International
‘Wrong in principle’: Former UK prime ministers torch proposed assisted suicide legislation
A nurse injects medicine for euthanasia to an elderly man in a hospital bed
From LifeSiteNews
As UK lawmakers prepare to vote on Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide bill, opposition mounts from ex-prime ministers, clergy, and healthcare leaders, who condemn the practice ‘in principle’ while warning of risks to vulnerable patients and flawed safeguards.
At least four former U.K. prime ministers have opposed Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide bill as the Friday vote looms.
Former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown published his editorial opposing assisted suicide in the Guardian on November 22, revealing that the moments he and his wife spent with their dying infant daughter were among the most precious in his life and calling on Parliament to instead focus on improving end-of-life care.
According to the Daily Telegraph, former British leaders Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Baroness Theresa May have all expressed their opposition to the deceitfully named Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. May’s opposition to assisted suicide has not changed since she voted against it in 2015, and thus she expects to vote against the Leadbeater bill if it progresses to the House of Lords, according to sources close to May.
Liz Truss has been forthright in her opposition, telling the Telegraph that she is “completely opposed” to assisted suicide: “It is wrong in principle: organs of the state like the NHS and the judicial system should be protecting lives, not ending them.” Boris Johnson also opposes the assisted suicide bill in its current form, the Telegraph reports. Rishi Sunak is not opposed to assisted suicide “in principle,” but has not stated which way he will be voting; Tony Blair has also thus far remained silent.
Unfortunately, former prime minister David Cameron has changed his view on assisted suicide, stating that despite his previous concerns that vulnerable people might be pressured to end their lives, Leadbeater’s bill has “strong safeguards.” As several experts have already pointed out, Cameron is wrong about the bill – in fact, the legislation as written is vague, disastrous, and filled with loopholes.
Indeed, the bill’s sponsor and most aggressive champion, Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, has suggested that fear of being a burden is a “legitimate reason” for dying – and the “safeguards,” such as Clause 25, which protects medical professionals involved in assisted suicides from civil liability, reveals who the safeguards are actually for.
Although the assisted suicide camp still has more confirmed votes, opposition to the bill has been mounting in recent days. The Times condemned the bill, stating in no uncertain terms:
Legislation sanctioning the killing of human beings, irrespective of life expectancy, is a matter worthy of the most rigorous debate. Ms Leadbeater implied only this week that doctors would be allowed to raise the issue of assisted dying with patients who had expressed no desire for it. Such flippant and ad hoc reasoning behind this most important of bills condemns it.
Even the Church of England has stepped up, with over 1,000 members of the Anglican clergy – including 15 bishops – signing an open letter stating:
To reduce the value of human life to physical and mental capacity and wellbeing has sinister implications for how we as a society view those who experience severe physical or mental issues.
Cardinal Vincent Nichols and other prominent Catholic clergy have also been vociferous in their condemnation of the bill; Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis published his opposition to the bill on November 26.
READ: Euthanasia advocates use deception to affect public’s perception of assisted suicide
These religious leaders are joined by jurists such as former judge Sir James Munby and former attorney Dominic Grieve. Additionally, 3,400 healthcare professionals, including 23 hospice medical directors and 53 eminent medical professionals, signed a letter stating that Leadbeater’s bill “would threaten society’s ability to safeguard vulnerable patients from abuse.” London Mayor Sadiq Khan also opposes the bill.
In response, suicide lobby group Dying With Dignity is pouring money into ad campaigns on social media, running 602 Facebook ads in the past month. Supporters of assisted suicide are claiming that a majority of the public supports the bill, and some polls indicate that over 60 percent do. However, as the saying goes, polls are taken to shape public opinion, not gauge it. From the Daily Mail:
[A new poll] found that when presented with ten basic arguments against assisted suicide – based on experiences from other countries such as Canada where the practice is allowed – support collapses. In this case the proportion of “supporters” who did not switch to oppose or say “don’t know” fell to just 11 per cent, the polling found. Support fell in every social category by between 17 and 49 percentage points.
