Fort McMurray SPCA launches emergency fundraiser as packed shelter strains finances

The Fort McMurray SPCA’s shelter is almost full, straining the organization’s finances after COVID-19 restrictions caused most fundraising efforts to be cancelled. To care for the growing number of animals at the shelter, the SPCA is launching an online emergency fundraiser with the goal of hitting at least $50,000.

There are at least 85 animals at the shelter, but the SPCA usually cares for no more than 60 animals during a normal period. The SPCA’s annual masquerade ball usually raises between $30,000 and $50,000 annually, but the 2020 ball was cancelled because of the pandemic. The SPCA voted not to hold a ball in October because if COVID-19 restrictions returned, the organization cannot afford to absorb cancellation costs.

“We have a lot of office cats at the moment,” said Melanie Schneider, acting executive director for the SPCA, in an interview.

“All our animals need to be vaccinated, dewormed, health-checked and spayed or neutered. All that comes with a cost and on top of that we are seeing an increase in people wanting to surrender their animals. For us to keep caring for all the animals, we need the funds to be able do that.”

The SPCA had seen a rise in adoptions during the pandemic, but in recent months there has been an uptick in animals dropped off at the shelter. Schneider said it is difficult to determine the shelter’s maximum capacity for animals. The organization has to consider variables such as litter sizes, and health-related concerns that could demand more financial support and services.

The stressed capacity is pushing the organization to a financial breaking point. In 2019, the SPCA raised more than $219,000, but in 2020 pulled in $85,000. The Fort McMurray SPCA had raised $32,000 this year before launching its online fundraiser.

“We need to make sure we get ahead of this financially,” said Schneider. “We are seeing a lot more animals come in that aren’t healthy animals. Those animals need more from us than standard care. We just had four animals come in that required dental work and that’s roughly $1,500 to $2,000 per animal.”

Schneider added much of the recent uptick has been caused by unplanned litters arriving at the shelter. The economic and social fallout of COVID-19 is also making it harder for some people to care for animals.

“Some of our intake is coming from people losing their jobs due to COVID and not being able to afford supporting an animal,” said Schneider. “But we are also seeing a lot of juvenile animals and I can’t stress enough how important it is to spay or neuter your pets so that you don’t have an unplanned litter.”

smclean@postmedia.com
Scott McLean, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Fort McMurray Today

Where is the Fort McMurray SPCA charitable number?

Fort McMurray SPCA 155 MacAlpine Cres Fort McMurray, AB T9H4C5. Phone: (780) 743-8997 Fax: 780-791-3772 Email: info@fortmcmurrayspca.ca. The FMSPCA Charitable Number is: 893333575RR0001

Fort McMurray SPCA – Save lives! Spay or Neuter

fmspca.ca/

Feds have options to revisit Coalspur ruling

While the Government of Canada is still reviewing and deciding its next steps following the Federal Court’s decision to quash the designation of the Coalspur Mining (Bighorn) projects, Coalspur could technically move ahead with the projects pending approvals from the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER).

David Percy, a professor of Energy Law and Policy at the University of Alberta, explained that the mine projects cannot currently be subject to a federal assessment, but this can be changed in two ways.

“Firstly, Canada could take an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal. However, unless there is some form of special application, the federal assessment would remain invalid unless, after the appeal, the Court of Appeal were to reverse the decision of Justice Brown,” he said.

Secondly, Percy continued, the federal government could remedy its failure to consult Ermineskin Cree Nation in the decision to designate the projects by beginning to consult with Ermineskin in good faith and taking those consultations all the way to conclusion.

The reasoning in the judge’s decision to quash the designation was due to a lack of consultation with the Ermineskin Cree Nation, who entered into an Impact Benefit Agreement with Coalspur that provides economic, community, and social benefits to Ermineskin.

The judge stated that the only Indigenous groups consulted by the Minister were those requesting the designation order and that a duty to consult Ermineskin was breached.

Percy explained that remedying the identified failure in a court quashing is what also happened when the courts first quashed the TransMountain pipeline permits.

“When the Federal government properly completed consultation, and after another series of appeals, TMX could proceed with the project,” he said.

