Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

International

OP-ED Trudeau’s Dangerous Pandering to Extremists Has Turned Canada Into a Safe Haven for Hate and Terror

Published

1 month ago

16 minute read

The Opposition with Dan Knight
Dan Knight

 If these weren’t Khalistani activists but a group of white nationalists descending on a mosque or synagogue, Trudeau would be sprinting to the nearest camera to condemn it. Hate crimes would be filed faster than you could say “virtue signal.”

This past weekend in Brampton, Ontario, we saw a truly disturbing and shameful scene unfold. Khalistani extremists—yes, extremists—stormed a Hindu temple and reportedly assaulted its worshippers. For Hindus in Canada, who had come to this country seeking safety and freedom, this attack was a horrifying reminder that their places of worship, their cultural sanctuaries, are no longer safe. Such an assault on religious freedom should be universally condemned. Yet, the Canadian political establishment, led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and supported by NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, has done almost nothing but offer empty words and platitudes. It is increasingly clear that these incidents are not isolated—rather, they are a symptom of Trudeau’s reckless pandering to extremist factions within Canada’s diaspora communities.

As journalist Rupa Subramanya pointed out in her recent tweet, scenes like this should not be happening in a supposedly free and developed country like Canada. They’re scenes reminiscent of conflicts and vendettas one might see in parts of South Asia, not on the peaceful streets of Brampton. But thanks to Trudeau’s irresponsible courting of Khalistani separatist votes, this violence has been given fertile ground to grow right here in Canada.

Khalistani supporters argue they have a grievance with the Indian government. For years, they claim, India has targeted their community, cracking down on separatist leaders and activists with alleged ties to Khalistan here on Canadian soil. In the high-profile case of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a prominent Khalistani figure in Surrey, the Trudeau government alleged that India was involved in his assassination. The RCMP, on Thanksgiving no less, all but confirmed that they believe Indian operatives were conducting activities on Canadian soil to target specific individuals. That’s a serious allegation—and it’s no surprise that it’s fueling the anger in certain parts of the Sikh community. I don’t dispute that these people have grievances, but grievances don’t justify terrorizing worshippers at a temple. There’s a clear line that’s been crossed.

Now, if this group wants to take a stand, they have every right to do so. Take your protest to the Indian consulate, gather on the steps of Vancouver’s art gallery, or march through the streets of Ottawa. That’s freedom of speech, and I’d defend their right to do it. But targeting a Hindu temple? That’s a desecration of a sacred space. What happened in Brampton wasn’t just a protest; it was an act of intimidation, even terror. And if we’re going to call a spade a spade, let’s use Canada’s own hate speech laws, which are weaponized regularly to police “wrongthink” in other cases. When violence and harassment are unleashed at a place of worship, it becomes a tool of terror—plain and simple. Even though I’m a staunch defender of free speech, we live under Canada’s hate speech regime, and it’s high time we see it applied evenly.

Here’s the kicker: if these weren’t Khalistani activists but a group of white nationalists descending on a mosque or synagogue, Trudeau would be sprinting to the nearest camera to condemn it. Hate crimes would be filed faster than you could say “virtue signal.” But in this case, we see silence and selective outrage from Canada’s so-called “defenders of diversity.” Why? Because Trudeau and Singh know they need the support of certain diasporas to maintain their coalition. They’re so tangled up in their own identity-politics web that they’ve rendered themselves incapable of taking a stand on principle.

The roots of this problem are Trudeau’s obsession with identity politics and his willingness to appease extremist voices within diaspora communities in exchange for votes. He’s aligned himself with Jagmeet Singh, whose support base includes those who sympathize with the Khalistani movement, and who has a long record of soft-pedaling the issue of Khalistani violence. For years, Trudeau and Singh have played a dangerous game, tacitly encouraging these factions to push the boundaries of what’s acceptable. Now, that same extremism has spilled into the open, right here in Canada.
Click to link to the National Post

In a National Post Article dated Nov 3 2024, Former Canadian cabinet minister Ujjal Dosanjh, a Sikh himself and a Canadian patriot who’s stood up to the radical fringes of his own community, is now sounding the alarm louder than ever about Justin Trudeau’s reckless pandering to Sikh extremism. Dosanjh is no fringe figure—he’s a former Liberal premier and a lifelong advocate for Canadian unity, even at great personal risk. He knows firsthand the damage that unchecked extremism can do to communities and to national stability. And now he’s pointing the finger directly at Trudeau.

