney, is reaping the benefits at the polls.

[immunobiz]

🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦 Le pouvoir et le gain personnel ne devraient jamais primer sur le bien-être des citoyens. 🇨🇦 Il est essentiel de tenir nos dirigeants responsables et d’exiger de l’intégrité dans leurs actions. Luttons pour un avenir où l’honnêteté, la transparence et un véritable service envers les Canadiens sont nos priorités ! 💪✨

Power and personal gain should never come before the welfare of the people. 🇨🇦 It's essential to hold our leaders accountable and demand integrity in their actions. Let's strive for a future where honesty, transparency, and true service to Canadians lead the way! 💪✨ 🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦

[whencyclopedia]

Embattled Nation: Canada's Wartime Election of 1917

In the midst of one of the most turbulent periods in Canada’s history, Patrice Dutil and David Mackenzie delve into what they deem as the most significant and tumultuous elections since confederation. Their work, 'Embattled Nation: Canada’s Wartime Election of 1917 ', meticulously explores the 1917 election between Conservative leader Sir Robert Borden and the Liberal opposition of Sir Wilfred Laurier.  

Patrice Dutil and David MacKenzie provide a detailed and well-researched account of Canada's political and social landscape during World War I, focusing on the 1917 election and the issue of conscription. The book is commendable for its extensive use of evidence and meticulous documentation of events, offering readers a thorough understanding of the period's complexities. Their use of diary entries and personal accounts from Borden, Laurier, and those around them gives a sense of authenticity to the events being described. The book also provides a thorough context for the period with extensive maps, statistics, election information, and statistics of the war effort that effectively paint the scene of 1917. Finally, this book helpfully contextualizes the existing linguistic and cultural divides between French and English Canada which would aid readers greatly in future discussions.

However, despite its solid evidentiary foundation, the book falls short in convincingly arguing that the 1917 election was the most contentious in Canadian history and that it nearly saw the collapse of the confederation. The authors emphasize the deep divisions between English and French Canadians and describe how conscription became a central and divisive issue. Yet, they also acknowledge that there was majority support for the Union government and conscription, which complicates their argument about the election nearly breaking up the country.

Portraying the election as a moment that almost led to the dissolution of Canada seems somewhat overstated. While the authors provide ample evidence of French-Canadian opposition and the resulting social unrest, they do not fully reconcile this with the broader national support for the Union government and the conscription policy. This oversight weakens their central thesis about the election's unparalleled contentiousness. While it is true that perhaps this election did deepen the divide between French and English Canada, it did not do so to the extent to which one could say that the country was near collapse, at least not with the way this book presented its evidence.

While it is true, by the provided evidence, that much of French Canada vehemently opposed conscription, they did not oppose the country as a whole, with a referendum to succeed, having only marginal support and never actually making it to a vote on the Quebec parliamentary floor. There were indeed protests and riots during the time. Still, they were fed by feelings of alienation and betrayal by the Borden government, not the Confederation, with Laurie receiving much support from French Canada. It is accurate to say that both the Liberal and Conservative governments were almost torn apart, yet, in the end, both parties survived relatively unscathed under the united leadership of Laurier and Borden, respectively.

Patrice Dutil is a Professor in Toronto Metropolitan University's Politics and Public Administration Department while David Mackenzie is a Professor in the university's History Department. Overall, Embattled Nation is a valuable resource for understanding the political dynamics of wartime Canada and the cultural rift between English and French Canadians. It provides an often unexplored context to the First World War in Canada, giving insight into the French-English divide, one of Canada's most prevailing conflicts. To understand the impacts of the First World War on Canada, one must first understand how the war impacted the home front. However, its assertion that the 1917 election was the most divisive in Canadian history could have been more convincingly articulated, given the authors' admissions of widespread support for the Union government and conscription from a majority part of the Country. Perhaps refining the thesis to focus more on the French-English connection rather than the election itself with an increased focus on the protests and riots would make for an overall more convincing argument. Meanwhile, it is accurate to say that the 1917 election was pushed by issues surrounding conscription; the election itself was fairly unanimous thanks to the political maneuvering by the Borden government. With more focus on those aspects and a closer examination of the reactions to said maneuverings, the argument that this period in Canadian history was the most tumultuous becomes more evident and more convincing.

