You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘International Affairs’ category.
In a revealing glimpse behind the curtain, commentator Andrew Doyle recently highlighted how certain narratives are tightly controlled within major media organizations. According to Doyle, the BBC has an “LGBT desk” that effectively acts as a gatekeeper, making sure all stories related to sexuality or gender must align with a particular viewpoint before they get the green light.
This revelation sheds light on how media outlets can become ideologically captured, turning into echo chambers rather than platforms for open dialogue. While there are undoubtedly excellent journalists at the BBC, Doyle’s insight reveals a systemic issue: when certain desks have the power of veto over stories, it raises questions about whose voices are being heard and whose are being filtered out.
In a time when free speech and diverse perspectives are more important than ever, understanding how these behind-the-scenes dynamics work is crucial. After all, a truly free press should aim to present a range of viewpoints rather than enforcing a single narrative.
In recent years, Venezuela was often held up as a shining example by some Western socialists as the ultimate proof that their economic model could create a fairer society. Big names on the left, from Jeremy Corbyn to Bernie Sanders, once praised Venezuela as a socialist success story.
But when the country’s economy collapsed, when its people faced hunger, and when millions fled, those same voices grew notably quiet. Today, the narrative has shifted. Supporters who once looked to Venezuela now point to Nordic countries, distancing themselves from what they once endorsed.
The reality is that Venezuela’s tragic decline serves as a cautionary tale. It shows that simply promising “free stuff” and wealth redistribution doesn’t automatically lead to prosperity. Instead, it can lead to economic dysfunction and suffering.
In this post, we’ve unpacked how the once-celebrated Venezuelan model has become an uncomfortable silence among its former admirers. We’ve seen how the economic realities and human suffering in Venezuela stand in stark contrast to the optimistic promises of socialism. And as we look at these lessons, it’s clear that Western societies need to reevaluate the ideologies we champion. Ultimately, if we want to build fairer and more prosperous societies, we need to be honest about what works and what doesn’t, and not shy away from these tough conversations.
First, from the Manhattan Institute, there’s an analysis by Daniel Di Martino arguing that Venezuela’s crisis was primarily caused by socialist policies like nationalizations and price controls.
Second, the Fraser Institute provides a historical perspective from Fred McMahon, who notes that Venezuela’s decline started with economic mismanagement even before the full rise of socialist policies.
On January 3, 2026, the United States carried out a large-scale operation in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, and their transfer into U.S. custody. [1] Within hours, the story stopped being only about Maduro. It became a stress test of the West’s default assumptions about how global order actually works.
The reaction split fast and predictably: condemnation framed in the language of sovereignty and the UN Charter; applause framed in the language of liberation and justice; and, underneath both, a quieter argument about whether “international law” is a meaningful constraint—or primarily a vocabulary used to legitimize outcomes power already permits.
Two languages for one event
When a great power uses force to remove a sitting head of state and relocate him for prosecution, states and commentators typically reach for one of two languages.
The first is legal-institutional: Was this lawful? Was it authorized? What does the UN Charter permit? What precedent does it set?
The second is strategic-realist: What will it cost? Who can impose consequences? What does it deter? What does it invite?
These languages often coexist, but Venezuela forced a choice because it exposed the tension between *the claim* of a rules-governed international order and *the mechanism* by which order actually persists.
The enforceability problem
The measured point is not that international law is “fake” in every domain. A great deal of international life runs on rules that are real in practice: treaties, trade arrangements, financial compliance, aviation coordination, maritime norms, and sanctions enforcement. In those domains, rules can be highly consequential because they are tied to access, markets, and institutional membership.
But in the domain that states care about most—hard security and regime survival—international law runs into a structural limitation: there is no global sovereign with a monopoly on force. The question is not whether rules exist, but whether they bind the actors most able to ignore them.
That isn’t a rhetorical flourish. It’s the structural fact everything else sits on.
The UN can convene, condemn, and deliberate. But it cannot consistently coerce major powers into compliance. In the wake of the Maduro operation, the UN Security Council moved to meet and the UN Secretary-General warned the action set a “dangerous precedent.” [2] That may shape legitimacy and alliances. It may raise political costs. But it does not function like law inside a state, because law inside a state ultimately rests on enforceable authority.
