Friday, February 23, 2024

The Very Unique, Pragmatic and Honest President Trump


President Donald Trump held a townhall event with Laura Ingraham, a woman who feels remarkably self-important given her irrelevance. Within the interview President Trump extended the allotted time to give the audience some direct, honest and pragmatic answers to questions in a way that only Trump can give.

Well worth watching this extended segment to remind ourselves exactly why President Trump is a very unique person in this time of our nation’s history. WATCH:



This is the core reason why Donald J Trump is a transformative figure in American politics.  The MAGA movement that he has inspired with a brutally honest assessment of the challenges, and a keenly pragmatic approach toward the optimal solutions, is exactly why CTH has supported President Donald Trump since 2015.

Trump is the man we need.

There has never been a moment in his tenure within the universe of politics, when I have felt regret for my advocacy or support.  I simply see this guy as the most inspired and favored presentation of a leader in our time.  It is remarkable.



X22, And we Know, and more- February 23

 




With Halt In Arms Sales To Israel, The Liberals Are Surrendering To The Anti-Semitic Mobs

 

Melanie Joly

This is a disgraceful decision, not only because it abandons a democratic ally, but because it will incentivize the kind of horrific anti-Semitism and intimidation tactics that have been running rampant in Canada.

There are many reasons a government should never forget how human nature works.

One of those reasons is that ignoring human nature doesn’t make human nature go away. It only makes a government unable to respond to it.

Even worse, ignorance of human nature often leads to acting in ways that incentivizes the worst aspects of that human nature.

And that brings us to the recent move by the Liberals to halt arms sales to Israel, as reported by John Ivison in the National Post:

“Canada has stopped issuing export permits to companies looking to sell military equipment to Israel, according to one person familiar with the matter.

The source says that Mélanie Joly’s office has issued instructions to staff at Global Affairs Canada to delay issuing permits that are required for weapons, firearms and components that could have a military use.

The Department of Global Affairs would not comment on the information beyond maintaining a fiction that it has not received, and therefore not approved, any export permits for weapons to Israel.

Documents obtained under Access to Information legislation by online publication The Maple make clear that the Canadian government has authorized $28.5 million of military export permits since the October 7 attack on Israel by Hamas.

Israel was a top 10 destination for Canadian equipment covered by the annual Export of Military Goods report to Parliament in 2021, with exports worth $26.8 million, even though the government says it does not send full weapons systems (the largest sales categories tend to be “aircraft equipment” and “electronic equipment”).”

The issue here is that this is a clear and outright surrender to the anti-Semitic mobs that have been terrorizing Jewish Canadians.

While Jewish Canadians and supporters of Israel from all backgrounds have been advocating peacefully and respectfully for Canada to continue supporting Israel, ‘anti-Israel’ ‘protestors’ have been gathering around hospitals connected to the Jewish community, Jewish schools, Holocaust museums, Jewish-owned businesses, and even businesses with vaguely Jewish-sounding names. They have even vandalized the offices of Jewish politicians. All of that has been an effort to change policy through outright intimidation, and has been part of a broader anti-Semitic effort to drive Jewish Canadians out of public life.

This is where incentives come into play.

The Liberals have consistenly moved further and further away from supporting Israel, thus ignoring the peaceful pro-Israel protests.

Instead, they continue to try and appease the anti-Semitic mobs.

From the perspective of the anti-Semites, the intimidation is working, since the government is responding to it.

And of course, this will lead to the further escalation of anti-Semitism and the increased use of intimidation tactics.

People will do more of what they are rewarded for, and less of what they are punished for. Right now, the government is rewarding people for using anti-Semitism and intimidation in ‘protests,’ and is punishing people for peacefully advocating for the support of Israel.

This fundamental misreading of human nature – and outright pandering to hate – is also being mixed with a significant amount of hypocrisy.

Because, at the same time as Canada halts arms exports to Israel, arms exports to Turkey have restarted:

https://x.com/GarnettGenuis/status/1761088532750180718?s=20

What should be done?

Canada must stand against anti-Semitism, and we must stand with democratic nations like Israel. The government should be taking clear steps to disincentivize anti-Semitic intimidation, including by supporting municipal and provincial authorities in enforcing the laws already on the books against hate and against calls for genocide.

