'Nuclear power is another possibility, but not for a while'

It's even worse news for America's global standing...

DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—A top official within Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Cabinet abruptly resigned, citing growing policy disagreements on how the country should respond to tariff threats posed by President-elect Donald Trump and his “America First” economic agenda. Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland officially resigned from Trudeau’s Cabinet on Monday, according to a letter she posted publicly and delivered to the prime minister. Freeland’s letter—which came just hours before she was supposed to deliver an address on border security with the U.S.—marks the latest turmoil to beset Trudeau’s government as he deals with a more adversarial partner in the incoming Trump administration and his Liberal Party remains beleaguered with poor poll numbers. “On Friday, you told me you no longer want me to serve as your Finance Minister and offered me another position in the cabinet,” Freeland wrote to Trudeau. “Upon reflection, I have concluded that the only honest and viable path is for me to resign from the cabinet.” The finance minister said the two had found themselves “at odds” in the past few weeks over how to find the best path forward for the country. However, she appeared to take particular umbrage with how to approach the “aggressive economic nationalism” presented by Trump, who has threatened Canada and Mexico with sweeping tariffs unless both countries do more to stop the flow of illegal immigration and illicit drugs. The U.S.-Canada border, while never experiencing the level of activity seen annually at the southern border, has witnessed an uptick in activity in recent time. There were more than 23,000 encounters by made Border Patrol agents in fiscal year 2024, more than doubling the 10,000 encounters experienced the previous fiscal year, according to Customs and Border Protection data. “Our country today faces a grave challenge,” Freeland wrote. “The incoming administration in the United States is pursuing a policy of aggressive economic nationalism, including a threat of 25 per cent tariffs.” “We need to take that threat extremely seriously,” she continued. “That means keeping our fiscal powder dry today, so we have the reserves we may need for a coming tariff war.” Trump, fresh off his electoral landslide victory over Vice President Kamala Harris earlier in November, declared on social media that he would be imposing 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada unless their governments met his demands on illegal immigration and other issues. The threat has since set off a series of reactions from both Canadian and Mexican governments. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum issued a public letter that gave her government credit for the drop in migrant encounters along the southern border and blamed the U.S. for the number of guns in Mexico. Sheinbaum also notably warned that the Mexican government would have a “response in kind” if Trump moves forward with his threat to slap a 25% tariff on all of her country’s goods. In what has been a more diplomatic approach so far, Trudeau reached out to Trump to discuss the situation and later said he “had a good call” with the president-elect. The Liberal Party leader soon afterward visited Trump at his Mar-a-Lago residence and detailed what more the Canadian government is doing to bolster border security. The Mexican government has already been dealing with the fallout of the tariff threats, with a slate of major international businesses suggesting that they would cease investments in the country until more clarity is given on the situation. Freeland’s resignation appears to show that the tariff threats are also wreaking havoc north of the border, with top officials disagreeing on how to respond. “That means pushing back against ‘America First’ economic nationalism with a determined effort to fight for capital and investment and the jobs they bring,” Freeland said, speaking on how Canada should deal with Washington, D.C. “That means working in good faith and humility with the Premiers of the provinces and territories of our great and diverse country, and building a true Team Canada response.” Trudeau, who has served as prime minister of Canada since November 2015, may not be the country’s leader following elections next year. Recent surveys indicate his Liberal Party will face a beating at the voting booth in October 2025 against the Conservative Party, led by Member of Parliament Pierre Poilievre. The Conservative Party leader is also viewed by Canadians as better equipped to work with Trump, according to a new Ipsos poll. In response to the threat of tariffs from the incoming Trump administration, Poilievre has called for the Canadian government to beef up border security and tighten visa rules on legal immigration. “What we are seeing is the government of Canada itself is spiraling out of control, right before our eyes and at the very worst time,” Poilievre said during a press conference Monday in reaction to the news, in which he detailed the country’s dire economic situation and political instability of the Trudeau government. “Out of control immigration has led to refugee camps opening in suburban Canada and then we have 500,000 in the country illegally, according to government estimates.” “We cannot accept this kind of chaos, division, weakness while we’re staring down the barrel of 25% tariff from our biggest trading partner and closest ally, which by the way is headed by a newly elected president with a strong and fresh mandate, a man who can spot weakness from a mile away,” he continued. Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation The post Trudeau’s Liberal Government Tears Itself Apart as It Scrambles to Address Trump’s Tariff Threats appeared first on The Daily Signal.

DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—The top Democratic member of the House committee on the Chinese Communist Party, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, urged the Biden administration Sunday on Fox News to be more “forthcoming” with information regarding multiple drone sightings on the East Coast, warning that the CCP could be accessing data through them. In early December, New Jersey residents began expressing concerns after witnessing a series of unidentified drones swarming the skies and flying in formation on some occasions, according to video footage obtained by the Daily Caller. On “Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo,” host Maria Bartiromo asked the Illinois lawmaker if he had “any information” on the drones flying over the U.S., pressing him on whether he believes it’s Chinese surveillance. “I don’t know. But what I do know is that I think that the administration needs to be more forthcoming with information that they have. If they believe that some of these lights in the sky are civilian aircraft, then show us,” Krishnamoorthi said. “Secondly, I’m getting a classified briefing along with my fellow Republicans and Democrats as to the nature of these drones. So we need as much information as possible. With regard to Chinese manufactured drones, I’m very concerned about that, Maria.” “Actually, I and [Rep.] Elise Stefanik and others have gotten legislation put into the National Defense Authorization Act, which would prevent DJI drones and others potentially from flying over American airspace. Why? Because these Chinese manufactured drones allow for the CCP, the Chinese Communist Party, to access data in a backdoor manner and ultimately surveil Americans,” Krishnamoorthi added. In September, Stefanik’s, R-N.Y., legislation, the Countering CCP Drones Act, passed the House. If approved by the Senate and signed by President Joe Biden, it would ban drones made by the Chinese-owned manufacturer Da Jiang Innovations (DJI) from operating on U.S. communications infrastructure. Bartiromo continued to press Krishnamoorthi on how the FBI has been warning Americans about Chinese threats, asking why the U.S. government would buy drones from DJI, as the company has been flagged by the Department of Defense as a “Chinese military company.” “Because they’re cheap,” Krishnamoorthi said. “But the problem is you are basically sacrificing our national security in the name of buying more inexpensive drones. In the process, you’re preventing a domestic drone industry from getting stood up. So what we’re saying is, ‘No, you cannot use tax dollars to buy this stuff.’” “We are incentivizing American drone manufacturers to make more so that there are more trusted partners making these drones that law enforcement or others can buy,” Krishnamoorthi concluded. Since the drone sightings, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have expressed concerns over the issue. On Thursday, a New Jersey homeowner reported that a drone had crashed into their backyard, with local authorities later revealing the object was “a hobby or toy type of drone” and not one used militarily, according to the New York Post. Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation The post Dem Rep Urges Biden Admin to Be More ‘Forthcoming’ on Drones, Warns How CCP May Be Accessing Backdoor Data appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. TikTok’s future in the United States hangs in the balance as the company takes its fight against a looming federal ban to the nation’s highest court. On Monday, TikTok and its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, petitioned the Supreme Court for an emergency injunction to halt a law that demands the app’s divestiture by January 19 or risks an outright ban. We obtained a copy of the petition for you here. The law, passed by Congress in April, stems from intensifying concerns over national security. US officials, including the Justice Department, argue that TikTok’s access to vast amounts of sensitive user data—ranging from geolocation information to private communications—poses an unparalleled risk. They also allege the app can manipulate the content seen by American users, branding it a tool of significant influence from a foreign adversary. However, TikTok staunchly denies these allegations, asserting that it has never shared, nor would it share, US user data with the Chinese government. TikTok’s legal battle reached an impasse earlier this month when the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit rejected its arguments, as well as those of some users, that the law infringes on First Amendment rights. With the deadline looming, TikTok has warned that enforcement of the ban could irreparably harm its business. Legal filings describe the platform as one of the most significant free speech arenas in the United States, with countless businesses, content creators, and advertisers relying on its operations. The company argues that there is