This is why the phrase “international law” so often behaves less like binding law and more like legitimacy currency—something states spend, something rivals contest, and something that matters most when it is backed by power.
The reaction spectrum makes more sense as philosophy, not partisanship
The political reactions were not merely partisan reflexes; they were expressions of competing world-models.
Institutionalists treated the precedent as the core danger: once unilateral force becomes normalized, the world becomes easier for worse actors to imitate.
Sovereignty-first critics (especially in regions with long memories of intervention) treated it as a return to imperial patterns—regardless of Maduro’s character.
Results-first supporters treated it as overdue action against an entrenched authoritarian regime and criminal networks.
Realists treated it as a reminder that rules do not restrain actors who cannot be credibly punished.
It is possible to disagree with the operation and still accept the realist diagnosis. “This was reckless” and “this reveals how order works” are not contradictions—they’re often the same conclusion stated in different registers.
A small but telling detail: systems moved, not just speeches
One detail worth noting is that the event had immediate operational spillover beyond diplomacy: temporary Caribbean airspace restrictions and widespread flight cancellations followed, with U.S. authorities later lifting curbs. [3] That’s not a moral argument either way. It’s simply a reminder that great-power action produces real-world system effects instantly—while multilateral processes operate on a different clock.
Meanwhile, Venezuela’s internal institutions scrambled to project continuity. On January 4, 2026, reporting described Venezuela’s Supreme Court ordering Vice President Delcy Rodríguez to assume the interim presidency following Maduro’s detention. [4] Again, one can read this in legal terms or strategic terms. But it underscores the same point: the decisive moves were being made through power, institutional control, and logistics—not through international adjudication.
What Venezuela is really teaching
The strongest measured conclusion is this:
1. International law can matter as coordination and legitimacy.
2. But in hard-security conflicts, it does not function like ordinary law because enforcement is selective, especially against great powers.
3. Therefore, when Western leaders speak as though “international law” itself will constrain outcomes, they are often describing the world they want—or the world they remember—more than the world that exists.
This is the wake-up Venezuela delivers: not that rules are worthless, but that rules don’t become rules until they are paired with credible consequences. If the West wants a world that is safer for liberal societies, it must stop mistaking procedural vocabulary for strategic capacity.
What Western leaders should do differently
If “international law” is often a language of legitimacy rather than a source of enforcement, then the task for Western leaders is not to abandon norms—but to rebuild the conditions under which norms can actually hold. That requires a change in posture that is both external and internal.
First: speak honestly about interests and tradeoffs.
A rules vocabulary can be morally sincere and still strategically evasive. Western publics deserve leaders who can say, without euphemism, what outcomes matter, why they matter, and what costs we are willing to pay to secure them.
Second: re-embody Western values in our institutions, not merely our slogans.
The West is not “a place that sometimes gets things right.” It is the most successful civilizational experiment yet produced: freedom under law, pluralism, scientific dynamism, broad prosperity, and the moral insight that the individual matters. If leaders treat this as an embarrassment rather than an inheritance, they will govern as caretakers of decline.
Third: restore civic confidence by repairing the narrative infrastructure.
A civilization that teaches its own children that it is uniquely evil will not defend itself—or even understand why it should. The “mono-focused West-is-bad” story has become a kind of institutional reflex across parts of education, culture, and bureaucracy. You can reject naïve triumphalism while still insisting on civilizational honesty: that the West has flaws, committed crimes, and still produced the best lived human outcomes at scale to date.
Fourth: build capacity again—material, strategic, and moral.
Norms without capacity do not preserve peace; they invite tests. This means defense industrial readiness, energy resilience, border and migration competence, counterintelligence seriousness, and the willingness to impose costs where deterrence requires it.
Finally: treat multilateralism as a tool, not a substitute for power.
Institutions can amplify strength; they cannot conjure it. A West that wants a stable order must stop acting as though process is the engine. Process is the dashboard.
Afterword: the more polemical take
Western elites keep reaching for “international law” the way a sleepwalker reaches for the bedside table—by habit, not by sight. They speak as if naming the norm substitutes for enforcing it. But there is no authority behind it for the actors that matter most.
So the scandal isn’t disagreement about Venezuela. The scandal is that so many of our leadership classes still talk like we live in a world where legitimacy language can replace power, unity, and competence. That was a comfortable posture in a more unipolar era. It is a dangerous posture now.