And the government should make it clear that Canada will continue to support Israel, and will not be swayed even one bit by the rantings of anti-Semites. We should be announcing more military aid to Israel, so the anti-Semites know their intimidation tactics will only backfire on them.

Sadly, there is no sign the Liberal government is going to do this.

There should be no room for anti-Semitism in this country. But the current Liberal government doesn’t seem to understand that, and through their actions they are creating more and more room for it every day.

Spencer Fernando

Photo – Twitter

 





Blue Laws for Red Citizens ~ VDH


We are entering a dangerous era in America. The left is waging lawfare with the implicit message to political opponents: either keep quiet or suffer the consequences.


One state prosecutor and one civilian plaintiff have already won huge fines and damages from Donald Trump that may, with legal costs, exceed $500 million.

Trump awaits further civil and criminal liability in three other federal, state, and local indictments.

There are eerie commonalities in all these five court cases involving plaintiff E. Jean Carroll, Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg, New York Attorney General Letitia James, federal special counsel Jack Smith, and Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis.

One, they are either unapologetically left-wing or associated with liberal causes. They filed their legal writs in big-city, left-wing America—Atlanta, New York, Washington—where liberal judges and jury pools predominate in a manner not characteristic of the country at large.

Two, they are overtly political. Bragg, James, and Willis have either campaigned for office or raised campaign funds by promising to get or even destroy Donald Trump.

Carroll’s suit was funded by left-wing billionaire Reid Hoffman.

Smith sued to rush his court schedule in hopes of putting Trump on trial before the November election.

Three, there would not be any of these cases had Donald Trump not run for the presidency or not been a conservative.

Carroll’s suit bypassed statute of limitation restrictions by prompting the intervention of a left-wing New York legislator. He passed a special bill, allowing a one-year window to waive the statute of limitations for sexual assault claims from decades past.

Until Trump, no New York prosecutor like James had ever filed a civil suit against a business for allegedly overvaluing real estate assets to obtain loans that bank auditors approved and were paid back in full, on time, and with sizable interest profits to the lending institutions.

Alvin Bragg bootstrapped a Trump private non-disclosure agreement into a federal campaign violation in a desperate effort to find something on Trump.

Smith is also charging Trump with insurrectionary activity. But Trump had never been so charged with insurrection, much less convicted of it.

Willis strained to find a way to criminalize Trump’s complaints about his loss of Georgia in the 2020 national election. She finally came up with a racketeering charge, usually more applicable to mafiosi and drug cartels.

Four, in all these cases, the charges could have been equally applicable to fellow left-wing public figures and officials.

Joe Biden, like Trump, was accused of sexual assault decades earlier by former staffer Tara Reade. Yet Reade was torn apart by the media and the left for inconsistencies in her memory. By contrast, the wildly inconsistent and amnesiac E. Jean Carroll won $83 million from Trump.

Jack Smith created the precedent of charging former president Trump for unlawfully removing classified files to his private residence.

But the government simultaneously did not charge Joe Biden for similar offenses. Yet Biden had removed files not for two years but for more than 30. He stored them not in one location but several.

His rickety garage was a mess, not a secure family compound like Trump’s estate. Moreover, Biden did so while a senator and vice president, without any presidential authority to declassify almost any presidential document he wished.

Biden never came forward to report the crime for over thirty years—until Trump was charged. Indeed, he was caught on tape six years ago, admitting to his ghostwriter that he possessed classified files but never reported it.

Bragg might have noticed that both Hillary Clinton (fined $113,000) and Barack Obama (fined $350,000) broke campaign financing laws. Neither was subject to federal criminal charges by local prosecutors.

An array of left-wing celebrities, politicians, 2004 House Members, former Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams have all recently challenged elections. They sought either to delay or redo ballot counting or, on the federal level, to sidetrack electors to ignore popular votes in their respective states.

These lawfare cases are part of other efforts that were highly partisan and without merit. Recall the Trump “Russian collusion” hoax and the “Russian disinformation” laptop farce.

In another first, some blue states are suing to take Trump’s name off the ballot for “insurrection,” a crime for which he has never been charged.

Total up the deaths, damage, and length of the summer 2020 Antifa/BLM riots. Then compare the tally to the one-day January 6 riot.

The former proved far more lethal, long-lasting, and destructive. Yet very few of the 14,000 arrested rioters in 2020 were ever prosecuted, much less convicted.