This poll reveals precisely why Keir Starmer, the U.K.’s first openly atheist prime minister, permitted such an important bill to be so rushed: the more people know, the more they oppose assisted suicide. Let’s hope that the pushback is enough to carry the day.
Brownstone Institute
Justice Is Served: Jay Bhattacharya Chosen to Be NIH Director
Martin Kulldorff, Sunetra Gupta, Jay Bhattacharya. Authors of the Great Barrington Declaration
From the Brownstone Institute
By
“At some point in summer of 2020, I decided—what is my career for? If it’s just to have another CV line or a stamp, I’ve wasted my life—that I would speak no matter what the consequences were.”
Many years ago, I was at the wedding of a good friend, a guy who everyone seemed to like. He was/is humble, considerate, kind, and down to earth. I remember telling his mother while at the wedding that I would tell anyone that, “If you don’t like him, then the problem is you.”
I also feel that way about Stanford health economist Jay Bhattacharya. Jay’s nomination by President-elect Trump to be Director of the National Institutes of Health has been a long time coming and is a hopeful signal that national health research policy is headed in the right direction.
Jay was right about all the big things during the Covid pandemic and was an important counter to the destructive hubris of lockdown and mandate-promoting public health leaders and scientists in the US. Along with Martin Kulldorff and Sunetra Gupta, Jay took enormous personal and professional risks in drafting the Great Barrington Declaration in October of 2020. In response to the highly age-stratified mortality of Covid-19 and with the threat of serious collateral damage of continuing lockdowns, school closures, and mandates, the GBD instead promoted the policy of focused protection for vulnerable elderly and infirm people while allowing young and healthy people to live their lives.
The virus was going to infect everyone eventually and establish herd immunity, and there was no evidence that a vaccine (none approved at the time) would stop that natural process. The big question was how to deal with a natural disaster without making the situation much worse. Thus, the debate was focused protection versus unfocused protection—sheltering everyone regardless of their risk of mortality or serious disease until the entire population could be vaccinated with a vaccine of unknown efficacy and net benefit.
At least that’s the debate that should’ve happened. Unfortunately, it didn’t. Jay and his GBD coauthors were attacked, threatened, and slandered. When Jay’s research group published a study showing that the seroprevalence of Covid-19 in Santa Clara County in California was much higher than previously believed, it destroyed the delusion that the virus could be eliminated, that containment was at all possible. Many people didn’t want to hear that, and Jay was subjected to numerous attacks in the media, including a defamatory article in BuzzFeed claiming he was funded by dark money and implied he used questionable methods because he was biased toward the study’s outcome.
The fact that he shortly thereafter authored a paper showing very low seroprevalence in Major League Baseball franchises wasn’t enough to prove his objectivity. The message put forth by the public health establishment would simply not allow any dissent or debate. The policy needed to drive The Science™, and lower-case science could not be allowed to drive the policy.
I signed the Great Barrington Declaration the day it was published on October 4th, 2020. I had seen, and was greatly impressed by, interviews of Jay by Peter Robinson in March and April of 2020 and was heartened by Jay’s calm display of knowledge and humility. Jay described in one of these interviews the uncertainty surrounding the number of people infected and the claims being made by experts like Anthony Fauci regarding the infection fatality rate:
They don’t know it and I don’t know it. We should be honest about that. And we should be honest about that with people who make these policy decisions when making them. In a sense, people plug the worst case into their models, they project two to four million deaths, the newspapers pick up the two to four million deaths, the politicians have to respond, and the scientific basis for that projection…there’s no study underlying that scientific projection.
When asked about the potential for collateral damage to lockdowns, “It’s not dollars versus lives, it’s lives versus lives.” An understanding of the responsibility to avoid collateral harm of lockdowns was essential yet was in extremely short supply. Jay was attacked for this nuanced message. He got emails from colleagues and administrators telling him that questioning the high infection fatality rate was irresponsible. Yet, someone had to do it. However, the interviews went viral, because Jay gave millions of people something they didn’t have and desperately needed. He gave them hope.