According to Dosanjh, Trudeau’s obsession with catering to every vocal faction, no matter how extreme, has opened the floodgates for Khalistani separatists to operate openly within Canada. The same radicals who were emboldened by Canada’s political elites to support separatism are now terrorizing Hindu Canadians in their places of worship. For Dosanjh, the warning signs have been flashing red since the 1985 Air India bombing, which took the lives of 329 innocent people. But Trudeau, blinded by the need to appease every identity group, has allowed history to repeat itself.

Dosanjh argues that this “diversity at all costs” approach has led to the rise of an insidious form of intimidation that’s left peaceful Sikh Canadians too afraid to speak out against Khalistani extremism. Trudeau’s selective approach to multiculturalism—where every faction is catered to except the mainstream—has backfired spectacularly, leaving Canada vulnerable to the loudest, most radical voices. Most Sikhs in Canada don’t support the Khalistan movement, but Trudeau’s inaction has allowed this tiny, vocal minority to dominate the conversation and overshadow those who simply want to live in peace.

And Trudeau’s handling of the Hardeep Singh Nijjar affair? Dosanjh couldn’t be clearer: Trudeau’s approach was reckless and self-serving. Rather than addressing India’s concerns quietly, behind closed doors, Trudeau chose to escalate the issue on the global stage, causing a diplomatic disaster with one of Canada’s most important allies. In doing so, he’s not only jeopardized Canada-India relations but has risked the security of Canada’s Hindu, Sikh, and Indian diaspora communities. Why? Because Trudeau wanted to look “strong” to his own politically convenient voter base, using Canada’s House of Commons as his stage to grandstand.

And here’s the kicker. Dosanjh draws a stark comparison with the U.S., which recently dealt with a similar incident—an alleged plot against a Sikh separatist in American territory—through quiet diplomacy, respecting its allies without letting domestic politics interfere. Trudeau, on the other hand, saw an opportunity for grandstanding. Why? Because he knows identity politics is his only real play, and he’s willing to sacrifice both Canada’s unity and its global standing to keep his coalition intact.

Dosanjh doesn’t mince words: he sees Trudeau’s vision of Canada—a “post-national state” with no shared culture or common values—as an existential threat to the country’s future. Canada, Dosanjh argues, is not just a collection of identities; it’s a nation built on shared values, lawfulness, and mutual respect. But Trudeau, consumed by his obsession with catering to radical identity groups, is tearing the fabric of that unity apart. Instead of fostering a cohesive nation, Trudeau has allowed Canada to become a fragmented society, a breeding ground for extremism, and a place where national pride is quietly pushed aside for the benefit of loud, divisive voices.

So let’s stop pretending this is a question of free speech. What happened in Brampton was not about peaceful protest or political dissent; it was an act of hate and terrorism, plain and simple. Canada’s laws are clear, and so are the RCMP’s powers to act. Hate speech in Canada is legally defined as public incitement of hatred against any identifiable group—be it race, religion, or ethnicity—that can stir others to violence. What happened at the temple in Brampton goes beyond protest; it was targeted intimidation aimed at a religious community, nothing less than an assault on our nation’s values of tolerance and respect.

As for terrorism, Canada’s Criminal Code lays it out in black and white: any act that is politically or ideologically motivated and aimed at intimidating a public or religious group fits the bill. That’s exactly what these Khalistani extremists achieved by invading a temple, turning a space of worship into a site of fear. So let’s use the words Canada’s laws were built to define. This isn’t just disturbing the peace; it’s hate-fueled terror.

Here’s the blunt reality: the RCMP has the tools to stop this, to prosecute this violence, and to send a message that Canada will not stand by while extremists terrorize communities. And let’s not forget another essential tool—deportation. For any foreign nationals caught inciting or committing acts of violence, deportation is not only a right but a responsibility of any government worth its salt. Canada doesn’t need to tolerate foreign extremists on our soil; if they’ve come here to sow division, they need to be booted out and sent back. And if these radicals hold Canadian citizenship? Then we have prison cells ready for them. It doesn’t matter if they’re white, black, have blue hair, or green skin. If you break the law, if you cross that line from protest to violence, you belong behind bars, not on our streets.