This means if Coalspur’s projects have been fully approved by the AER and has obtained all the necessary permits, Coalspur can proceed with the mine, subject to its financial ability to do so under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) protection proceedings. The company recently filed for creditor protection in April and was granted an extension of the protection in early May. This extension ran out on July 23, 2021. No new updates have been released on the company’s status in that process.

The projects in this case include the Phase I Vista Test Underground Mine and Vista Mine Phase II Expansion Projects. The minister of Environment and climate change, Jonathan Wilkinson, said they are determining the implications of the quashing and identifying the next move.

He stated that the federal government is committed to working with Indigenous peoples in a meaningful way that advances reconciliation, respects Indigenous rights and culture, and protects and ensures consideration of Indigenous knowledge.

“That’s why we delivered on our promise to put in place better rules for major projects that support reconciliation, while restoring public trust, protecting the environment and ensuring good projects get built,” stated Wilkinson.

Despite that statement, the judge in this case stated that the duty to consult regarding the loss of the agreement between Ermineskin and Coalspur “also results in value to the Crown in terms of its stated goals in relation to reconciliation.”

Wilkinson went on to state that the continued mining and use of thermal coal for energy production in Canada and around the world runs counter to what is needed to effectively combat climate change.

A policy statement was released by his office on thermal coal mining in June, noting that new thermal coal mines or expansions are likely to cause unacceptable environmental effects, and will inform how these projects will be assessed.

“Going forward, I will continue to consider this policy in deciding whether to designate thermal coal projects under the federal Impact Assessment Act,” Wilkinson said.

Masha Scheele, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, The Hinton Voice

Biden nominates first LGBT federal appeals court nominee


WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden is nominating a Vermont judge who played a critical role in paving the way for the legalization of same-sex marriage to become the first openly LGBT woman to serve on any federal circuit court.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

The White House announced Thursday that Biden has tapped Beth Robinson, an associate justice on the Vermont Supreme Court since 2011, to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. The court's territory includes Connecticut, New York and Vermont.

In 1999, before she was appointed to the Vermont Supreme Court, Robinson helped argue the case that led to Vermont’s civil unions law, the first legal recognition in the country of same-sex relationships — a forerunner of gay marriage.

Robinson served as counsel to Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin, a Democrat, from 2010 to 2011. From 1993 to 2010, Robinson was a civil litigator in private practice at Langrock Sperry & Wool where she focused on employment law, workers’ compensation, contract disputes and family law.

Robinson previously worked at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in Washington, D.C., focusing on white-collar criminal defense. She was a law clerk for Judge David Sentelle on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia from 1989 to 1990.

The White House also announced that Biden is nominating employment law attorney Charlotte Sweeney for the U.S. District Court in Colorado. She would become the the first openly LGBT woman to serve as a federal district court judge in any state west of the Mississippi.

Biden thus far has announced 35 judicial nominees to serve on the federal bench.

Aamer Madhani, The Associated Press

Return of the fat cats? Bank bonuses rise as profits rebound

By Lawrence White and Iain Withers

 Reuters/Lawrence White FILE PHOTO: Protestors wearing costumes pose outside the venue for the HSBC AGM in London

LONDON (Reuters) - Europe's banks are stashing cash to pay bumper bonuses to top performers, amid a deal frenzy driven by pent up demand from the COVID-19 pandemic and rebounding bank profits.


Banks have added billions of dollars to bonus pools as they try to reassure restless staff they will be rewarded in 2021 after a lean 2020.

The planned payouts are more modest than the bonus bonanza on Wall Street, but European banks nonetheless risk a public backlash at a time when many businesses and individuals are still struggling in the pandemic, advocacy groups for fair pay said.

Britain-based Barclays increased its bonus pool by 46% to 1.1 billion pounds ($1.5 billion), up from 749 million pounds a year earlier, while HSBC topped up its bonus pool by $900 million in the first half.

Standard Chartered said a "normalisation of performance-related pay" during the first half drove an 8% jump in costs, to $5.1 billion.

Senior bank executives and recruiters said the market is the most competitive they have seen in a decade, as rebounding economies worldwide, pent-up demand and the fad for investing via Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) drives dealmaking activity.

Swiss bank UBS boosted pay for its financial advisers by $242 million in the second quarter after booking higher revenues, while Deutsche Bank upped pay and benefits in its investment bank by 6% compared with the same period a year ago.