As the year went on, Jay became the face of the opposition to unfocused protection, appearing in countless interviews and writing countless articles. He became an advisor to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who vowed to not lock down the people of Florida again after an initial wave of closures. When waves of Covid inevitably hit Florida, Stanford students papered the campus with pictures of Jay next to Florida death rates, implying Jay’s nuanced message was responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. When the age-adjusted mortality rate of Florida ended up being rather average compared to other states, including lockdown and mandate-happy California, no one apologized.
YouTube censored a public forum with Jay and Martin Kulldorff and Governor DeSantis, where they made claims about the hazards of continuous lockdowns, school closures, and mandates that months before wouldn’t have been at all controversial. After the GBD was published, Jay and Martin were invited to the White House by Covid advisor Scott Atlas to discuss the idea of focused protection with President Trump. Despite that meeting, the political battle continued to be an uphill fight.
The response of federal officials was shameful. Fauci and White House Covid Advisor Deborah Birx boycotted the meeting. Then NIH Director Francis Collins called for a “swift and devastating takedown” of the GBD’s premise and called the authors “fringe epidemiologists.” There simply was no appetite at the highest levels for a nuanced message or any debate whatsoever. Media coverage of Jay and other Covid response critics continued to be toxic.
Yet Jay’s appearances and message continued to inspire millions of people and give them hope. I began writing in support of focused protection and against the constant doom-saying that was harming everyone, especially children. I met Jay in the fall of 2021 because of my writing, at a conference organized by Brownstone Institute. “I think we are making a difference,” he said after shaking my hand. Like many other people he had inspired to take a stance against Covid hysteria, I needed to hear that.
The next day, Jay was preparing to give his speech in front of a small crowd in the ballroom, and I sat next to him while he reviewed his notes during the previous speaker’s talk. Although he was dressed in a suit and tie, when glancing down, I noticed Jay had a hole in his dress shoe. This truly wasn’t about money or even status. He was simply doing what he believed was morally right.
Later on, Jay helped spearhead a couple of Covid-related projects I was also involved in (I was there largely due to his influence). First was the Norfolk Group, which produced a resource document for the US Congress titled “Questions for a COVID-19 Commission” and the second was Florida’s Public Health Integrity Committee formed by Governor DeSantis and led by Florida Surgeon General Joe Ladapo. Both groups attempted to bring accountability for the US public health response, and I believe they were successful in spotlighting just how wrong and harmful lockdowns and mandates were for the very public they were supposed to help.
During the initial Norfolk Group meeting, Jay often talked about the moment of no return, “crossing the Rubicon,” as he put it, the moment that each one of us made a conscientious decision to stand up against the mob. He later recalled in an interview with Jordan Peterson: “At some point in summer of 2020, I decided—what is my career for? If it’s just to have another CV line or a stamp, I’ve wasted my life—that I would speak no matter what the consequences were.”
The world has benefitted from Jay’s crossing of the Rubicon. His nomination, after years in the wilderness and on the “fringe” of public health and health policy, restores a sense that there is in fact justice in the world. Now he moves on to the significant task of reforming health research policy. We should be cheering him on all the way.
And if you don’t like Jay, then the problem is you.
Republished from the author’s Substack
Author
Crime
The Bureau Exclusive: The US Government Fentanyl Case Against China, Canada, Mexico
Canadian federal police recently busted a massive fentanyl lab with evident links to Mexico and Chinese crime networks in British Columbia.
Canada increasingly exploited by China for fentanyl production and export, with over 350 gang networks operating, Canadian Security Intelligence Service reports
As the Trump Administration gears up to launch a comprehensive war on fentanyl trafficking, production, and money laundering, the United States is setting its sights on three nations it holds accountable: China, Mexico, and Canada. In an exclusive investigation, The Bureau delves into the U.S. government’s case, tracking the history of fentanyl networks infiltrating North America since the early 1990s, with over 350 organized crime groups now using Canada as a fentanyl production, transshipment, and export powerhouse linked to China, according to Canadian intelligence.
Drawing on documents and senior Drug Enforcement Administration sources—including a confidential brief from an enforcement and intelligence expert who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter—we unravel the evolution of this clandestine trade and its far-reaching implications, leading to the standoff that will ultimately pit President Donald Trump against China’s Xi Jinping.