no immediate threat to national security and urges the Supreme Court to evaluate the law’s legality before irreversible damage is done. It also notes that a delay could allow the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump to reconsider the law. Trump, who once sought to ban TikTok in 2020, shifted his stance during his recent campaign, vowing to protect the app. Trump is meeting with TikTok CEO Shou Chew today at his Mar-a-Lago Club. Critics, however, argue that targeting TikTok sets a troubling precedent. TikTok has described the ban as a “radical departure” from America’s historic commitment to an open internet and accused lawmakers of basing their actions on speculative fears. The potential shutdown could devastate TikTok’s ability to retain users, attract advertisers, and support its network of content creators and employees. Furthermore, it could embolden broader crackdowns on foreign-owned apps. As the January 19 deadline looms, the Supreme Court’s decision will not only determine TikTok’s fate but also set a precedent for how far the US government can go in restricting access to global platforms. The case underscores the delicate balance between safeguarding national security and upholding the principles of free speech and an open internet. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post TikTok, Facing Looming Ban, Petitions Supreme Court appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Shooting at Christian School in Madison, Wisconsin

No play or musical is safe, at this point, from being re-written into a woke cliche. But if you didn’t think a classic could be done any more injustice than by turning Oz gay, Broadway just employed our Supreme Court’s DEI judge to ruin Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet! ?Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appears in “& Juliet,” a modern, queer retelling of Romeo and Juliet.pic.twitter.com/ursNlvpSRo — Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) December 16, 2024 Broadway recently began offering their audiences a chance to empty their wallets on the musical, & Juliet, a feminist revision of the old bard’s tale that casts Romeo completely out of the picture. The tortured take, which recycles overplayed pop songs as their official score, decides Juliet doesn’t “need no man” because she’s a strong independent woman, of course! So they thought… What better way to promote that message than by rewarding Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who doesn’t know what a woman is, with a cameo? In a performance riddled with second-hand embarrassment, Jackson marched out on stage, Saturday night, wearing a pants-dress getup. “FEMALE EMPOWERMENT! SIIICK!” She recited one line to an audience of shrieking liberal women. The small bits and pieces of her display shared online makes it difficult to understand how her made-up role contributes to even the woke re-write, let alone the undoctored Shakespeare piece.  “I think that what I like about it is that I am having a very strongly negative reaction to it. Like I hate it!” states another line Jackson gave onstage. While we don’t know what exactly her “character” was referring to here, I share that reaction. Just for different reasons

MSNBC’s Sunday shows followed a characteristically redundant script while discussing the newly reached settlement in President-elect Trump’s defamation suit with ABC News. The hosts were evidently convinced that the case spelled disaster for the “free press” as the Republicans realized their malicious plans, straight from the “playbook in authoritarianism.” The Weekend co-host Symone Sanders ironically reassured viewers that MSNBC’s standards department “is always making sure that we are keeping the bar high, and substantive, and accurate,” apparently confident that ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos met that standard in his March interview with Congresswoman Nancy Mace (R-SC). She further worried about the “chilling effect” the settlement would have on the media.   “It’s insane.” MSNBC’s @SymoneDSanders on @TheWeekendMSNBC re ABC’s $15 million defamation settlement in which @GStephanopoulos must personally pay Trump $1 million for cost of lawyers despite, she insisted, the accuracy of what he said. pic.twitter.com/USL2uHR3sk — Brent Baker ?? ?? (@BrentHBaker) December 15, 2024   Co-host Michael Steele wondered what exactly the money could be used for and indignantly pointed out that “they didn’t even have an account set up for this…they have no place to put [it].”  He decided that the case was proof of an “easily manipulated” legal system and a media space “willing to blow past the obvious problems with this incoming administration,” even though the regime media’s attacks on the Trump administration have not ceased since his first term. During the show’s second hour, Sanders reiterated MSNBC’s commitment to accuracy and the truth before firmly deciding, “this seems quite targeted and I don't think George Stephanopoulos was wrong.” She was met with a brief moment of silence which she triumphantly interpreted as the immediate result of the “chilling effect.”   