Bonuses and pay increases are likely to continue to build in the second half of the year, said Sophie Scholes, head of the UK financial services practice at headhunters Heidrick & Struggles.

"Banks are anticipating that the next bonus round will be one where they need to pay out, driven by two factors," she said.

"One is the sheer competition for talent, and that means retaining good people, and two is that because of all the market activity people have a good pipeline and some good wins behind them, and banks are trying to prepare for that."

The trend is global, Scholes said, with banks in Europe and Asia playing catch-up to the United States.

Goldman Sachs has increased its compensation by $3.5 billion on the prior year, while JPMorgan has added $2 billion.

Goldman has also raised base pay for juniors to $110,000 after rivals such as Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan increased first-year pay.

This is prompting European rivals to follow suit, with HSBC this week telling staff it would pay newly hired analysts in its U.S. investment bank $100,000 a year.

"The U.S. is extraordinary in terms of activity, which comes from their economic recovery being seen as more robust, and it has always been a highly acquisitive market in terms of talent," Scholes said.

'MORALLY DUBIOUS'

While big payouts are back, in Britain rules that cap payouts at twice the level of base pay and concerns about public perception of banker bonuses during a global crisis mean lenders are showing some restraint.

"Paying out huge bonuses at a time when businesses and households are struggling and the economic outlook remains so uncertain is not only morally dubious but financially irresponsible," said Simon Youel, head of policy and advocacy at Positive Money.

Youel said much of banks' recent profitability could be traced to state support measures for the economy. British newspaper reports have suggested UK banks are lobbying to remove the cap on bonuses of twice base pay, which Youel said the government should reject.

The volatile nature of investment banks' revenues means they must lower variable pay to manage profitability in tough times, Barclays Chief Executive Jes Staley said, and also pay up when business is booming.

"When we have in fact delivered very strong revenue growth, that's reflected in the compensation... we think we are being prudent in how we manage it," he told reporters last week on a conference call.

One bank board rejected an executive's rating of their team as too generous and told them to downgrade it for fear of otherwise having to pay out too much, Scholes said.

Even traditionally more conservative retail banks are increasing pay.

Lloyds, Britain's bellwether mortgage lender, said it would spend an extra 100 million pounds on bonuses this year, after axing them for all but its lowest paid staff last year.

Bank executives said they would have to keep paying up despite concerns about public perception.

"We have to reward people," the Chief Executive of a British bank said, without wanting to be identified. "People have had a difficult time, and if you've stayed in a role and you've been locked away and had to go above and beyond, you expect to be rewarded."

($1 = 0.7189 pounds)

(Reporting by Lawrence White and Iain Withers, additional reporting by Brenna Hughes Neghaiwi in Zurich and Tom Sims in Frankfurt. Editing by Jane Merriman)

GOP governors are kicking people off unemployment - if 

BUT not getting them back to work

bwinck@businessinsider.com (Ben Winck,Andy Kiersz) 9 hrs ago

A man fills out paperwork while waiting for his number to be called at an unemployment event in Tulsa, Oklahoma on July 15, 2020. 

Nick Oxford/The Washington Post/Getty Images

States ending extra unemployment benefits early are seeing a plunge in claims, Insider calculates.

The trend suggests GOP governors' plans to push more people into the workforce are working - but a rise in employment hasn't followed.

Some economists say virus fears and school closures also play a major role in slow hiring.

Republican governors began cutting federal unemployment benefits in June. 

Some argued the move would push jobless Americans back into the workforce, while others more bluntly criticized the federal enhancement for disincentivizing work.

Early signs suggest they're getting exactly what they wanted: A big cut to the social safety net. 

They're not getting a jobs boom, though.

By the end of July, 26 states will have prematurely ended the federal government's $300-per-week expansion to unemployment insurance. All but one are led by Republican governors, and the other is a Democrat governing the deep-red state of Louisiana. The first rollbacks started in mid-June. In total, about 4 million Americans will see some or all of their benefits cut off ahead of the planned September deadline.

The boost to UI payments had come under intense scrutiny in May after a dismal jobs report appeared to validate anecdotal accounts of a "labor shortage." Economists have blamed reluctance to work on a handful of factors, ranging from school closures to virus fears. Yet enhanced UI caught the most flak from conservatives who have long critiqued the relief program, if not the very concept of a stronger safety net.