In a multipolar environment, moral declarations without strength don’t preserve order. They advertise weakness. And weakness is not neutral: it invites tests.
Footnotes
[1] Reuters (Jan 3–4, 2026): reporting on the U.S. operation capturing Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores and transferring them to U.S. custody.
[2] Reuters (Jan 3, 2026): UN Security Council to meet over U.S. action; UN Secretary-General calls it a “dangerous precedent”; meeting requested with backing from Russia/China.
[3] Reuters (Jan 3, 2026): Caribbean airspace restrictions and flight cancellations following the operation; later lifted.
[4] Reuters (Jan 4, 2026): Venezuela’s Supreme Court orders Delcy Rodríguez to assume interim presidency after Maduro’s detention.
Direct Reference Links
[1] Reuters — “Mock house, CIA source and Special Forces: The US operation to capture Maduro”
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/mock-house-cia-source-special-forces-us-operation-capture-maduro-2026-01-03/
[2] Reuters — “UN Security Council to meet Monday over US action in Venezuela”
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/un-chief-venezuela-us-action-sets-dangerous-precedent-2026-01-03/
[3] Reuters — “US lifts Caribbean airspace curbs after attack on Venezuela”
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/us-airlines-cancel-flights-after-caribbean-airspace-closure-2026-01-03/
[4] Reuters — “Venezuela’s Supreme Court orders Delcy Rodriguez become interim president”
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/venezuelas-supreme-court-orders-delcy-rodriguez-become-interim-president-2026-01-04/
This quote from@prof_curiosity on X: Piaget: The construction of learning
“Piaget viewed children as “little scientists” who actively construct knowledge by testing and refining mental schemas, most often through play. Through assimilation (fitting new experiences into existing schemas) and accommodation (adjusting schemas when they do not fit), driven by equilibration (resolving confusion), children progress through four stages: sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational, and formal operational.Development is a self-motivated process of making sense of the world. Adults naturally introduce their own schemas to children; most are well-meaning and beneficial. However, it is hard to imagine a more destructive schema for young children than that of ‘gender identity.’ Piaget’s theory explains how and why children adopt this adult shortcut to achieve equilibration.Simply it provides easy answers to difficult questions.What transgender ideology offers these playful child scientists is a highly self-destructive, adult schema (construct) wholly unsuitable for their developing, vulnerable minds. This schema, if pushed by significant adults, can easily be assimilated into a child’s learning patterns, providing ready made answers (equilibration) to questions the child would be years away from naturally asking; along with terrible, self-destructive answers to natural self-doubts. Thus, for a toddler girl: “Why do I prefer to play with boys’ things, etc.?” The inserted adult schema answers, “Because you are really a boy.” Of course the correct answer would be, “Because that is who you are” backed up with, “And you are perfect as you are – so carry on playing”.However transgenderism is not interested in children growing into well balanced adults. It targets vulnerable, especially autistic children, with undeveloped schemas who can be convinced that the way to achieve equilibration is to perform “being transgender”. It needs these (trans) children to provide cover for adult autogynephiles.This brilliant application of Piaget’s theory highlights why imposing adult “gender identity” concepts on children short-circuits their natural cognitive development—and why it’s especially harmful for vulnerable groups like autistic kids.”
Evidence backs this up: A 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis found a clear overlap between autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and gender dysphoria/incongruence, with autistic youth far more likely to experience it, likely due to challenges with flexible schemas and social understanding.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35596023/The UK’s independent Cass Review (2024) went further: after rigorous systematic evidence reviews, it concluded the evidence for puberty blockers and hormones in minors is weak, with risks (e.g., bone density loss, fertility impacts) outweighing unproven benefits. It recommends extreme caution and holistic care over rapid affirmation.
Full report: https://cass.independent-review.uk/final-report/We must protect children’s natural exploration through play and affirm their bodies as they are. Imposing ideology that locks in confusion isn’t kindness—it’s harm. Prioritize evidence-based therapy and watchful waiting.