More @SymoneDSanders on @TheWeekendMSNBC: “We want to be accurate” and rued: “This seems quite targeted and I don’t think George Stephanopoulos was wrong. I’m sorry.” When guest doesn’t immediately agree, Sanders: “This is the chilling effect!” pic.twitter.com/kToqhUDxf0 — Brent Baker ?? ?? (@BrentHBaker) December 15, 2024   MSNBC’s Velshi adopted a similar tone, with legal analyst Barbara McQuade expressing concern that “ABC buckled” in spite of what she saw as “a strong case.” Taking up the buzzword of the day, she raised the question of a “self-censoring effect” with an additional note of warning and poorly disguised insinuation of what the press could expect from the Trump administration.  In McQuade’s words, “a vigorous free press is essential in any administration, even more so in one where Donald Trump has vowed to go after his enemy.”   “I think it’s a concerning sign that ABC buckled. They were just about to take the deposition of Donald Trump this week, which would have helped solidify their case, which is already, in my view, a strong case...yet they...caved.” – @BarbMcQuade on MSNBC’s Velshi w/o @AliVelshi pic.twitter.com/cMBPPnDRhq — Brent Baker ?? ?? (@BrentHBaker) December 15, 2024   Later, on The Sunday Show with Jonathan Capehart, lawyer and activist Maya Wiley outrageously suggested that the settlement guaranteed the Trump administration’s utilization of what she called the “playbook in authoritarianism.” She continued to explicitly spell out how she thought the Trump administration would attack the media: "The playbook is you come for independent journalism and you work hard to threaten it, make it afraid, and therefore, no longer independent. And we've already heard in the news cycle the threats of continuing legal battles because it has now worked." Of course, this came as no surprise from the doomsayers over at MSNBC who remain bent on persuading their viewers that Trump and the Republicans exist as the modern Adolf Hitler and his Nazis. The transcripts are below. Click "expand" to read: MSNBC’s The Weekend 12/15/2024 08:07:54 AM EST SYMONE SANDERS: I would just say, I mean, this feels like it has a really chilling effect, like. I mean, shoutout to the standards department, ok. Standards is always making sure that we are keeping the bar high, and substantive, and accurate. But, what George Stephanopoulos said in that interview, I mean, it–it seems to hold up to what the judge said after the fact. And now, this news organization and himself–George Stephanopoulos, himself, is paying $1 million of his own money to the lawyers, and ABC $15 million. It’s insane. (...) 08:16:15 AM EST MICHAEL STEELE: For Trump, this is, you know–they didn't even have the account set up for this. They don’t have–they have no place to put the $15 million. SANDERS: The $15 million is gonna, what, be sent in escrow like they about to buy a house? STEELE: Right, exactly. So, I mean, what does that say to you? That–you know, I have been on this program and elsewhere complaining–’cause it is a complaint–about how the legal system itself has been so easily manipulated. The media now is sort of falling into that, “Oh, we just–we want to play nice.” What’s–what is your assessment of how this affects the way the country governs itself when both the judicial and the media space seem so willing to blow past the obvious problems with this incoming administration? (...) 09:06:15 AM EST SANDERS: George Stephanopoulos, le–let’s–just to be clear about what he said during the interview. He said that “Trump has been found liable for rape by a jury”–this is according to NBC article. Trump, however, was found liable in a civil case for sexually abusing Carroll, not for her alleged rape. Then I remember during that case check the box marked no when asked whether Carroll had proven by a preponderance of evidence that Mr. Trump raped Carroll. But then you have the judge in the case after that exchange with Nancy Mace and George Stephanopoulos, the judge came out and actually put an asterisk there and kinda underscored that what George Stephanopoulos said is true. All of this to someone watching this might sound like semantics but, I guess, for me, as Michael and I are sitting here and as–you know, we all go on TV all the time and we talk about late breaking news, right? STEELE: Yeah. SANDERS: And, Michael, I'm just kinda wondering, the parsing of this–the judge said that George Stephanopoulos was right, essentially.  