By contrast, the Biden administration sought to jail hundreds for crimes allegedly committed on January 6, such as “illegal parading.”

We are entering a dangerous era in America.

Ideology and party affiliations increasingly determine guilt and punishment. Opponents are first targeted, and then laws are twisted and redefined to convict them.

The left is waging lawfare with the implicit message to political opponents: either keep quiet or suffer the consequences.



Are ‘Islamists in Charge of Britain’?

 This week, British democracy ceased to operate by its own rules. The reason? To prevent its elected representatives from being violently hounded, if not killed, by Islamist mobs.

By Konstantin Kisin - February 23, 2024





LONDON — Since October 7, there have been many dark days here in London. Every Saturday the streets are filled with demonstrators calling for the end of the state of Israel, several Jewish schools have had to close due to safety concerns, and the number of antisemitic incidents has gone through the roof


I have attended and documented a number of these protests, which on occasion have descended into violence, confrontations with police, antisemitic chanting, and even calls for jihad. 


All bad, you might be thinking. And you’d be right. But they pale in comparison to what happened this past Wednesday, when the British Parliament, which has been around for 800 years, capitulated to fear of Islamist violence. 


While the details of parliamentary proceedings in the UK will likely seem arcane and convoluted, especially to the American reader, bear with me for a paragraph or two because it’s important to understand why what just happened is so outrageous.


Wednesday was an Opposition Day in Parliament. There are approximately 20 such days a year, in which opposition parties rather than the government can bring motions for debate and vote in the House of Commons. These votes are not binding on the government, but are nonetheless an expression of the will of Parliament.


Such days are usually uneventful but on Wednesday, the Scottish National Party—a small opposition party led by Humza Yousaf, whose in-laws successfully fled Gaza in recent months—set a trap designed to expose the Labour Party’s internal divisions on the Israel-Hamas war. The SNP’s motion called for an “immediate cease-fire” in Gaza and described Israel’s actions since October 7 as “collective punishment.” 


The Labour Party then submitted an amendment to this motion that instead called for an “immediate humanitarian cease-fire” to be observed by “all sides” and demanded a two-state solution. 


The Conservative government then submitted its own amendment to the original motion calling for an “immediate humanitarian pause” while also asserting Israel’s “right to self-defense.”


By convention, if the government tables an amendment to a motion submitted by an opposition party, it is the government’s amendment that is then debated. That meant the Labour Party—which increasingly relies on the Muslim vote for a significant number of its seats—was stuck between a rock and a hard place: either they would have to vote for the extreme anti-Israel SNP motion which calls Israel’s actions “collective punishment,” or vote for the government’s amendment which does not call for the cease-fire Labour supporters demand.


At this point, Labour MPs started to privately voice concerns over their safety to the Speaker of the House of Commons, who chairs Commons debates. Lawmakers who were unwilling to bend the knee and vote for the SNP motion argued they would then be accused of being “against a cease-fire” and at risk of becoming the targets of Islamist violence. 


The Speaker, no doubt under pressure from the Labour leadership, accepted this argument and broke convention to allow both the government’s and Labour’s amendment to be debated. (The Speaker has since admitted error and apologized but is nonetheless under pressure to resign.)


The upshot of this procedural controversy is simple and alarming: the Speaker of the House of Commons overturned established precedent because, as he later himself admitted, he feared for the safety of Members of Parliament. Put bluntly, British democracy ceased to operate by its own rules in order to prevent its elected representatives from being violently hounded, if not killed, by Islamist mobs.


In one sense, the Speaker’s decision was not unfounded. MPs really are at risk. Only weeks prior, Mike Freer, a Conservative MP who represents a constituency with a significant Jewish population, announced that he would not be seeking reelection because of threats to him and his family over his support for Israel. Explaining his decision, he revealed that he had started wearing stab-proof vests when meeting constituents. 


In 2021 another Conservative MP, Sir David Amess, was stabbed to death by an Islamist at such a meeting. In 2017, an Islamist terrorist mowed down pedestrians before stabbing an unarmed police officer to death outside the gates of Parliament. 


This was all undoubtedly on the minds of our parliamentarians in the lead-up to yesterday’s vote. MPs on both sides of the aisle have faced angry mobs when out in public in recent weeks, with one MP warned by the police to stay away from his own house due to a hostile gathering outside his family home.