Continue reading...

[fastenoffyal]

"Amplifying the leadership of persons with disabilities for an inclusive and sustainable future"

December 3 is the International Day for Persons with Disabilities. This day promotes an understanding of disability issues, and mobilizes support for the dignity, rights, and well-being of people with disabilities. We're big into this kind of support - it's one of the principles (perhaps the most crucial principle!) upon which our event was founded. Accessibility - true accessibility - is so much more than wheelchair ramps and alt text on webpage images. We encourage everybody to learn more. To that end, we're highlighting some terrific relevant resources, including resources related to the fibre arts, and some links to help you search for makers with disabilities.

The UN's webpage on the IDPD

Accessibility resources from Accessibility Services Canada (tons of great resources linked to from here)

W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0

Accessibility & inclusivity articles from Digits & Threads

Why accessibility is important in the crafting world

Accessibility resources from experts and PWD

Return on Disability's 2024 annual report

FOYAL 2024 participating designers with disabilities

Yarn Database's designer search (you can filter for designers with disabilities)

[klbmsw]

This has been under-reported in my opinion. When Congress passed the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in 1977, the intent was clear, give the president a nimble tool to respond to grave external threats to national security. It was not meant to be a lever for trade wars, economic bullying, or personal vendettas. Yet here we are, watching Donald Trump invoke IEEPA as the legal backbone for a sweeping, chaotic, and likely unconstitutional set of global tariffs.

On its face, Trump’s maneuvering is baffling, a 10% baseline tariff on all imported goods, with additional targeted spikes reaching as high as 54%. Allies like Canada and the EU are lumped in with adversaries like China. Retaliation has been swift and severe. Markets have plummeted. And the Federal Reserve, caught off guard, has issued rare warnings about the inflationary and destabilizing effects. Even Trump loyalist Elon Musk has lost $12 billion in a single day, and is publicly distancing himself from the policy.

But there’s something deeper at play here. Trump isn’t just trying to shift trade balances. He’s using the legal architecture of national emergency to sidestep Congress entirely. The IEEPA allows the executive to block transactions, freeze assets, and act swiftly in crises. But nowhere does it explicitly authorize tariff-setting as a tool of emergency economic defense. In fact, no previous president has interpreted it this way.

Enter the paradox: a law meant to protect the U.S. from international threats is now being used to threaten the global economy on behalf of the U.S. And in doing so, Trump may have transformed America into the very threat IEEPA was intended to guard against.

This is not lost on legal scholars, or even some conservatives. A new lawsuit filed by the conservative-backed New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), with ties to Leonard Leo and Charles Koch, argues that Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose across-the-board tariffs is a blatant overreach. The suit, brought on behalf of a small Florida stationery business, points out that there’s no legal nexus between Trump’s declared opioid emergency and a global tariff regime. The tariffs, the plaintiffs argue, are clearly about shrinking the trade deficit, not combatting fentanyl.

GOP lawmakers are also beginning to balk. Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley and Rand Paul have joined Democrats in opposing Trump’s emergency declaration. In the House, Nebraska Rep. Don Bacon is preparing a bill that would require congressional approval for future tariffs imposed under IEEPA or similar authorities. And while House Republican leadership is trying to shield members from a floor vote, resistance is building beneath the surface.

Economically, the fallout is just beginning. Tariff-induced inflation is pushing the U.S. toward stagflation: low growth, high prices, and no clear escape hatch. Meanwhile, international trust in U.S. economic leadership is evaporating. Canada and the EU have already pledged to retaliate. Even Vietnam, once seen as an alternative to Chinese manufacturing, is reevaluating its relationship with the U.S.