STEELE: Right. SANDERS: But Donald Trump sued anyway for defamation and ABC made the calculated decision that, “You know what, we’re just going to pay.” That–George Stephanopoulos also has to pay, he is on the hook for $1 million of his own money. And that leaves the rest of us with–what? We want to be accurate, right? We have a standards department. We are all endeavoring to keep the bar high and substantive and not allow–not engage in interviews and conversations where people just lie or throw out conspiracy theories and they themselves are not accurate. But this–this seems quite targeted and I don't think George Stephanopoulos was wrong. I'm sorry. [Silence] LISA RUBIN: I don’t know if… SANDERS: Now y’all got nothing to say ‘cause nobody wants a lawsuit. See? This is the chilling effect!  RUBIN: Well… SANDERS: This is the chi–my mom is about to text me, “Shut up, ‘cause what are you d…” STEELE: (Laughs). No, no, no, no. Li–I mean, go ahead, Lisa. You can… RUBIN: No, what I was gonna say is I'm not sure that George Stephanopoulos was wrong in a colloquial sense. But where this case emerges from and where he got tripped up is in attempting to describe what was found by the jury.  SANDERS: Mmmmm. RUBIN: And, as you noted, the jury itself found very precisely that Donald Trump did not commit rape within the technical definition of rape in New York’s criminal code. They found him liable for sexual abuse. Now, Judge Kaplan, who is the judge in the New York cases brought by E. Jean Carroll–in a separate finding found that Donald Trump could not sue E. Jean Carroll for defamation after that verdict because colloquially speaking, what the jury had found that Donald Trump did to E. Jean Carroll could be understood by normal, nonlegal people as a rape. It is a–essentially what they found was that he digitally penetrated her. But New York law said that unless there is genital to genital contact, it’s not rape.  The problem with what George Stephanopoulos said was that he was trying to describe the jury verdict, not what conventional people understood or, at least, the difference that I just described to you is how a Florida district court judge saw it when faced with a motion to dismiss by Stephanopoulos and ABC. And having not won on that initial motion to dismiss on solely legal grounds, ABC had said that, essentially, what the New York judge found and what George Stephanopoulos said were so similar that the issue had already been litigated and there was nothing for Donald Trump to sue about. That Florida judge disagreed and that’s what allowed the case to continue and put ABC in the position of either having to continue to litigate through discovery and potentially to trial, or to settle this thing now, shortly after a judge ruled on Friday that both sides were going to have to sit for the deposition. SANDERS: Mmmm. (...)   MSNBC’s Velshi 12/15/2024 10:11:18 AM EST BARBARA MCQUADE: Yeah, I think it’s a concerning sign, Melissa, that ABC buckled here. They were just about to take the deposition of Donald Trump this week, which would have helped to solidify their case, which is already, in my view, a strong case. The phrases that they objected to was when George Stephanopoulos repeatedly said that Donald Trump had been found civilly liable for rape. Of course, what the jury actually found was sexual assault, but the judge said, that in the way the terms are commonly understood, Donald Trump did indeed commit rape. So, it’s a matter of interpretation, about what that word means to most people.  But ordinarily, in defamation cases, you have to prove that the person was defamed, that there was actual malice, and that the gist of the story was inaccurate. In addition, you have to show the person's reputation was harmed in this way. It seems that ABC had a very strong case here and yet they sort of caved anyway. And I think it sends a bad signal to other media enterprises and might have a chilling effect or a self-censoring effect on the media, as they cover the Trump administration. And, of course, a vigorous free press is essential in any administration, even more so in one where Donald Trump has vowed to go after his enemy. (...)   MSNBC’s The Sunday Show with Jonathan Capehart 12/15/2024 06:43:20 PM EST MAYA WILEY: The common understanding of what he was found civilly liable for is the equivalent of rape. It just doesn't meet the narrow legal definition. JONATHAN CAPEHART: Mhmm. WILEY: And when you have a public figure, you have an even higher burden when it's a journalistic issue about whether or not–in other words, there's a stronger defense for journalists when they're using common parlance about whether or not they've engaged in defamation. So when you have a judge who has said in two separate cases, “Saying it's rape is not defam–is not a problem,” then you can understand why a Stephanopoulos might say, “Call it rape,” as it's commonly understood.  But I say that because it’s–because what really is so troubling here is there was a defense. Put aside whether or not there were other reasons to settle it and in the context of the playbook in authoritarianism, the playbook is you come for independent journalism and you work hard to threaten it, make it afraid, and therefore, no longer independent. And we've already heard in the news cycle the threats of continuing legal battles because it has now worked. CAPEHART: Mhmm. (...)