Yet here we are with Trudeau at the helm, watching him bend over backward to avoid calling this violence out for what it is. He’s the same leader who preaches tolerance yet seems oddly selective about who deserves protection. If these were white nationalists outside a mosque or synagogue, Trudeau would be grandstanding in front of the nearest camera, denouncing it as terrorism—and he’d be right. So why the silence now? Is it because he’s too entangled in diaspora politics, relying on certain vote banks to keep his coalition intact? Or is it because he’s lost his nerve, fearful of offending the so-called “cultural sensitivities” of groups who’ve crossed the line?

The hypocrisy is staggering. Trudeau’s Canada is becoming a place where foreign grievances dictate the public peace and where divisive ideologies are allowed to take root. Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives have a monumental task ahead. Trudeau’s game plan appears to be to break the system so badly that he can later point fingers and accuse the Conservatives of heartlessness when they try to fix it. But this is not heartlessness—it’s sanity. It’s common sense. It’s what any reasonable country would do to protect its people.

So let’s be absolutely clear: Canada is not short on people wanting to enter this country, to work hard, to respect its laws, and to build a future here. We don’t need to accommodate extremists or radicals. The way forward is simple: apply the laws we already have. Enforce our hate crime and anti-terrorism laws equally and unapologetically. If Trudeau won’t do it, then Canadians need a leader who will.

Canada needs to stand firm, prioritize its own values, and protect its citizens—not bow to the pressures of radicals who see our openness as weakness. If we want Canada to remain a place of peace, tolerance, and respect, we must enforce our laws without exception.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Daily Caller / 6 hours ago

Trump Reportedly Has Ace Up His Sleeve For Countries That Refuse To Take Back Their Illegal Migrants

Business / 8 hours ago

Sajjan shouldn’t let taxpayers pay for his Taylor Swift tickets

National / 8 hours ago

Canadian Liberal MP accuses Conservatives of being bankrolled by Russia

Daily Caller

Trump Reportedly Has Ace Up His Sleeve For Countries That Refuse To Take Back Their Illegal Migrants

Published on December 6, 2024

By

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Jason Hopkins

The incoming Trump administration is reportedly devising a plan to remove illegal migrants from the United States, even if their home countries refuse to accept them.

Illegal migrants that have been ordered deported by an immigration judge, but hail from a country that refuses to take them back, may be sent to Turks and Caicos, the Bahamas, Grenada, Panama or possibly elsewhere once President-elect Donald Trump returns to the White House, according to NBC News. Such a plan, which has yet to be confirmed by the transition team, could prove to be a game-changer in the president-elect’s promised goal of conducting the largest deportation initiative in U.S. history.

It’s not immediately clear if these illegal migrants would be allowed to remain and work in the countries in which they are deported, or what type of pressure Trump officials are applying to these host governments. A spokesperson for the Trump transition team did not respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Foreign governments that refuse to take back deportees have long frustrated federal immigration authorities in multiple administrations. In lieu of remaining in detention indefinitely, many of these individuals may simply be released back into the U.S., even if an immigration judge has ordered them to be removed.

Under the Biden administration, federal immigration authorities and major cities across the country experienced an unprecedented illegal immigration crisis. Management of this crisis was made more difficult when Venezuela, the second-highest source of illegal immigration into the U.S., stopped accepting deportation flights in February.

Nearly 8 million Venezuelans have fled the country under Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, a leftist authoritarian who has overseen rampant inflation, economic turmoil and political repression. Trump is reportedly being pushed to make a deal with Maduro’s government, which would involve them accepting deportees again in exchange for an easing of U.S. sanctions, but it’s not clear if the incoming president is receptive to such an idea.

In the past, the Chinese and Cuban governments have also proven uncooperative with deportation flights from the U.S. However, both countries have begun accepting more flights from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) once again.

During Trump’s first White House term, he secured safe third country agreements with El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, which were intended to keep asylum seekers at bay by forcing them to seek refuge in those countries first before applying in the U.S. However, the Biden administration suspended those deals immediately upon entering office — part of a massive unraveling of Trump-era immigration policies by President Joe Biden that helped spark the current southern border crisis.