So what’s the endgame? Some analysts believe this chaos is the point. By creating a self-inflicted economic emergency, Trump sets the stage to further consolidate executive control, particularly over the Fed, which Project 2025 aims to place under White House authority. With the economy in freefall and inflation surging, Trump could argue that only bold, centralized leadership can save the country. The Fed, Congress, and any institution that resists could be cast as obstructionist or even traitorous.

By using this emergency authority to launch a unilateral economic assault on allies and rivals alike, Trump has essentially weaponized a national security statute for personal economic ideology and political dominance. The resulting chaos, tariffs without congressional input, retaliatory moves from Canada, the EU, and Asia, and global markets in freefall, is making the U.S. look less like a stabilizing superpower and more like a rogue state with nukes and a printing press.

The paradox is chilling! Trump declares an economic emergency to fight foreign threats... by becoming one himself. And in bypassing Congress to “defend the people,” he is stripping the people’s representatives of their constitutional role.

IEEPA wasn’t designed for this. The founders didn’t design the presidency for this. And the American people shouldn’t tolerate it.

#IEEPA#TradeWar#ForeignPolicy

[persistresist]

Left and Center-Left Politics

Welcome back to Persist and Resist! This is the blog where I try to make sense of what is happening in America and the world around me. Our last post took a look at far-left governments, and we found that Democrats in America do not really resemble the anarchist or communist governments of the radical left.

The “far-left radicals” in America align more with liberal left and more moderate, center-left politics.

Left and Center-Left Politics

Progressivism

A strong example of a progressive government is New Zealand under Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern from 2017-2023.

Ardern’s leadership focused on social justice, environmental sustainability, and inclusive leadership. They prioritized science-based policies, community welfare, and strong public healthcare.

Democratic Socialism

Norway is a prominent example of democratic socialism which combines capitalism with strong government involvement to ensure workers’ rights and economic equality.

Democratic socialists want universal healthcare for all, free education, and strong labor rights. Notice this is different from the socialism found in Venezuela in the early 2000s. Democratic socialist countries rank among the top countries for quality of life and happiness.

Modern Liberalism

Canada under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reflects a modern liberal government.

Modern liberals want a capitalist, free-market economy with government regulation to prevent abuse. They emphasize civil rights, universal healthcare, and climate action. Modern Liberal countries also rank high in quality of life.

While Republicans might think that they see a lot of similarities between Democrats and real far-left governments, the only true similarities I can see are that the American left does want to think of the collective, or community, first rather than the individual or the corporation being first. They don’t want collective ownership of land or businesses, and they don’t want a classless, stateless society like you might find in a communist country.

Democrats still support a capitalist economy, but they want to ensure that workers are treated fairly. They emphasize taking care of our planet and our people for future generations.

So why do you think Republicans oppose these ideologies?

[mariacallous]

As Moldova hurtles toward critical elections on Sunday, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Malicious actors, bankrolled by foreign sources, are working to sway the country’s public. And their target? President Maia Sandu — fighting not only for reelection but for her country’s future as a European democracy.

 As Moldova’s first female president, Sandu’s candidacy has become ground zero for a flurry of gendered disinformation attacks, all designed to undermine her leadership and derail the nation’s EU membership referendum, which coincides with the election.

This is no ordinary election. It’s an all-out assault on Moldova’s sovereignty, and at the heart of the battle lies one simple truth: Whoever controls the narrative determines Moldova’s future.

In a crowded field of 10 candidates, Sandu’s still expected to win the first round, despite being buffeted by efforts to weaken and discredit her and the women serving in her administration. These attacks are gendered, insidious and relentless, looking to exploit traditional gender norms in a country where 97 percent of the population believes women should be “cherished and protected by men.”

But this isn’t about traditional values — it’s about manipulating them to maintain Russia’s grip on Moldova.

Disinformation targeting female leaders isn’t just a women’s issue. It’s a democracy issue; it’s a human rights issue; and in the digital age, it’s also a matter of national security. These weaponized lies are meant to fracture the foundations of participatory governance and erode trust in democracy.