In a post Tuesday morning that followed his stunning threat of 25 percent tariffs against Mexico and Canada, President Trump wrote:
“I have had many talks with China about the massive amounts of drugs, in particular fentanyl, being sent into the United States—but to no avail. Representatives of China told me that they would institute their maximum penalty, that of death, for any drug dealers caught doing this but, unfortunately, they never followed through, and drugs are pouring into our country, mostly through Mexico, at levels never seen before.”
While Trump’s announcements are harsh and jarring, the sentiment that China is either lacking motivation to crack down on profitable chemical precursor sales—or even intentionally leveraging fentanyl against North America—extends throughout Washington today.
And there is no debate on where the opioid overdose crisis originates.
At a November 8 symposium hosted by Georgetown University’s Initiative for U.S.-China Dialogue on Global Issues, David Luckey, a defense researcher at RAND Corporation, said: “The production, distribution, and use of illegally manufactured fentanyl should be thought of as an ecosystem, and the People’s Republic of China is at the beginning of the global fentanyl supply chain.”
The Bureau’s sources come from the hardline geopolitical camp on this matter. They believe Beijing is attempting to destabilize the U.S. with fentanyl, in what is technically called hybrid warfare. They explained how Canada and Mexico support the networks emanating from China’s economy and political leadership. In Canada, the story is about financial and port infiltration and control of the money laundering networks Mexican cartels use to repatriate cash from fentanyl sales on American streets.
And this didn’t start with deadly synthetic opioids, either.
“Where the drugs come from dictates control. If marijuana is coming from Canada, then control lies there,” the source explained. “Some of the biggest black market marijuana organizations were Chinese organized crime groups based in Brooklyn and Flushing, Queens, supplied from Canada.
“You had organizations getting seven or eight tons of marijuana a week from Canada, all controlled by Chinese groups,” the source said. “And we have seen black market marijuana money flowing back into Canadian banks alongside fentanyl money.”
Canada’s legal framework currently contributes to its appeal for China-based criminal organizations. “Canada’s lenient laws make it an attractive market,” the expert explained. “If someone gets caught with a couple of kilos of fentanyl in Canada, the likelihood of facing a 25-year sentence is very low.”
The presence in Toronto and Vancouver of figures like Tse Chi Lop—a globally significant triad leader operating in Markham, Ontario, and with suspected links to Chinese Communist Party security networks—underscores the systemic gaps.
“Tse is a major player exploiting systemic gaps in Canadian intelligence and law enforcement collaboration,” the source asserted.
Tse Chi Lop was operating from Markham and locations across Asia prior to his arrest in the Netherlands and subsequent extradition to Australia. He is accused of being at the helm of a vast drug syndicate known as “The Company” or “Sam Gor,” which is alleged to have laundered billions of dollars through casinos, property investments, and front companies across the globe.
Reporting by The Bureau has found that British Columbia, and specifically Vancouver’s port, are critical transshipment and production hubs for Triad fentanyl producers and money launderers working in alignment with Mexican cartels and Iranian-state-linked criminals. Documents that surfaced in Ottawa’s Hogue Commission—mandated to investigate China’s interference in Canada’s recent federal elections—demonstrate that BC Premier David Eby flagged his government’s growing awareness of the national security threats related to fentanyl with Justin Trudeau’s former national security advisor.
A confidential federal document, released through access to information, states, according to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS): “Synthetic drugs are increasingly being produced in Canada using precursor chemicals largely sourced from China.”
“Preliminary reporting by the BC Coroner’s Service confirms that toxic, unregulated drugs claimed the lives of at least 2,511 people in British Columbia in 2023, the largest number of drug-related deaths ever reported to the agency,” the record says. “CSIS identifies more than 350 organized crime groups actively involved in the domestic illegal fentanyl market … which Premier Eby is particularly concerned about.”