Trump plans to enter office and begin to not only conduct the largest deportation program ever witnessed in U.S. history, but he has also vowed to resume border wall construction, end birthright citizenship for those born to illegal migrant parents, restart the travel ban and bring back the Remain in Mexico program — which kept asylum seekers waiting in Mexico while their claims were adjudicated in immigration court.

Continue Reading

espionage

Three Steps to Fixing the FBI: Interview with Whistleblower Colleen Rowley

Published on December 5, 2024

By

 From Matt Taibbi of Racket News 

Depoliticization, decentralization, and transparency are all achievable goals

On August 13, 2001, 33-year-old French citizen Zacarias Moussaoui paid $6,800 in $100 bills to train on a 747 simulator at the Pan-Am International Flight Academy in Eagan, Minnesota. A retired Northwest Airlines pilot named Clarence “Clancy” Prevost thought Moussaoui’s behavior was odd for someone with no pilot’s license and told his bosses as much. When they said Moussaoui had paid and they didn’t care, Prevost said, “We’ll care when there’s a hijacking and the lawsuits come in.”

The company went to the FBI and on August 16, in what should have been one of the biggest arrests in the history of federal law enforcement, Moussaoui was picked up on an immigration violation. Agents on the case wanted permission to search Moussaoui’s belongings, with one asking superiors as many as 70 times for help in obtaining a warrant. The situation grew more urgent when the French Intelligence Service sent information that Moussaoui was connected to Islamic radicals with ties both to Osama bin Laden and the Chechen warlord Khattab, and that even within this crowd, Moussaoui was nicknamed “the dangerous one.”

Coleen Rowley, the Chief Division Counsel for the Minneapolis Field Office, absorbed agents’ concerns quickly and was aggressive in asking superiors to seek a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to investigate further. One of the goals was a look at Moussaoui’s computer, as agents believed he’d signaled he had “something to hide” in there. But unlike the former Northwest pilot Prevost, whose superiors trusted his judgment and escalated his concerns, Rowley and the Minneapolis field office were denied by senior lawyers at FBI Headquarters. The Bureau was sitting on the means to stop 9/11 when the planes hit the towers.

This story is actually worse than described, as Rowley made clear in what became a famous letter she wrote to then-Director Robert Mueller the following May. “Even after the attacks had begun,” she wrote, “the [Supervisory Special Agent] in question was still attempting to block the search of Moussaoui’s computer, characterizing the World Trade Center attacks as a mere coincidence with Misseapolis’ prior suspicions about Moussaoui.”

While the Bureau blamed 9/11 on a lack of investigatory authority, the actions of the Minnesota office showed otherwise. Rowley’s decision to confront Mueller with a laundry list of unnecessary bureaucratic failures made her perhaps the FBI’s most famous whistleblower. Her letter excoriated the Bureau’s Washington officeholders for failing to appreciate agents in the field, and for implicitly immunizing themselves against culpability.

“It’s true we all make mistakes and I’m not suggesting that HQ personnel in question ought to be burned at the stake, but, we all need to be held accountable for serious mistakes,” she wrote, adding: “I’m relatively certain that if it appeared that a lowly field office agent had committed such errors of judgment, the FBI’s [Office of Professional Responsibility] would have been notified to investigate and the agent would have, at the least, been quickly reassigned.”

The relentless and uncompromising style of Rowley’s letter made it a model for whistleblower complaints. As the administration of George W. Bush hurtled toward war in Iraq, Rowley was made a cultural and media icon, occupying the center spot on Time magazine’s “Persons of the Year” cover in January, 2003.

For these reasons and more I was pleased to see after running articles earlier this week about the FBI and the reported choice of Kash Patel as Director that Coleen commented under the second one. I’d reached out to her previously after four whistleblowers came forward about questionable post-J6 investigations, and with the choice of Patel and rumors of a major housecleaning of the Bureau’s Washington office, similar issues seemed in play.

“A large majority of FBI agents always held Headquarters in contempt, knowing that it only attracted the losers, brown-nosing careerist political hacks who wanted to climb the ladder to go thru the ‘revolving door’ at age 50 to make their corporate millions,” she wrote. “The best, most competent agents typically refused to sacrifice their integrity and their families to climb the ladder in that Washington, DC cesspool.”