Our organization, #ShePersisted, has been tracking these toxic trends since 2022, identifying common gendered narratives aimed at women in politics across major digital platforms in countries like Italy, Hungary and Ukraine. Now, it’s Moldova that’s become the latest battleground in Russia’s destabilization playbook.

The parallels to the U.S. are striking here. Much like Vice President Kamala Harris, who has similarly been the target of disinformation campaigns, Sandu’s candidacy has been a lightning rod for misogyny cloaked in political rhetoric. And just as we’ve seen false claims about Harris’s identity and qualifications, Moldova’s social media platforms are awash with deepfake videos and conspiracy theories aimed at the sitting president.

Both women have dealt with an onslaught of digital attacks designed to weaken the public’s trust in their leadership — attacks that are gendered, racist and xenophobic — and it’s no accident these narratives spread so easily. Social media algorithms reward the most divisive content. For the Kremlin, manipulating online discourse by gaming algorithms is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel, all thanks to the oligarchs of tech that foster this environment, where digital distortions flourish in the name of keeping users hooked and advertisers paying.

In Moldova in particular, the malign actors are explicitly pro-Russian, using inauthentic and coordinated behavior to seed and amplify their attacks. And the campaigns are part of a broader strategy to destabilize the country, oust pro-European Sandu and drag Moldova back into Russia’s orbit.

The Kremlin’s use of deepfakes and false narratives — claiming Ukrainian F-16s will soon land on Moldovan soil and fabricating stories about compulsory EU-mandated “sexual education” — mirrors the chaos it tried to sow in the 2016 U.S. election. Its methods, however, have become more sophisticated. According to a joint statement by the U.S., Canada, and the U.K., Russia is now actively using “disinformation, criminal and covert activities, and corruption to undermine sovereignty and democratic processes” in the upcoming Moldovan elections.

Despite the red alert, though, it’s still largely U.S.-based digital media companies that are acting as modern-day conflict profiteers.

Earlier this year, #ShePersisted combined social listening with forensic data analytics to understand the toxicity directed at women leaders in Moldova. The results? A chilling glimpse into the future of global disinformation campaigns.

From deepfakes of Sandu resigning while wearing a hijab to offers of bribes for voters to reject Moldova’s EU integration, the manipulation is as multifaceted as it is dangerous.

In one case, exiled oligarch and opposition leader Ilan Shor — widely seen as “Moscow’s man in Moldova” — used Facebook to run hundreds of ads that were viewed 155 million times. And the fact that he could do this while not, in fact, being in Moldova is a testament to the power online infrastructure afforded him, as Meta has repeatedly failed to track and remove these coordinated campaigns.

But the threats aren’t confined to political manipulation. Human traffickers and scam artists are leveraging these same platforms to victimize Moldovans too. In a country where 80 percent of the population is deeply concerned about human trafficking, social media platforms have become the primary tool for traffickers, targeting vulnerable women and girls.

And what has Meta done? Almost nothing. Regardless of clear abuse, social media giants continue to prioritize profits over safety, allowing both gendered disinformation and criminal exploitation to thrive.

For Moldova, the road ahead is now fraught with peril— it’s a path the U.S. knows all too well. And as Sandu prepares for a tight election, the parallels between the challenges faced by women leaders worldwide are impossible to ignore.

Whether it’s Harris or Sandu, gendered disinformation is among the most powerful tools bad actors use to erode democratic progress around the world today. And if social media platforms don’t step up to enforce their own rules — removing posts inciting violence, disabling accounts that spread gendered falsehoods and curtailing the amplification of disinformation — they’ll continue to be complicit in corrosion of democracy.

Moldova’s election isn’t just a fight for one woman’s political future, it’s a fight for the future of democracy itself. Like any good fight, it requires action — in this case, both online and off. And if we fail to address the weaponization of gendered disinformation now, the next battlefield could be much nearer to home.