Continuing claims data published in recent weeks reveal a considerable gap in UI use between states ending the supplement early and those not. Continuing claims, which track Americans receiving benefits, took on more relevance as states began to cancel the UI expansion. In early August, that number hit a pandemic-era low.

Separating the two groups of states shows continuing claims down roughly 14% from early June to mid-July. By comparison, continuing claims are up about 5.5% in states set to let the UI boost run until its September expiration.

To be sure, a large share of the decline on the week ended July 3 came from Florida, which canceled the federal boost on June 26. Weekly claims data are also fairly volatile.

The employment situation isn't terrible in Republican-governed states. Of the 15 states to recover the most of their lost payrolls, 13 prematurely ended the federal UI enhancement. The only two states to boast employment above pre-pandemic levels - Idaho and Utah - cut the boost in June. Meanwhile, the five states furthest behind in their labor-market recoveries are all letting the enhancement run through September.

Of course, it's worth noting that those states were seeing more job recovery well before announcing cuts to unemployment benefits, suggesting that there may be other factors at work.

Some economists have warned against tying hiring to cutting UI payments, however. There's "little sign" that ending the boost drives jobless Americans back to the workforce, JPMorgan economists said in a July note. A previous note from the bank said ending the benefit early was "tied to politics, not economics," Insider's Juliana Kaplan and Joseph Zeballos-Roig reported.

And an analysis by University of Massachusetts economist Arindrajit Dube using frequently updated data from the Census Bureau found that states which cut benefits didn't see big increases in employment in the following weeks, casting doubt on the idea that those cuts would immediately push people back into work.

The coming weeks will shed more light on whether the GOP governors' plans are truly working as intended. So far, the gap suggests they have reason to celebrate.

[Editor's note: A previous version of this article said in its headline that it appeared GOP governors were successful in forcing people back to work. That has been revised to state they are successful in kicking people off unemployment, as subsequent data shows little to no increase in hiring.]

Read the original article on Business Insider

Unemployment aid will vanish for 7.5 million workers in September. There's no plan to extend.

insider@insider.com (Juliana Kaplan,Joseph Zeballos-Roig) 

© Provided by Business Insider Unemployed people at a rally last year in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Cory Clark/NurPhoto via Getty Images

A report from the Century Foundation found 7.5 million Americans will lose their unemployment benefits in September.

Those workers will lose all of their unemployment benefits, not just $300 weekly.

As the Delta variant rises, politicians in DC aren't putting forward plans to extend the benefits.

Come September, 7.5 million Americans are projected to lose all of their unemployment benefits - not just the $300 a week boost from federal pandemic relief.

That number comes from a new report by Andrew Stettner from the left-leaning Century Foundation, which looks at the looming fiscal cliff that jobless workers are facing. With the rise of the Delta variant, and the current pace of recovery, the report argues that benefits are getting cut off too early.

"We've been trying to undo the mistakes of the past by having a more aggressive program of assistance, but we're still making that mistake of pulling back too soon from assistance and economic stimulus," Stettner told Insider.

That won't just yank benefits away from jobless workers, Stettner said. "It's going to take consumer spending out of the economy, it's going to slow the rate of GDP growth."

But the White House hasn't done anything about it yet, even as the Delta variant unmoors economic policies designed to end as the pandemic winds down. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
The Delta variant is on the rise as millions stand to lose all of their unemployment benefits

Those millions of jobless workers have been collecting benefits through two pandemic-era federal programs: Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA), which expanded eligibility for benefits to gig workers and self-employed workers, among others; and Pandemic Extended Unemployment Compensation (PEUC), which extended how long recipients could collect benefits for.

Per the report's estimates, 4.2 million workers will be collecting PUA when benefits expire, and 3.3 million will be collecting PEUC.

Then there's more than 3 million workers who are still receiving $300 weekly supplements to state unemployment insurance. When that's cut off, $3.5 billion less will be flowing through the economy.

Stettner said it would make more sense to maintain benefits until we reach closer to pre-pandemic levels of unemployment - not when millions are still filing unemployment claims.

Senate Democrats are in the early stages of assembling a $3.5 trillion party-line package that isn't likely to attract any GOP votes. That means all 50 Senate Democrats must stick together for the package to pass over unified GOP opposition in the Senate.