Canada finds itself at a crossroads. In recent years, per capita GDP growth has stalled, productivity remains sluggish, and housing, healthcare, and infrastructure face mounting pressure. These trends have prompted urgent debate about the causes of stagnation, ranging from global economic shifts and demographic aging to domestic policy decisions. Among commentators, JD Vance recently sparked attention with pointed critiques of Canada’s immigration policies and multicultural model, framing them as principal contributors to declining living standards. Beyond the immediate provocation, his intervention highlights a deeper question: how should Canadians assess responsibility for the state of their economy?
Immigration, Policy Choices, and Economic Outcomes
Canada’s foreign-born population now stands at approximately 23 percent, the highest in the G7, reflecting a sharp rise over the past decade. This increase was accelerated by post-pandemic labor shortages and policy decisions prioritizing high-volume admissions. While immigration is a crucial driver of population growth and labor supply, recent evidence indicates that integration has lagged, particularly for newcomers with credentials or skills mismatched to domestic demand. Unemployment rates among recent immigrants are approximately twice those of Canadian-born workers, and overall productivity growth has remained below historical trends.
These outcomes underscore a key point: while external factors including global commodity cycles, trade dynamics, and U.S. policy affect Canada’s economy, domestic decisions regarding immigration volume, infrastructure investment, and skills integration exert primary influence over living standards. The choice to expand immigration without simultaneously scaling capacity for integration, housing, and healthcare has consequences that voters ultimately authorize at the ballot box.
Stoic Lessons for Civic Responsibility
Confronted with these structural and policy realities, Canadians might feel tempted to externalize blame to markets, foreign governments, or pundits. Here, the Stoic philosophers offer timeless guidance. Marcus Aurelius wrote in his Meditations: “You have power over your mind—not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength.” Epictetus similarly asserted: “It’s not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters.” These principles demand that citizens distinguish between factors within their control and those beyond it, focusing energy on the former.
Stoicism is not a creed of passivity. It insists on rigorous self-examination and deliberate action. In Canada’s context, this means acknowledging the consequences of policy choices and recognizing that solutions—whether adjusting immigration strategy, improving integration programs, or investing in productivity-enhancing infrastructure—lie within domestic capacity.
Pathways to Renewal
Practical measures aligned with these principles include:
- Aligning immigration targets with absorptive capacity: Recent adjustments to temporary resident admissions, reducing projected numbers by approximately 43 percent, illustrate the potential for recalibration.
- Prioritizing skill-aligned integration: Investing in credential recognition, language training, and targeted labor placement can ensure that new arrivals contribute effectively to productivity.
- Strengthening domestic infrastructure and services: Housing, healthcare, and transportation require proportional investment to match demographic growth.
- Informed civic engagement: Voting with awareness of policy consequences is fundamental to maintaining democratic accountability and ensuring long-term economic stability.
By taking responsibility, Canadians act in accordance with Stoic precepts: focusing on what they can control rather than scapegoating external forces. The challenge is not merely economic—it is moral and civic. Prosperity depends as much on deliberate collective action as on external circumstance.
Conclusion
Canada’s stagnating living standards are the product of complex factors, yet domestic choices remain decisive. While commentary from external observers like JD Vance may provoke discomfort, the underlying lesson is clear: sovereignty entails responsibility, and agency begins at home. To confront stagnation, Canadians must embrace candid assessment of policy outcomes, deliberate reform, and disciplined civic engagement. In the words of Seneca: “We suffer more often in imagination than in reality.” Facing the realities we have constructed—and acting to improve them—is the first step toward renewal.
References
- Statistics Canada. Labour Force Survey, 2025. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/type/data
- Government of Canada. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration, 2024. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/annual-report-parliament-immigration.html
- Marcus Aurelius. Meditations. Trans. Gregory Hays, 2002.
- Epictetus. Enchiridion. Trans. Elizabeth Carter, 1758.
- Seneca. Letters from a Stoic. Trans. Robin Campbell, 2004.
Glossary
- Per Capita GDP: The average economic output per person, often used as a measure of living standards.
- Productivity: Output per unit of input; a key driver of sustainable economic growth.
- Integration Programs: Policies and services designed to help immigrants participate effectively in the labor market and society.
- Absorptive Capacity: The ability of a system (economy, infrastructure, institutions) to accommodate growth without adverse effects.
- Stoicism: Philosophical framework emphasizing rational control over one’s mind and actions rather than external circumstances.
