- Steven Guilbeault has resigned from Mark Carney's cabinet in protest over a memorandum of understanding the government signed with Alberta that essentially gives Danielle Smith whatever she wants in terms of getting a pipeline through BC. For Guilbeault, a lifelong environmentalist, this was a pipeline too far.
- One of the West Virginia National Guard members shot on Wednesday has died. Donald Trump is vowing to "permanently pause migration"
from poorer countries in response. Meanwhile Secretary of State Marco
Rubio has ordered diplomats in Canada, the UK, the EU, Australia, and
New Zealand to press those countries to restrict immigration, and to report if the governments appear to be "overly supportive" of immigrants. Canadian Immigration Minister Lena Diab has denied knowledge
of the order but says that she will continue to consult with the
provinces and territories, not the Americans, over such matters. It's
kind of interesting that Rubio cares so much about other countries' immigration policies; you'd think he'd be glad about anything that takes pressure off the US. Maybe he's worried about too many skilled Americans leaving and doesn't want it to be too easy for them to do so.
- Vladimir Putin is
doubling down on his demand that Ukraine let Russia have the Donbas region as a condition of ending the war. This is naturally unacceptable to Volodymyr Zelensky. Meanwhile Ukraine's anti-corruption agencies
are now investigating Andriy Yermak, a top aide to Zelensky. This raises unfortunate questions about how long Ukraine is going to be able to hold on.
- The UK's Ministry of Justice
plans to limit the use of jury trials to the most serious crimes. Courts minister Sarah Sackman says that the time taken to select juries slows the court system to a crawl. The measures are opposed by 90% of the Criminal Bar Association (understandable, since the slower the process the more lawyers tend to get paid). Whether it's actually a good idea is a matter of debate, even among
Guardian columnists. Simon Jenkins is
in favour, pointing out that European countries that seldom use juries actually imprison far fewer people than the UK (much less the US, which also is all-in on jury trials). On the other hand, Gaby Hinsliff
thinks that juries are not the main factor in delaying trials. She also argues that they may be a defense against racism (definitely debatable given the quirks of jury selection, but I see her point) and moreover thinks that in the event that extremists take control of the government, they will have an easier time persecuting people without juries than with. I'm not sure she's right about that; future extremist governments could quite easily abolish juries entirely if they want anyway. I also can't help but think think that while jury trials make sense in a simple, homogeneous society like medieval England, modern societies are not simple and homogeneous and juries may not be well adapted to the modern reality. Maybe Hinsliff's best point is that doing away with juries will tend to further alienate the public from the justice system, which would not be a good thing.
- An Auckland man has been charged with aggravated robbery after allegedly
using a spear gun to carjack an elderly man.
- A Singapore toy manufacturer has pulled one of its products, a
teddy bear which uses ChatGPT to interact with kids, from the market after reports that the bear was discussing matters with the kids that weren't age-appropriate, including sadomasochistic sex, where to find knives, and how to light a match.