So far, an extension of federal unemployment benefits seems unlikely. But in the weeks ahead, Democrats may recognize the dire situation facing many jobless Americans.

"I'm sure that many have thought about that - I have - as to what the next stage is as the economy gets stronger and jobs are available, what we should do with unemployment," Sen. Dick Durbin, the second-ranked Democrat, told Insider. "It's a tricky question because it's different - by worker by state, by region. But you know there's still need for a helping hand."

And that extension, if it comes to fruition, would likely come in the reconciliation bill. Stettner said it would be better late than never.

There could be logistical issues to reinstating unemployment, of course. State unemployment systems have struggled to disburse benefits on time, and an extension would keep those claims high. A more notable challenge is that 26 states - 25 of them governed by Republicans - have opted out of federal benefits early. That means workers in many of those states were already cut off from PUA, PEUC, and $300 extra per week - adding another layer of complexity to getting those benefits up and running again.

Even so, millions of workers could get relief for a little bit longer. As Stettner said: "If we can't do it now, when congressional offices have been bombarded for a year-and-a-half with constituent complaints, when are we going to be able to do it?"

#VOTENO TO FIREWALL ALBERTA 2.0
Province finalizes referendum questions

EQUALIZATION SAVED ALBERTA DURING THE GREAT  DEPRESSION

Albertans will not only be voting for their municipal leaders on Oct. 18, but also for Senate nominees, whether equalization payments should be removed from the Constitution, and whether to abolish changing clocks twice a year.

DON'T TOUCH OUR CPP OR OUR ALBERTA PENSIONS

The provincial government has not added referendum questions regarding a potential provincial police service and an Alberta pension plan, but they are further analyzing these topics before further steps are determined.

“Through the Fair Deal Panel, Albertans who are policed by the RCMP said that they want to see Alberta build its own provincial police service to improve policing in their communities” stated Kaycee Madu, minister of Justice and Solicitor General.

Madu held several town hall meetings in July to hear concerns about crime prevention in Albertan communities.

The Alberta Urban Municipalities Association (AUMA) reviewed Madu’s presentation from the meetings and believe that instead of gathering information on crime prevention, the presentation appears to be selling the idea of creating a provincial police force.

“The AUMA finds this development deeply troubling given that the government’s feasibility study has not been made available to the public,” stated the AUMA.

They believe the provincial government has already decided to create a provincial police service despite promising Albertans a referendum on the idea.

AUMA pointed out that Premier Jason Kenney assured Albertans that his government would not decide to establish an Alberta pension plan or provincial police service unless a majority of Albertans endorsed those proposals through a referendum.

A provincial police service would mean that Alberta forfeits roughly $160 million a year in federal government funding for police services through the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).

The government is completing analysis of an Alberta Pension Plan in order for Albertans to make an educated and well-informed choice, said Travis Toews, Alberta’s minister of Finance.

“We look forward to putting this important decision on the table when the time is right,” he stated.

Turning to issues that will be on the ballot, Albertans will elect three Senate nominees to fill two vacancies and one in case of early retirement.

The Senate nominee election allows Albertans to choose the individuals who represent them in Parliament and increases senators’ accountability to Alberta voters.

Following the Senate nominee election, the Government of Alberta provides the names of the elected nominees to the prime minister for consideration of the Senate vacancies.

Between 1989 and 2012, Alberta was the only Canadian province to elect nominees for appointment to the Senate of Canada, according to the province.

The first referendum question included on the ballot this year asks Albertans if the principle of making equalization payments should be removed from the constitution.

The Government of Canada manages an equalization program to address fiscal disparities between provinces and ensure that all provincial governments can provide public services at an equal level. The program uses a formula that establishes a baseline fiscal standard; provinces that exceed the fiscal standard do not receive equalization payments and those that do not reach the fiscal standard receive equalization payments.

The fiscal standard is determined using financial indicators such as personal incomes taxes, property taxes, natural resource revenue, and others. Payments to qualifying provinces are based on individual fiscal measures in relation to the fiscal standard, and other factors like the population.

All money sent from the province to the federal level is through federal income and sales taxes.

Several other political parties in Alberta have spoken out against this referendum question, stating that the federal government is not obligated to make any changes in regards to the outcome.