Part of my personal frustration with the FBI story is that the audiences that cared about its Bush-era offenses have largely turned a blind eye to its issues since Donald Trump’s rise to power, even though many problems are similar. Coleen, who manages the tough trick of maintaining the respect of both liberal and conservative audiences, is the perfect person to help bridge that gap. I reached out to her earlier this week and we talked about Patel, the long-term challenges facing the Bureau, and possible fixes.

MT: Kash Patel made public comments about closing the Washington headquarters and turning it into a “museum of the deep state.” He added he’d then “take the 7,000 employees that work in that building and send them across America to chase down criminals.” Does that make any sense?

Coleen Rowley: I hate to go to bat for Kash Patel because I’ve been disappointed by all of these people in Washington. It’s such a cesspool. I really don’t think anybody can keep their head above it. So I hate to really laud him, but I do think he is completely correct on three or four things, and they’re major things. And he’s getting smeared for the thing that he’s most correct about. FBI headquarters: the FBI itself wants to take that down.

MT: How?

Coleen Rowley: Agents hate the J. Edgar Hoover building on Philadelphia Avenue. They’ve been talking about moving forever, all the agents. It was considered a matter of pride to not stoop to go to headquarters. This goes way back. Everyone knew that the ones who were going to headquarters were the ones trying to climb the ladder. They didn’t care about cases. They would always do what’s politically correct. And so they were all made fun of. In fact, Jules Bonavolonta wrote a book about how bad headquarters was.

MT: Is it The Good Guys?

Coleen Rowley: That sounds right. Everyone in the FBI knew that the people in that building were corrupted, because they’d decided to sacrifice themselves to go to headquarters in order to become somebody, by managing. And then especially in later years, the real incentive was to go through that revolving door to make a lot of money. And that’s the Strzoks and McCabes, and all those people.

MT: You’ve talked in the past about a dichotomy between agents in the field and the politically-minded managers at headquarters. Why is that divide harmful?

Coleen Rowley: Because the real work is done in the field. Headquarters was just there to help you do your work. Well, the 9/11 story is a perfect example. I wrote another op-ed in the Los Angeles Times called WikiLeaks and 9/11: What If? It was about this whole idea that’s very counterintuitive to what people are brainwashed to think, but sharing information is the key. The 9/11 Commission even said that if they had just shared information between agencies and then with the public, 9/11 would not have happened.

MT: They said there was a “failure to connect the dots,” I think.

Coleen Rowley: I was asked this when I testified to the Senate Judiciary about siloing and how the information, when it goes up the pipeline, gets convoluted and bottlenecked at headquarters because they want to keep power for themselves there. They really don’t want to let the field and the agents do the job. They want to have so-called oversight. I mean, that’s the good term for it, oversight, but it’s worse than that. They just want to keep the power there.

MT: You wrote that one of the things you liked was the possibility that Patel might decentralize the Bureau. What might that entail?

Coleen Rowley: They could delegate down FISA, and I’m not the first person to have this idea. Legal scholars say one of the best ideas to avoid this bottlenecking of information that occurs at headquarters is for the FISA judges not to have to travel to one particular SCIF [Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility] in Washington. Keep the judges actually out in the field.

MT: I didn’t realize that.

Coleen Rowley: Yeah. They have SCIFs all over the country. So it’s not a problem. And it could be easily delegated down. Why does every request have to go through headquarters and the DOJ, except for control reasons? In all other matters, like criminal Title IIIs, you go straight to a judge. Some judges, they’re going to have differing opinions on things. And maybe a judge, every once in a while, would say no to a Title III.

MT: But that happens anyway, doesn’t it?

Coleen Rowley: Yeah. Very seldom with FISA, but yes. With a FISA application, they’re usually a hundred pages long and there’s tons of probable cause, and every Title III I ever read was beyond reasonable doubt by the time a judge saw it, to be honest. But this travesty that occurred with FISA is because it’s all bottlenecked up there for control in Washington DC, and with a handful of people who don’t want to share this information. I mean, I’ve got so many stories. They won’t even share the Moussaoui story with other offices even after 9/11.