On Wednesday evening, as MPs debated the cease-fire motions inside the chamber, protesters projected the words “from the river to the sea” onto Big Ben. 


On Thursday, Jewish Conservative MP Andrew Percy gave a powerful speech in the House of Commons in which said he had just returned from Israel and that “I actually felt safer in Israel than I do in this country.”

The journalist Dan Hodges echoed something I have personally heard from several MPs myself when he wrote on X that he had spoken to an MP who “had weighed up his own physical safety when deciding on how to vote on yesterday’s Gaza motion. We have crossed a line now. We are not a properly functioning democracy if this is a factor in how our elected representatives act.”

Suella Braverman—who was Home Secretary, the minister in charge of policing and immigration, until she was ousted by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in November—did not mince her words when describing the significance of what had happened: “The Islamists. . . are in charge of Britain now.” 


Many in her own party took issue with that claim, but it is now clear that Britain has a problem with Islamist extremism that requires immediate and drastic action. Appeasement will make the problem worse. If politicians cave to intimidation and threats of violence as they did on Wednesday, it will encourage only more intimidation and threats of violence.


The government, both the major parties, the police, and the security services need to understand we no longer have the luxury of pretending this issue away. 


People who threaten violence should be arrested and locked up for a very long time. If the threats are directed against elected MPs, that is an attempt to subvert our democracy and should be treated as such, with severe sentences. Foreign nationals who engage in, call for, fund, or glorify violence, religious hatred, or other violent extremism should be deported immediately.


We must be honest with ourselves. If we do not act now, as sadly I am almost certain we won’t, the result will be more violence and more intimidation. It is not a pleasant truth to have to admit, but things will only get worse if we refuse to speak it.


Konstantin Kisin is the co-host of the podcast Triggernometry. Read his essay for us on the people mugged by reality on October 7, “The Day the Delusions Died.” 

Of Course We Should Mock the State


Every once in a while, Big Government globalists inadvertently tell the truth.  It’s usually not because they’re dumb, but because they’re so entombed inside their own dystopian cocoons that they forget how crazy they might sound to reasonable, well adjusted people.  The World Economic Forum is filled with giddy zealots who have no idea how insane their plans for global domination sound to the wider population because the WEF’s psychopathic members are universally eager to depopulate the planet; cage the survivors; and drip-feed their human pets with a cocktail of drugs, bugs, and propaganda.  Ordinary people look at Klaus Schwab and see Dr. Evil.  WEF-fers see Commie Klaus as a shiny-headed (perhaps reflecting so much bright light as to be downright Luciferian) globalist god.  While Davos devotees yearn for a “new world order,” prudent Westerners are thinking about how to end the WEF’s madness before it abruptly ends them.  

There was a time when Americans would look at some of the eccentric cult behavior taking place in Europe, shake their heads, and dismiss it as the kind of kookiness that happens when Old World aristocrats and commie-curious “elites” get together to drown their sorrows in cognac and regale each other with tales of lost colonies and mighty empires.  Then American politicians began sounding a lot like their European cousins, who speak of common people as a farmer would a sounder of smelly pigs.  When then-senator Barack Obama was yukking it up on the campaign trail with Nancy Pelosi’s friends in San Francisco, he complained about “bitter” blue-collar voters who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.”  Even Hillary Clinton cackled at that mask-slipping moment, when she denounced Obama’s remarks as “elitist and out of touch.”  She was lying, of course, because eight years later, she told an audience in New York City that half of Donald Trump’s voters are “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it” and deserve to be relegated to a “basket of deplorables.”  Those moments of candor — delivered in front of adulatory audiences who shared Obama’s and Clinton’s cloistered worldview — crystallized for tens of millions of Americans that the political “elites” occupying D.C. have more in common with Dr. Evil’s communist club of aspiring tyrants in Davos than with the hardworking, God-fearing, patriotic citizens who have always sacrificed so much to make America great.