Among others, the leader of the Alberta Party noted that having Albertans vote on an equalization formula, which was previously supported by Federal Minister Kenney, will not change anything.

“Even if this referendum is successful, it will have zero impact on the equalization program. Even if a clear majority of Albertans support it, the federal government has no requirement to act on it,” stated the Alberta Party in June.

Alberta has not received an equalization payment since the 1964-65 fiscal year, despite contributing more than $100 billion between 2014 and 2019 alone through federal taxes, according to the province.

The provincial government stated that the current program has many issues, including a formula that requires it to grow automatically with Canada’s economy, even if contributing provinces like Alberta are experiencing immense economic challenges.

The second referendum question asks Albertans if there should be an end to the practice of changing clocks twice a year to permanently remain on daylight saving time (DST) throughout Alberta.

Service Alberta asked Albertans in 2019 if they thought Alberta should shift to DST and 91 per cent of more than 141,000 Albertans were in favour of year-round summer hours.

As some locals have pointed out, there was little consultation on whether to change permanently to DST or standard time. Alberta’s minister of Service, Nathan Glubish, did not respond to questions around this lack of consultation.

DST is currently observed in nine provinces and two territories in Canada, with exceptions in several municipalities and Nunavut. Most of the province of Saskatchewan observes year-round Central Standard Time.

Alberta first adopted DST following a referendum in 1971. The specific wording of this year’s referendum question will be finalized this summer, the province stated.

Masha Scheele, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, The Hinton Voice

REPUBLICAN ALBERTA

Thursday's letters: Show the science for dropping restrictions

Edmonton Journal 

Dr. Hinshaw and the UCP suggest elimination of all restrictions for COVID are based on science and data. Perhaps they could provide that science and data for us fools that are so ill-informed. I see rising case rates and increasing R values. Not that reassuring.

.

© Provided by Edmonton Journal Alberta chief medical officer of health Dr. Deena Hinshaw gives a COVID-19 pandemic update from the media room at the Alberta Legislature in Edmonton, on Wednesday, July 28, 2021.

Delta variant predominant — more virulent, perhaps more deadly, reported increased viral load in fully vaccinated. No answer here but still worrisome. No testing program — better not to know the incidence and spread.

No required isolation mandate — OK for the infected person to share public transport or sit at the next table in a restaurant. No masks or social distancing — the unvaccinated students are free to share the virus with fellow students or bring it home. U.S. rates skyrocketing.

Maybe I am not that smart. Show me the science and data.

Larry Hunka, Edmonton

Hinshaw pressured on COVID protocols?

From hero to zero in one afternoon! Dr. Deena Hinshaw, who has given Albertans the strength, guidance, and confidence to get through three waves of the pandemic, has just signed the death sentence for many Albertans by recommending all restrictions be removed. And just at a time when infections are on the rise and the Center for Disease Control is introducing stricter mask mandates.

Although we all heard her give the recommendation, I just cannot believe it was her recommendation but rather given by acquiescence to political pressure. The minister of health must have just returned from a trip to Florida, either meeting with their governor who is in total denial, or visiting Fantasyland.

But don’t worry, Premier Kenney is outraged. Not at this ridiculous policy change but with the federal government over Senate choices. Unreal!

Don Davidson, Edmonton

Stop moving COVID goalposts

From the start of the pandemic, I followed government guidelines. When asked to vaccinate, we both did. Even though we are both double-vaccinated, we are still told to mask up for public events. Now the goal posts are moving again due to some sort of COVID variant. I’m sure I speak not only for myself when I say, enough is enough. The health community needs to adopt a coherent and consistent strategy to get us there.

John Trusz, Edmonton

'It wasn't a hoax': NC man converts Halloween skeletons, graves into COVID-19 vaccine message
Sarah Polus 1 hour ago

A North Carolina man is repurposing Halloween decorations to urge people to get vaccinated against COVID-19.

Jesse Jones put up the display, featuring skeletons and tombstones that bear warning messages about vaccine hesitancy, including "I listened to Trump," "It wasn't a hoax" and "I got my news from Fox," outside of his Raleigh home. He hopes the display will catch people's attention, and inspire them to be vigilant about the pandemic.

A 13-foot tall skeleton in his yard has a sign hanging on it that reads, "Not vaccinated, see you soon, idiots!"