MT: What?

Coleen Rowley: Yeah, because they’re trying to cover it up… It’s a long story but the desire for control at headquarters is a huge thing.

MT: The last time we talked, you might’ve mentioned the suggestion of having more of the Bureau’s top officials gain experience in the field. Wouldn’t that give them more grounding in what’s actually going on in the world? It seems like that’s a problem.

Coleen Rowley: These supervisors at headquarters learn bad habits. You try to “punch your ticket.” That’s the terminology. You try to go there for your year and a half. You hate it, but you do it. You have to bend over and please the bosses to get through that year and a half in order to “punch your ticket” and climb the ladder. The risk aversion is incredible. As a whole, the most competent and best investigators, and this goes to Kash Patel, he gets kudos for actually having investigated something. He was a public defender for seven years, so he has seen things from the other side of an investigation. Meanwhile, by contrast, Comey came out of Lockheed, and I forget where Wray came from [eds. note: Wray worked at King and Spaulding, earning $14 million advising clients like Chevron, Wells Fargo, and Johnson & Johnson], but they came out with millions in their pockets. What is their background? Did they ever actually investigate? Did they ever actually even work in criminal justice? No. So they are political creatures. Not case-makers. Kash at least has some experience.

MT: Seemed like he did a good job with the Nunes memo…

Coleen Rowley: Yes. Whoever did the investigation – I doubt it was solely him – but yeah, they did a great job on that because controlling the press and everything. It’s sad though that it hasn’t reached a lot of the public after all this time. I think it’s important because between the call for transparency… The funny thing is Patel will be all for the whistleblowers of the FBI that you called me about before, the ones that were chagrined about all the stuff they had to do after January 6th. But now he’s going to be against anybody being a whistleblower if he abuses power? It’s always that way. But that call for transparency is key. That’s a test. Then the debunking of Russiagate, and how the FBI got so politicized. And then thirdly, the decentralization of the FBI, so that you take that power out of Washington, DC, where it’s so close to corruption and revolving doors.

MT: There’s one more thing that I wanted to ask about, because you mentioned it in a piece you sent to the New York Times about Comey before he was named Director. You talked about the tactic of trying to “incapacitate” suspects who can’t be prosecuted. This goes along with that issue of “disruption” or “discrediting.” Does the Bureau need to get back to making cases as opposed to these extrajudicial techniques? Can Patel do that?

Coleen Rowley: All that goes back to COINTELPRO.

MT: Right.

Coleen Rowley: One of the things I would hope for, which I haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere, is that he could do something to reduce the entrapment-type cases that just burgeoned with Mueller. Talk about hypocrisy. He went to the ACLU and gave a speech about civil liberties. The whole ACLU stands up and applauds him, all while he is starting those entrapment cases. I was still in the FBI. I retired a year later, took my pension and left. I was like, oh, this is so wrong. They hired these con artist informants to infiltrate Muslim groups. There are books written about this now. [On a recent radio show] I said it’s possible that yes, maybe some of these tactics actually did prevent some nut from going further. You can’t say that isn’t true. On the other hand, the numbers here of cases that were based on the FBI telling vulnerable people, “Look, we can get you a bomb. We can get you this.” And then all of a sudden, when the guy looks like he’s going to press the button on it, that’s when they have the take-down.

It’s such a formula and you’re not accomplishing anything if you’re creating crime. We have so much crime in this country now. If I was Kash Patel, that’s what I would be saying. When they asked me those questions, I’d say, “We’ve got so much crime. It’s all over the country. Why can’t we have more agents out in the field working cases and trying to reduce the violence and the crime and the drug dealing, et cetera?” I think that would be a real winner politically for him to say.

MT: It sounds like you think it’s possible for him to fix some things. But we shouldn’t set ourselves up for disappointment.

Coleen Rowley: I’ve just gotten so cynical. I don’t put hope in anything or anybody anymore. Obama… even going way back, I don’t put hope out with anybody… But if he gets support on some of these things, the call for transparency, depoliticization and decentralization, there’s a chance.

MT: Let’s hope. Thank you!

Please enjoy Racket News. For the full experience, become a paying subscriber.

Share

Continue Reading

Trending

X