Ever since Obama’s election, the effort to bulldoze America and rebuild on its rubble a compliant nexus point for the WEF’s coercive Borg to dominate the West has picked up speed.  Unaccountable bureaucrats and politicians in Washington don’t even pretend to respect the will of voters anymore.  Strong majorities of Americans have said resoundingly: close and secure the borders, stop spending money that you do not have, end widespread warrantless surveillance, stop censoring public debate, stop distorting the law to punish dissenting voices, safeguard elections from mail-in ballot fraud, and stop funneling money to foreign regimes that use that money to attack the United States.  The hive-mind Borg in D.C. has told the American people to go suck an egg.  The federal government’s targeted abuse of Americans has been an eye-opening experience for many.

Consider this question: when is the last time you can remember an Establishment politician trying to unite Americans behind common history and principles, irrespective of background or race?  It’s been many years, has it not?  Why is that?  Because the current power structure of the U.S. government depends upon keeping Americans fiercely divided.

The moment a large coalition of Americans come together to tackle common obstacles is the moment that the small “ruling class” of political elites (across all three branches and the vast, unconstitutional administrative State) get tossed to the curb.  From D.C.’s point of view, the scariest thing about Donald Trump is that his policies make sense to an amazingly diverse cross-section of the American people.  In his wake, the political class’s usual attempt to pour salt in old racial wounds has become less effective.  That’s why we now hear so much about the scourge of “Christian nationalism.”  The attempt to use religious discrimination as a new wedge to divide society is an admission that the Deep State is desperate for a new boogeyman.

As a Christian who does not have an irrational fear of nation states, I always think, “Better to be a Christian nationalist than a globalist child-groomer, amirite?”  What those who seek to divide us are really saying through the use of this Christian dog whistle is that people who believe in personal freedom, the Bill of Rights, and the Bible are somehow “white supremacist” Nazis.  That’s a pretty hard sell when WEF-fers are the biggest Nazis operating today.

In Germany, where ordinary people have begun pushing back against a government hostile to their safety and prosperity, far-left interior minister Nancy Faeser goose-stepped to the nearest microphone and announced that voters who criticize the German government or donate to unapproved political parties will be treated as potential criminals.  How very democratic — and certainly not at all reminiscent of the bad old days when fascism was openly in fashion!  “Those who mock the State must be dealt with by a strong State,” the Cruella de Vil clone warned the German people.  Hear that, Germany?  You must not laugh at the people who are destroying your country with “green energy”–induced inflation and open border immigration policies.  Otherwise, you might just get a spanking.  In order to remain “free,” you must do exactly what you’re told.  Those who resist will lose the “freedom” to obey.

Wow, totalitarianism is well on its way to reclaiming Germany for the umpteenth time.  I did Nazi that coming.

I do love it when tyrants let the truth slip out.  It makes it easier for defenders of freedom to quantify just what’s at stake.  Somewhere there’s a rebellious German meme-maker with encoded DNA that makes him “ungovernable,” and when Führer Faeser demands his contrition while some State goon is bashing in his teeth, the lad will look up from the floor, raise a defiant middle finger, and whisper through a bloody smile, “I must not mock the State.”  For the love of freedom everywhere, we must all mock the State.  The quickest way to defang any totalitarian regime is to paint it with the emasculating brush of contemptuous ridicule. 

There is nothing that infuriates me more than a tyrant.  Ancient Greek playwright Aeschylus wrote, “Death is better, a milder fate than tyranny.”  Aesop observed that it is better to “starve free than be a fat slave.”  French philosopher Albert Camus exhorted listeners to understand “that freedom is not a gift received from a State or a leader but a possession to be won every day by the effort of each and union of all.”  Amidst the violent struggles and unexpected turning points that have shaped the record of our history, a powerful human impulse has stubbornly persisted: the desire to be free.

There is a segment of the human race that will never surrender.  There is an even larger population that springs to life when theoretical warnings become real enough to smack ingenuous dreamers across the face.  Every time totalitarianism’s boot bruises another neck, a resistance movement grows in strength until the monster wearing that boot comes crashing down.  And, still, with the weight of history serving as a warning to all who seek to smother human liberty, tyrants rise again today like a hydra-headed beast wishing enslavement for any who get in its way.  That is why, as Camus warned, freedom must be won again every single day.

Can it be done?  Absolutely.  How does it begin?  By laughing at the State.



Tent City Nation: Are Canada's homeless encampments here to stay?

No one wants to live through a Canadian winter in a tent. But encampments are a dangerous and miserable result of hard-to-solve problems.