"The fact (is) that we didn't take this seriously," Jones told ABC 11 News. "My wife lost her mom due to COVID and she was a woman who spent her entire life looking after people - and she died completely alone in a hospital without being able to see one relative for 14 days."

He added, "It was a nightmare. No one should go through what my wife went through watching her mom die like that."

Jones said those who are not getting vaccinated are "endangering America."

"If you are not vaccinated, you are not a patriot," he said, according to ABC 11. "I need to look after you, you need to look after me. If everybody would just wear a mask, distance, be an American, be a patriot, and follow the rules, this would go away very quickly."

Half of Canadians believe social media has hurt open debate: Poll
Christopher Nardi 

POSTMEDIA

© Provided by National Post In this photo illustration a notification from Twitter appears on tweet by U.S. President Donald Trump that the social media platform says violated its policy on May 29, 2020 in San Anselmo, California.

OTTAWA – Half of all Canadians believe that social media has hurt open debate in the country, according to a new poll that reveals a stark generational and partisan divide on free speech.

The new Postmedia-Leger poll surveying Canadians on the state of free speech as the country gears up for an expected federal election found a large majority think that social media companies should be forced to monitor and remove content they consider hateful.

If anything, the poll — which surveyed 1,519 Canadians online between July 23 and 25 — shows that respondents hold divided (if not sometimes contradictory) views on the state of free speech in Canada and what should be done to address it.

For example, nearly half of all respondents (45 per cent) say that speech is more restrictive today that it was between five and 10 years ago. But a nearly equal part (38 per cent) believes the opposite, arguing that speech is even freer now than it was within the past decade.

The data also show that many Canadians are concerned about the future of free speech in the country, with 40 per cent saying they suspect it will be harder to speak freely on controversial topics within the next decade

.

“There’s a feeling amongst Canadians that … something’s being restricted a bit. Or that maybe sometimes the discussion can be a little bit one-sided,” says Andrew Enns, executive vice-president at Leger. “And if you put your hand up to offer a position on the other side, you can get into trouble.”

But when asked if any of a list of eight potentially controversial topics — such as abortion, Indigenous issues and reconciliation, racism or COVID-19 lockdown rules — was completely off the table for discussion in Canada, almost all respondents said no.

“None of these stood out as a real, ‘we can’t talk about it.’ People feel like it’s still reasonably tolerated to debate,” Enns said. “Many Canadians have this feeling that something’s not quite right when it comes to the open and free debate of controversial topics. But they’re not exactly sure where that’s happened.”

But free speech is “one of those hallmarks of what makes us kind of proud to be Canadian. And these findings didn’t strike me as a resounding affirmation of that,” Enns added.

Enns was surprised to see that no less than 50 per cent of Canadians believe that social media — meant to be a platform for the exchange of ideas and discussions — has in fact hurt open debate, not encouraged it.

Most Canadians now believe more regulation and policing is necessary when it comes to addressing online hate speech.

The poll shows that 69 per cent of Canadians believe social media companies should be forced to identify and remove hateful content, and 46 per cent of respondents say the federal government should have the power to determine what is hate speech and regulate it. The Liberal government proposed a series of controversial bills in the spring aiming to regulate programming distributed by media streaming services and social platforms online.

But a deeper dive into the poll results shows significant divides both along generational lines as well as the political spectrum.

For example, Canadians aged 35 years and older are both more likely to say that free speech is more restricted now than decade ago (49 per cent) and that social media has hurt open debate (55 per cent).

On the other hand, barely over one third of Canadians under 35 would agree to both those points.

Conservative party supporters are also much more pessimistic about the current state and future of free speech in Canada, according to poll data.

More than half of them believe that it will be harder to speak freely on controversial topics in five to 10 years from now, compared to 33 per cent for Liberal supporters and 30 per cent for New Democrats.

Six out of 10 Conservatives also believe that free speech is more restricted now compared to one decade ago. That’s significantly higher than the polling average of 45 per cent.

According to Enns, there are two major factors behind Conservative supporters’ results: the fact that they are generally slightly older voters, and the party’s aggressive messaging over the spring claiming the Liberals were attacking free speech with their bills regulating online content.

“I think that revved up some of the engines with respect to freedom of speech and the implications of this government’s legislation,” Enns said.