A sanitized summary on Eby’s concerns from the Hogue Commission adds: “On fentanyl specifically, Canada, the United States, and Mexico are working on supply reduction, including as it relates to precursor chemicals and the prevention of commercial shipping exploitation. BC would be a critical partner in any supply reduction measures given that the Port of Vancouver is Canada’s largest port.”
But before Beijing’s chemical narcotics kingpins took over fentanyl money laundering networks from Canada, the story begins in the early 1990s when fentanyl first appeared on American streets, according to a source with full access to DEA investigative files.
The initial appearance of fentanyl in the United States was linked to a chemist in Ohio during 1992 or 1993, they said. This illicit operation led to hundreds of overdose deaths in cities like Chicago and New York, as heroin laced with fentanyl—known as “Tango & Cash”—flooded the streets. The DEA identified and dismantled the source, temporarily removing fentanyl from the illicit market.
Fentanyl seemed to vanish from the illicit market, lying dormant.
The mid-2000s saw a resurgence, this time with Mexican cartels entering the methamphetamine and fentanyl distribution game, and individuals of Chinese origin taking up roles in Mexico City. “One major case was Zhenli Ye Gon in 2007, where Mexican authorities seized $207 million from his home in Mexico City,” The Bureau’s source said. “He was a businessman accused of being involved in the trafficking of precursor chemicals for methamphetamine production.”
Ye Gon, born in Shanghai and running a pharma-company in Mexico, was believed to be perhaps the largest methamphetamine trafficker in the Western Hemisphere. Educated at an elite university in China, he made headlines not only for his alleged narcotics activities but also for his lavish lifestyle. While denying drug charges in the U.S., he claimed he had received duffel bags filled with cash from members of President Felipe Calderón’s party—a claim that was denied by officials. His arrest also caused a stir in Las Vegas, where Ye Gon was a “VIP” high roller who reportedly gambled more than $125 million, with the Venetian casino gifting him a Rolls-Royce.
Despite high-profile crackdowns, the threat of fentanyl ebbed and flowed, never truly disappearing.
Meanwhile, in 2005 and 2006, over a thousand deaths on Chicago’s South Side were traced to a fentanyl lab in Toluca, Mexico, operated by the Sinaloa Cartel. After the DEA shut it down, fentanyl essentially went dormant again.
A new chapter unfolded in 2013 as precursor chemicals—mainly N-phenethyl-4-piperidone (NPP) and 4-anilinopiperidine (4-ANPP)—began arriving from China. This is when fentanyl overdoses started to rise exponentially in Vancouver, where triads linked to Beijing command money laundering in North America.
“These chemicals were entering Southern California, Texas, and Arizona, smuggled south into Mexico, processed into fentanyl, and then brought back into the U.S., often mixed with Mexican heroin,” the U.S. government source explained.
At the time, a kilo of pure fentanyl cost about $3,000. By 2014, it was called “China White” because heroin was being laced with fentanyl, making it far more potent. In February 2015, the DEA issued its first national alert on fentanyl and began analyzing the role of Chinese organized crime in the fentanyl trade and related money laundering.
The profitability and efficiency of fentanyl compared to traditional narcotics like heroin made it an attractive commodity for drug cartels.
By 2016, fentanyl was being pressed into counterfeit pills, disguised as OxyContin, Percocet, or other legitimate pharmaceuticals. Dark web marketplaces and social media platforms became conduits for its distribution.
The merging of hardcore heroin users and “pill shoppers”—individuals seeking diverted pharmaceuticals—into a single user population occurred due to the prevalence of fentanyl-laced pills. This convergence signified a dangerous shift in the opioid crisis, broadening the scope of those at risk of overdose.
The profitability for traffickers was staggering. One pill could sell for $30 in New England, and Mexican cartels could make 250,000 pills from one kilo of fentanyl, which cost around $3,000 to $5,000. This was far more lucrative and efficient than heroin, which takes months to cultivate and process.
This shift marked a significant turning point in the global drug trade, with synthetic opioids overtaking traditional narcotics.
By 2016, entities linked to the Chinese state were entrenched in Mexico’s drug trade. Chinese companies were setting up operations in cartel-heavy cities, including mining companies, import-export businesses, and restaurants.