When political violence erupts, it often looks random — a lone extremist, a protest that gets out of hand, or a clash between two angry groups. But much of what we’re seeing today, in both the United States and Canada, is not random at all. It is part of a deliberate strategy that activists call dialectical warfare — and it is tearing at the heart of our democratic societies.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk and the furious conservative backlash that followed are not isolated events. They are part of a larger spiral of violence and reaction, one that radicals hope will end with the collapse of our current system. To understand how, we need to unpack an old idea: the dialectic.
What is the Dialectic?
The word “dialectic” comes from philosophy, specifically the German thinker Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in the early 1800s. At its simplest, the dialectic is a way of describing how history moves forward through conflict.
- Thesis: the current system or status quo.
- Antithesis: the force that challenges it.
- Synthesis: a new system that emerges after the clash.
For Hegel, this was a way of understanding history as a story of progress. Marx later took this idea and made it the foundation of his revolutionary theory. For him, history was about class struggle: workers against capitalists. Capitalism, he argued, would eventually collapse under its contradictions and give way to communism.
The key point is this: conflict isn’t a bug in the system — it’s the engine of history.
From Philosophy to Political Activism
Fast forward to today. Many left-wing activists, consciously or not, operate with a dialectical mindset. They believe that society advances through conflict and breakdown, not peaceful debate.
That means chaos, division, and even violence can be seen as useful. If enough conflict is stirred up, the system will be forced to reveal its flaws, overreact, and eventually collapse — clearing the way for something new.
This isn’t conspiracy theory. Activist manuals, writings from radical groups, and historical revolutionary movements all share this logic. The goal is not stability. The goal is destabilization.
Dialectical Warfare Today
Dialectical warfare is what happens when activists deliberately create or amplify conflict to destabilize society. Here’s how it works in practice:
- Provocation: Protests or acts of violence designed to draw a harsh reaction.
- Overreaction: Authorities or opponents respond too aggressively, confirming the activists’ narrative.
- Crisis: The clash erodes faith in institutions and convinces people the system doesn’t work.
- Escalation: Each cycle of conflict moves society further up the spiral toward collapse.
It’s not about winning the argument. It’s about breaking the system so that something “better” (usually some form of socialist utopia) can be built on the ruins.
The Charlie Kirk Case
The recent assassination of Charlie Kirk shows this dynamic clearly. For the radical Left, the act of violence itself was a shock designed to destabilize. But what mattered more was the reaction.
Conservatives in power, outraged and furious, began employing the same tools that had once been used against them: censorship, cancel culture, and efforts to silence left-wing voices. In their anger, they began shredding the same democratic norms — free speech, due process, respect for law — that they had once fought to defend.
From the perspective of dialectical warfare, this is a victory for the radicals. The point was never just to kill one man. The point was to provoke an overreaction that would weaken the credibility of conservative leaders, make democratic institutions look fragile, and drive polarization even deeper.
Why This is Dangerous
Every time conservatives react by copying the authoritarian tactics of the Left, they confirm the radicals’ worldview. They prove that democracy is a sham, that free speech is a lie, and that the system is doomed.
This is exactly what the activist Left wants. They welcome conservative overreach, because it accelerates the collapse of the old order. The tragedy is that in fighting back, the right risks becoming what it hates: reactionary, authoritarian, and destructive of the very freedoms it claims to defend.
Lessons from History
We have seen this before. In the 20th century, totalitarian movements from Communism in Russia to fascism in Germany thrived on dialectical conflict. They used street violence, political assassinations, and manufactured crises to polarize society. Each overreaction by their opponents brought them closer to power.
The idea is seductive: “This system is broken. Only radical action can save us.” But the results are always catastrophic. Millions died under regimes that promised utopia and delivered tyranny.
A Simple Analogy
Think of democracy like a family car. It’s not perfect — sometimes it breaks down, sometimes it needs repairs. Activists practicing dialectical warfare are not trying to fix the car. They are trying to crash it on purpose, believing that after the wreck, they’ll be able to build a perfect new vehicle.
But history shows that after the crash, what you usually get is not a better car — it’s a dictatorship.