Gatineau, Que. – In the parking lot of the Robert Guertin Centre, an arena that once played host to the Gatineau Olympiques major junior hockey team, is a field of red ice-fishing tents.

Canada’s tent cities on the rise

 AKA Trudeau Towns ?

 


Arranged in four neat rows and fenced around, the 48 tents are home to a community of homeless people enduring the snow, cold and freezing rain of winter in the National Capital Region. Eloe, a woman in her 30s with green hair, a septum ring, a leopard-print scarf and red bomber jacket, lives in a tent made from construction tarps, which forms part of a satellite community outside the fence.

Although camp life can be harsh, she says it offers more freedom and security than a homeless shelter.

“It’s not easy living here, but it’s better than the shelter because there’s more live-and-let-live,’” says Eloe, who has been part of an encampment since May. “People have more privacy here and we look after each other. It’s a family.”

The current encampment, a 40-minute walk from Parliament Hill, was established in December when a local property developer, the Devcore Group, donated the ice-fishing tents, each with a light, camp bed, electric blanket and heater.

Devcore’s leaders decided to act after two deaths at a nearby, makeshift encampment in a city park. Camp dwellers were burning Purell hand sanitizer in metal buckets to stay warm and using candles for light.

“We said, ‘This is crazy, we really have to do something,’” said Jean-Pierre Poulin, the founder and CEO of Devcore and a minority owner of the Ottawa Senators. Poulin and other company executives visited the tent city and talked to camp dwellers about their needs.

Drawing on its local business contacts, Poulin quickly raised $350,000 and received city approval to start Camp Guertin. Contractors volunteered their time to build and wire it.

Poulin didn’t worry about what level of government was officially responsible for homelessness. “At the end of the day, I realized it was everybody’s responsibility and nobody’s responsibility. That’s the problem,” he said.

At Camp Guertin, insulated fishing tents are mounted on wooden pallets. A security guard controls who gets inside the fenced area. Social services have been extended by local authorities. There’s a bathroom, a large tent where campers socialize, and a warming hut through which campers rotate on cold days.

To get through the worst nights, Eloe uses chemical hand warmers inside her sleeping bags to generate heat. She often wakes up to ice on the inside of her tent.

Eloe

Eloe poses for a portrait outside of her tent Thursday, Jan. 25, 2024. 

“Once I’m in my sleeping bag and under the blankets, I don’t get out,” she says. “When you get up, you turn on your heater and get dressed as quickly as possible. You survive.”

Eloe is part of the sad legion of Canadians who are surviving this winter in tent cities, as homeless encampments have become a feature of cities across the country.

In Halifax, a tent city has taken root in Grand Parade, the park in front of city hall.

In Calgary, municipal “joint encampment teams” responded to more than 6,000 calls from the public last year about issues at local tent cities. People complained about trespassing, theft, noise, garbage and discarded needles.

Edmonton cleared dozens of encampments in the past two months as temperatures plunged to -40C. Vancouver, Prince George, Calgary, Regina, Kingston and Montreal also conducted eviction operations during the past year to remove encampments from downtown streets or beneath bridges.

By the time Vancouver’s East Hastings Street encampment was cleared, it had grown to hundreds of tents spread out across three city blocks. Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, and Niagara Falls are among the cities that have passed motions, declaring homelessness an emergency. All have tent cities.

Federal housing advocate Marie-Josée Houle calls the spread of encampments in Canada a human rights crisis. Her office launched a formal review of the encampments last year and issued its final report in early February.

Houle has called for a national plan to address homeless encampments involving federal, provincial and municipal governments.

“There are encampments across the country: in rural regions, remote regions, and urban centres of all kinds,” Houle said in an interview. “For me, it shows how far we are from recognizing the human right to housing. It’s also a physical manifestation of exactly how broken our housing system is.”

The nation’s encampments are the dangerous and miserable result of a confluence of hard-to-solve problems.

Now it is tent cities themselves that have become hard to solve and, as the country descends into the coldest days of winter, they present civic leaders with difficult questions.

Should the camps be dismantled, or should municipalities provide tent dwellers basic services to make them safer? Will that encourage more to take root? Can the complex problems behind the encampments be addressed?

Or are Canada’s new nylon shantytowns here to stay?

At Bottom of Link: Interactive Tent City Map