“The growth of Chinese influence in Mexico’s drug trade was undeniable,” the source asserted.
Recognizing the escalating crisis, the DEA launched Project Sleeping Giant in 2018. The initiative highlighted the role of Chinese organized crime, particularly the triads, in supplying precursor chemicals, laundering money for cartels, and trafficking black market marijuana.
“Most people don’t realize that Chinese organized crime has been upstream in the drug trade for decades,” the U.S. expert noted.
When the COVID-19 pandemic hit in 2020, drug trafficking organizations adapted swiftly. With borders closed and travel restricted, cartels started using express mail services like FedEx to ship fentanyl and methamphetamine.
This shift highlighted the cartels’ agility in exploiting vulnerabilities and adapting to global disruptions.
By 2022, the DEA intensified efforts to combat the fentanyl epidemic, initiating Operation Chem Kong to target Chinese chemical suppliers.
An often-overlooked aspect of the drug trade is the sophisticated money laundering operations that sustain it, fully integrated into China’s economy through triad money brokers. Chinese groups are now the largest money launderers in the U.S., outpacing even Colombian groups.
“We found Chinese networks picking up drug money in over 22 states,” the source explained. “They’d fly one-way to places like Georgia or Illinois, pick up cash, and drive it back to New York or the West Coast.”
Remarkably, these groups charged significantly lower fees than their Colombian counterparts, sometimes laundering money for free in exchange for access to U.S. dollars.
This strategy not only facilitated money laundering but also circumvented China’s strict currency controls, providing a dual benefit to the criminal organizations.
They used these drug-cash dollars to buy American goods, ship them to China, and resell them at massive markups. Chinese brokers weren’t just laundering fentanyl or meth money; they also laundered marijuana money and worked directly with triads. Operations like “Flush with Cash” in New York identified service providers moving over $1 billion annually to China.
But navigating the labyrinth of Chinese criminal organizations—and their connectivity with China’s economy and state actors—poses significant challenges for law enforcement.
“The challenge is the extreme compartmentalization in Chinese criminal groups,” the U.S. expert emphasized. “You might gain access to one part of the organization, but two levels up, everything is sealed off.”
High-level brokers operate multiple illicit enterprises simultaneously, making infiltration and dismantling exceedingly difficult.
The intricate tapestry of Chinese fentanyl trafficking highlights a convergence of international criminal enterprises exploiting systemic vulnerabilities across borders. The adaptability of these networks—in shifting trafficking methods, leveraging legal disparities, and innovating money laundering techniques—poses a formidable challenge to Western governments.
The leniency in certain jurisdictions including Canada not only hinders enforcement efforts but also incentivizes criminal activities by reducing risks and operational costs.
As the United States prepares to intensify its crackdown on fentanyl networks, having not only politicians and bureaucrats—but also the citizens they are serving—understand the importance of a multifaceted and multinational counter strategy is critical, because voters will drive the political will needed.
And this report, sourced from U.S. experts, provides a blueprint for other public interest journalists to follow.
“This briefing will help you paint the picture regarding Chinese organized crime, the triads, CCP, or PRC involvement with the drug trade and money laundering—particularly with precursor chemicals and black market marijuana,” the primary source explained.
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy2 days ago
Canada Fulfills the Dystopian Vision
-
Business2 days ago
Walmart agrees to drop DEI policies, remove sexualized and pro-transgender products for children
-
Business23 hours ago
Government job-growth rate in Canada vastly outstrips private sector
-
Alberta2 days ago
Protecting Alberta’s economic future from Ottawa
-
Business2 days ago
UN’s COP29 conference pledges $300 billion a year for ‘climate change’ in third world nations to help them transition to alternative energy
-
Business1 day ago
Pentagon mum after Musk calls its most expensive project ‘obsolete’
-
Business1 day ago
Trump Sanctions Flag A Harsh Reality—PRC and Canadian Elite Ties Underwrite Fentanyl Vulnerability
-
Alberta1 day ago
Hells Angels member arrested with handgun in Red Deer