Poles travelling more on holiday, both at home and abroad

Last year, Poles set out on nearly 46 million trips domestically, an increase of 5.5 percent compared to 2016, Polish Radio’s IAR news agency reported.

Holiday-makers spent more than PLN 24 billion (USD 6.95 bn, EUR 5.69 bn) in total last year on vacations in Poland.

Sport and Tourism Minister Witold Bańka said that tourism is one of the fastest growing sectors of the Polish economy. He added that it had become fashionable for Poles to spend their holidays in their own country.

But at the same time Poles are increasingly heading off abroad. Last year Poles took a total of 12 million trips outside their own country.

The most popular destinations for Polish tourists are Germany, Italy and Croatia, the IAR agency reported.


Source: IAR



B.C.’s dispute over bitumen control likely to end up in Supreme Court: lawyers

VANCOUVER – British Columbia’s court case over the flow of heavy oil through the province could be damaged by the NDP government’s previous positions against the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline, says a legal expert.

The provincial government filed a reference case Thursday in the B.C. Court of Appeal asking whether amendments it is proposing to the Environmental Management Act are valid and if they give the province the authority to control the shipment of heavy oils based on the impact spills could have on the environment, human health or communities.

The province is also asking the court whether the amendments are over-riden by federal law.


Nigel Bankes, chair of natural resources law at the University of Calgary, said he believes the province will lose on the validity question because it is targeting a federally approved project, even though the legislation covers broad environmental concerns.

“All rhetoric, all the public announcements, all the announcements from the premier and the relevant ministers make it clear that this legislation is actually directed at Trans Mountain,” he said.

Bankes said a precedent was set in 1984 when the courts ruled the government of Newfoundland and Labrador acted outside its authority by introducing legislation that disrupted Quebec’s right to access hydroelectric power from Churchill Falls.

But Prof. Bruce Ryder of York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School said that case differs from B.C. because the legislation addresses all heavy oil, not just one particular project.

Decisions made the B.C. Supreme Court in favour of lower levels of government having the authority to create environmental protections in relation to the Northern Gateway pipeline could also support the province’s case, Ryder said.

Ryder said he thinks the court will approve the validity question. But he said there is greater uncertainty over permits that would be needed to ship heavy oils through the province because that could be seen to impair or block federal projects, which “would clearly be unconstitutional.”

“What we don’t know are the details of how the permitting process will work, whether a permit will be granted when requested, what conditions would be attached to it, and absent of specific context with those actual details, it would be difficult for the court to give anything other than a somewhat speculative answer,” he said.

The court could either refuse to answer the question due to a lack of information or, more likely, provide guidelines on how permitting could work that operates within the constriction, he said.

Carissima Mathen, vice dean of the University of Ottawa’s law faculty, said there is a clear conflict between the B.C. legislation and federal law.

“I haven’t seen any argument as to why the federal government doesn’t have authority to regulate this interprovincial pipeline the way they have authority over all kinds of other interprovincial undertakings,” she said.

Ryder said if the province’s legislation is found to only add conditions to the shipment of heavy oils, the court could determine it does not conflict with federal law.

But if the federal government introduces new legislation to “fortify” its authority over Trans Mountain, it could crush B.C.’s attempt to have some legal jurisdiction, he added.

All the experts expect the case to be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Kathryn Harrison, a political science professor at the University of British Columbia, said there are many areas where provincial and federal jurisdiction come into conflict, but given the fact the environment is not addressed in the constitution, legal battles over environmental authority are rare.

“It would be good for Canada and the global environment if we had more disputes over environmental jurisdiction,” she said, adding negotiations and compromise often result in “watering down” policies.

Here are the three questions the B.C. government has referred to the Court of Appeal:

1. Is the draft legislation within provincial jurisdiction to enact?

2. Would the draft legislation be applicable to hazardous substances brought into British Columbia by means of an interprovincial undertaking?

3. Is there any federal legislation that is inconsistent with the proposed amendments that would render the proposed amendments inoperative?


Bill Cosby Rape Allegations, Trial And Verdict – Your Thoughts

Bill Cosby Rape Allegations, Trial And Verdict – Your Thoughts

Exposing Corruption Under Every Rock

With this farce of a trial having secured a temporary victory for the #MeToo movement aka feminism, I would suggest that brothers in the US and other western countries at least begin looking at the possibility of setting up a second base elsewhere in the world because as things now stand here, any woman can accuse you of sexual assault or rape and need provide no evidence in order to be believed. Additionally as we have seen with Bill Cosby, there is a very strong possibility of conviction based upon nothing but words alone.

As I’ve stated before THERE IS NO RAPE CULTURE IN THE WEST, instead what we have is a culture of FALSE RAPE ACCUSATION and a judicial system that is only too willing to accommodate such decadency. When you are a male celebrity you don’t need to drug and rape women, women literally throw themselves at you…

View original post 1,112 more words


The minimum wage will increase by 75 cents an hour this week to $12 an hour on May 1st.

This increase will benefit nearly 353,000 workers, mostly women, according to the Ministry of Labour.

Quebec, however, remains far behind other provinces when it comes to wages. The minimum wage in Ontario, for example, is $14 an hour, and it will reach $15 on January 1 of next year.

In Alberta, it’s already been increased to $15.