The Dialectical Spiral at Work
To make this crystal clear, here’s how activists see the spiral — and what really happens:
| Stage | Activist Left’s View | What Actually Happens |
|---|---|---|
| Provocation | Stir conflict (riots, violence, incendiary rhetoric) to expose “systemic oppression.” | Communities destabilize; trust erodes. |
| Reaction | Force conservatives into authoritarian overreach. | Free speech and rule of law weaken; institutions lose credibility. |
| Crisis | Show that democracy and capitalism can’t solve the conflict. | Cynicism deepens; polarization hardens. |
| Escalation | Push society up the spiral toward “revolution and utopia.” | Cycle repeats, leading not to utopia but greater instability. |
Why We Must Resist
The activists’ dream of a communist utopia is a fantasy that has failed every time it’s been tried. But their strategy of dialectical warfare is very real — and very effective at breaking societies apart.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk and the conservative overreaction it triggered are a warning. If we allow ourselves to be baited into authoritarian responses, we are not saving democracy — we are digging its grave.
The only way forward is to resist the spiral: to defend free speech, uphold the rule of law, and refuse to play into the radicals’ hands. Otherwise, we will all be dragged into the chaos they long for, and the freedoms that make Western society unique will vanish in the wreckage.
References
- Hegel, G.W.F. The Phenomenology of Spirit (1807).
- Marx, K. & Engels, F. The Communist Manifesto (1848).
- Arendt, H. On Violence (1970).
- Popper, K. The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945).
- Contemporary coverage: Reuters, Associated Press, Fox News (Sept. 2025) – reporting on the assassination of Charlie Kirk and ensuing political fallout.
The UK government under Prime Minister Keir Starmer has introduced the so-called BritCard proposal: a mandatory digital identity (ID) scheme set to roll out by 2029. According to Reuters and other major outlets, the idea is that workers will need this digital ID for right-to-work checks, and over time it may be extended to access public services like tax records, childcare, welfare, etc. (reuters.com) Critics argue it creates centralized databases, raises risks of surveillance, invites overreach, and may pave the way for a social credit framework. (theguardian.com)
A social credit system, like the one China is implementing, is where citizens are monitored, graded or blacklisted for various behaviors (both major and minor), and then rewarded or punished accordingly. In China, examples include: blocking millions of people from buying airplane or train tickets due to “discredited behaviour” (which might include unpaid fines or minor public misbehavior); preventing access to education or luxury purchases; placing people or companies on public blacklists affecting their livelihoods; and using facial recognition and wide surveillance to monitor compliance. (theguardian.com) Such a system curtails freedoms: freedom of movement, career opportunities, public participation, and even speech if one criticizes the state or fails to conform to expected norms.
The UK’s BritCard digital ID proposals, alongside other legislative trends, are troubling signs of creeping authoritarianism—where government tools offer the capacity for control as much as for convenience. Canada shows similar risks: its proposed Combatting Hate Act includes expanding definitions of hate speech, creating new offences for obstruction, intimidation, and streamlining hate-speech and propaganda prosecutions. (canada.ca) While aiming to protect vulnerable communities, such expanded powers risk chilling free speech, targeting dissent, and giving the state too much discretion over what is or isn’t allowable expression. As free societies, the West must resist anything resembling social credit systems dressed up as digital ID or online-hate regulation.
The Panopticon come to life.
What Social Credit Means for Freedom
Here’s what is at stake if systems like China’s are ever adopted in the West:
- Freedom of Movement: Bans on travel by air, train, or road for those with low “scores.”
- Freedom of Speech: Criticism of the government or “unharmonious” views can lower your score.
- Economic Opportunity: Blacklisting can prevent people from starting businesses, holding jobs, or receiving loans.
- Privacy & Autonomy: Facial recognition, mass surveillance, and data collection track daily life in detail.
- Access to Education & Services: Children of “blacklisted” parents have been denied access to private schools.
- Social Participation: Public shaming lists and score rankings reduce citizens to state-monitored reputations.
- Rule of Law: Arbitrary and opaque standards allow punishment without due process.
References
- Reuters – Britain to introduce mandatory digital ID cards
- FT – Digital ID: what is the UK planning, and why now?
- The Guardian – Digital ID plan for UK risks creating an ‘enormous hacking target’
- The Guardian – China bans 23m ‘discredited’ citizens from buying travel tickets
- CNBC – China to stop people traveling who have bad ‘social credit’
- Sohu – Examples of Chinese blacklists and restrictions
- Government of Canada – Combatting Hate Act – proposed legislation
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…