President-elect Donald Trump delivered a message to Senate Republicans who may have reservations about his federal and Cabinet nominations. In recent weeks, Trump's nominees have headed to the Hill to meet with senators ahead of their confirmations. While several nominees are expected to cruise through their Senate confirmations, others have been met with pushback. As a result, Trump cautioned senators against striking down his nominees, predicting that they would "probably be primaried" as a result. Although Trump's nominees have been gaining momentum, Republicans hold a very narrow advantage in the upcoming Congress, which could pose a challenge. "If they're unreasonable, if they are opposing somebody for political reasons or stupid reasons, I would say, and it has nothing to do with me, I would say they probably would be primaried," Trump said during the press conference. "But if they're reasonable, fair, and really disagree with something or somebody, I could see that happening." "I think we have great people. I think we have a great group of people," Trump added.Since his landslide electoral victory in November, Trump has hit the ground running with nominations. One nominee who dominated the news cycle was former Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida for attorney general. Gaetz, who has been a staunch ally of Trump throughout his political career, quickly eclipsed all other news events during the two weeks he was in the running for attorney general. This nomination was also met with public and private pushback from Republican senators who had reservations about the Florida firebrand. Consequently, Gaetz withdrew his bid, claiming that he had become an unnecessary "distraction" for the Trump transition team. Trump later nominated former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, who he says has received sweeping support from Senate Republicans. "Pam has been unbelievably received," Trump said of his attorney general nominee. After Gaetz withdrew, Trump's nominee to head the Department of Defense, Pete Hegseth, quickly became the subject of scrutiny throughout the week he spent meeting with senators. Notably, Republican Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa actively lobbied against Hegseth's nomination, multiple sources close to the Senate confirmed to Blaze News. As a result, Trump's allies launched a pressure campaign against Ernst, who is up for re-election in 2026. Following the backlash, Ersnt met with Hegseth for a second time and publicly supported his nomination. "I think Pete Hegseth is making tremendous strides over the last week," Trump said of the nominee.Although Trump's nominees have been gaining momentum, Republicans hold a very narrow advantage in the upcoming Congress, which could pose a challenge. Republicans flipped Senate seats in West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Montana, putting the GOP at 53 seats. Since Senate confirmations require a simple majority, each nominee can afford to lose only three Republican votes, assuming that Vice President-elect JD Vance participates as a potential tiebreaker. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

More women than men sought out assisted suicide even when their death was deemed not to be reasonably foreseeable, a recent report stated.A document on government-assisted suicide in Canada has revealed a 15.8% increase in euthanasia, year over year.Medical Assistance in Dying, known as MAID, has become one of the leading causes of death in Canada since being legalized in 2016.'It is not yet possible to make reliable conclusions.'The federal government of Canada has since announced that in 2023, there were a total of 15,343 people who were killed by the state. Additionally, over 2,900 people died before they received the government service, while 915 requests were deemed ineligible, and nearly 500 people withdrew their request during processing.This near-16% increase showed a decline from the 31% growth the program had seen between 2019 and 2022. However, the government document admitted, "It is not yet possible to make reliable conclusions about whether or not these findings represent a stabilization of growth rates over the longer term."There also exists unanswered questions regarding the demographics of who is seeking state-sanctioned suicide.Assisted suicide categoriesUnder the government program, suicide requests are separated into two different "tracks.""Track 1" refers to those who meet the eligibility criteria set out by the government and are deemed as having a natural death that is "reasonably foreseeable."Patients are put in "Track 2" when they meet the eligibility criteria set out by the government but are deemed not to have a "reasonably foreseeable" natural death.Track 2 made up 4.1% of the assisted deaths in 2023, equating to 622 people who received help from the government to die even though their death was unlikely to happen otherwise.Women were overrepresented in this category at a rate of nearly six out of 10 (58.5%), despite men being the majority of those who have MAID requests overall (51.2%).Additionally, over 11% of the Track 2 patients — those without a foreseeable death — are below the age of 50, representing about 70 people in 2023.For Track 1, 13.9% of MAID recipients are under 65 years old, which represents over 2,000 younger people who were deemed terminally ill.Canada's rules for MAID eligibility require recipients to be over 18 years old and be "mentally competent."This age requirement is not matched in every country, especially the Netherlands, where assisted suicide eligibility extends to infants as well. Terminally ill children aged 1-12 can be killed by the state in that country.“The end of life for this group is the only reasonable alternative to the child’s unbearable and hopeless suffering,” the Dutch government said in 2023, per the Guardian.In 2002, the Netherlands became the first country to legalize euthanasia nationally, and in 2014, Belgium became the first country to allow children to kill themselves.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!