Employers’ organizations in Quebec believe the increase of 75 cents might cause job losses, or at least a reduction in work hours.

Unions, however, applaud the decision, but say it is insufficient. They will continue the crusade to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

In a new study, the Institute for Research and Socio-economic Information (IRIS) estimates that the positive impact of a $15 would outweigh possible job losses.



ADL smears Canary Mission as “Islamophobic” for exposing Islamic anti-Semitism

Canary Mission, an estimable group, is not the first supporter of Israel to be smeared by the Anti-Defamation League. The ADL has likewise defamed Pamela Geller and me for standing against jihad terror and Sharia oppression. The ADL has also libeled the preeminent lawyer and orthodox Jew David Yerushalmi as an “extremist,” an “anti-Muslim bigot” and a “white supremacist.” The ADL has even condemned Israel for fighting anti-Semitism. According to Charles Jacobs of Americans for Peace and Tolerance: “The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) – biggest Jewish ‘defense’ organization — admits in private that the biggest danger to Jews since WWII comes from Muslim Jew-hatred, but because it fears offending its liberal donors and being charged with ‘Islamophobia,’ the organization remains essentially silent on the issue. In a study of ADL press releases from 1995 to 2011– a good if not perfect indicator of ADL priorities – we found that only 3 percent of ADL’s press releases focus on Islamic extremism and Arab anti-Semitism.” (For the full study, see www.charlesjacobs.org.)


“ADL: Exposing Muslim Anti-Semitism is Islamophobic,” by Daniel Greenfield, FrontPage, April 26, 2018:

The ADL won’t fight campus anti-Semitism. And it won’t allow anyone else to fight it either.

Canary Mission stepped into that gap by assembling screenshots of social media anti-Semitism by SJP and MSA members. The ADL links to a JTA hosted editorial signed by a number of Hillels and campus pro-Israel groups. It appears to be authored by two University of Michigan students who, despite sneering at Canary Mission for being anonymous, added their email addresses instead of their names.

The letter accuses Canary Mission of promoting a negative image of Muslims by documenting Islamic anti-Semitism on campus.


Pointing out Muslim anti-Semitism is now… Islamophobic. (But then isn’t accusing a Jewish organization of Islamophobia, anti-Semitic? It’s funny how it only works one way. The way that benefits the left and hurts its victims.)

When Canary Mission spotlights non-Muslim anti-Semites, is that okay? Or is it some other kind of racism or bigotry?

“Canary Mission is an anonymous site that blacklists individuals and professors across the country for their support of the BDS movement, presumed anti-Semitic remarks and hateful rhetoric against Israel and the United States,” the letter claims.

Is praising Hitler and calling for another Holocaust really “presumed” anti-Semitism?

@SANDMAN_YMN: Hitler never killed 6million Jews for no reason uno.. He could see they’re a cancer to the world. don’t @ me.”

I think we can presume it is.

In addition, Canary Mission’s wide scope wrongfully equates supporting a BDS resolution with some of the most virulent expressions of anti-Semitism and anti-Israel rhetoric and activity.

BDS is based on denying equal national rights to Jews. Call it disparate impact. That’s enough to brand most things racist.

That said, we condemn all forms of hate in the strongest possible terms, which includes any and all anti-Semitic rhetoric used by some pro-Palestinian activists.

However, we believe that promoting a negative perception of Muslims, particularly Muslim students on our campuses, as Canary Mission does, is similarly hateful.

Exposing Muslim anti-Semitism is just as hateful… as the anti-Semitism.

We believe that Canary Mission is antithetical and destructive to our shared cause of supporting Israel and eliminating anti-Semitism on campus. Instead, we expect credible Jewish and pro-Israel communal organizations to help us combat anti-Semitism on college campuses, and around the world, in a diplomatic manner that seeks to protect our community rather than shaming the other side anonymously, as Canary Mission does.

I’m sure the MSA and SJP members tweeting their support for another Holocaust will be very impressed by the tremendously effective diplomacy that has worked wonders thus far.

It seems that somewhere along the way, a disconnect has formed between the goals of our Jewish peers and institutions (to combat anti-Semitism and create a positive campus climate) and the true impact of their efforts. Unfortunately, the disconnect has created a situation in which we feel the Jewish values we hold deep, such as “loving our neighbors as ourselves” and “all of Israel being responsible for one another,” are being misrepresented and perverted.

You can fight for Israel and against anti-Semitism. Or you can love everyone. But you can’t do both.

The letter was apparently authored by Joe Goldberg and Gabrielle Roth (I’m guessing because the JTA, while always dedicated to sliming Israel and Jews, is too incompetent and unprofessional to properly provide that basic information.)

Joe apparently has a “complicated” relationship with Israel.

LSA junior Joe Goldberg, a CSG representative, said he voted against the resolution because it challenges what he stands for as a member of the Jewish faith with a complicated relationship with Israel.

It’s usually the people with complicated relationships who are uncomfortable with Jews fighting back. Here’s more from his post on Facebook that was conveniently left out from the letter.

“I stand against any action that intimidates an individual because of their political views. While I do not support BDS, I have friends that do, and that’s ok. We learn and grow from sharing our perspectives with one another.”

That’s at the root of the problem. If you don’t really think BDS is wrong, you don’t really support Israel.