UPDATED: EU court rules illegal immigrants don't have same rights as those who follow the law

Walt has been following events north of the World's Longest Undefended Border, where a handful of "First Nations" people ("Native Americans" to, errr, Americans) and the usual mobs of ultra-lefties and antifa types have succeeded in shutting down Canuckistan's railways almost completely.

They are protesting that the hereditary chiefs (as opposed to the democratically elected chiefs) of an obscure "nation" -- the Wet'suwet'ens -- were not consulted about the building of a natural gas pipeline that crosses their territory in northern British Columbia.

It's a big deal, since many of the things that millions of Canadians depend on to live a normal life -- e.g. water purification chemicals and propane, not to mention food -- move by rail. It's a big enough deal that Just In Trudeau interrupted his latest virtue-signalling world tour to come back to the World's Second-coldest Capital and take a meeting.

When he emerged, blinking in the sunlight, Mr Socks proclaimed that Canada is a country where the rule of law is respected and must be followed. This had Canucks ROFL because the railways have obtained court injunctions against the blockades, orders which the Ontario Provincial Police and Royal Canadian Kilted Yaksmen refuse to enforce. In Canada, apparently, court orders and the country's laws don't apply to the marginalized and oppressed victims of colonialism, white privilege, yada yada yada.

Walt wonders what Blackface Justin thinks of a recent decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The Gatestone Institute reports that on February 13th the ECHR issued a decision reaffirming the proposition that in order for migrants or other "victims" to benefit from certain human rights protections, such as access to lawyers, interpreters and the right to remain in Europe, they must first enter European territory in a legal, as opposed to an illegal, manner. Imagine that!

The case goes back to August of 2014, when hundreds of migrants from sub-Saharan Africa stormed the border fence at Melilla, a Spanish exclave in North Africa. After spending several hours perched on top of the fence, two men, one from Ivory Coast and the other from Mali, climbed down and were handcuffed by Spanish border police, who handed them over to Moroccan authorities.

The two Africans said they were never given a chance to explain their personal circumstances or receive help from lawyers or interpreters. In February 2015, with the help of human rights weasels ["lawyers", shurely! Ed.] the pair took their case to the ECHR.

In October 2017, the ECHR ruled that summary deportations were a violation of European law, which is politically correct on such things. The court determined that Spanish border police had failed to verify the identity of the migrants, or to provide them with access to lawyers, translators or medical personnel, and ordered Spain to pay each of the men €5,000 (over $5400 in real money). In December 2017, Spain's previous mildly conservative government appealed.

On February 13th, the ECHR unanimously reversed its previous judgment. In a statement, it explained that "[the migrants chose] not to use the legal procedures which existed in order to enter Spanish territory lawfully. Consequently, the Court considered that the lack of individual removal decisions could be attributed to the fact that the applicants — assuming that they had wished to assert rights under the Convention — had not made use of the official entry procedures existing for that purpose, and that it had thus been a consequence of their own conduct."

How about that?! Here's a photo of some illegal immigrants crossing the World's Longest Undefended Border at Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle, Québec. Who's carrying their bags for them? Why it's the very same RCMP who, for some reason (Hello, Liberal government!) are not enforcing the injunctions against the mob blockading Canada's rail services.

Just In (from Africa) Trudeau has probably not heard about the ECHR decision, and it's not binding on Canadian courts or governments in any case. Iván Espinosa de los Monteros, spokesman for the Spanish Vox (= Voice) Party, commented: "The ECHR's ruling determines that a nation state has the right to defend its borders. When someone is dedicated to violating those borders, the nation state has the right to return that person to their place of origin as quickly as possible."

Wouldn't it be nice if Canada's woke government, or the even-more-woke government-in-waiting (?) of the USA did a 180, like the ECHR, and reserved the benefits of the rule of law to those who obey the law?

Further reading, from the National Post, 17/2/20:
"Enough is enough. Clear the blockades, restore the rule of law", by Derek H. Burney, a former Canadian ambassador to the USA and chief of staff to former PM Brian Baloney. "Dialogue is no prescription for those who refuse to listen because they believe themselves to be custodians of the only truth."
"If Trudeau has lost interest in his job, perhaps he should quit", NP editorial. "While cabinet members have struggled to deal with the rail blockades, Trudeau has been flying around Africa and Europe. Over his four years as prime minister, it has become noteworthy how often Justin Trudeau faces problems of his own making. His sanctimony keeps coming back to bite him. Canadians who follow politics have long been aware of the prime minister’s weakness for pious declarations of well-intentioned morality."

UPDATE ADDED 20/2/20: Canada's Public Safety and Emergency Unpreparedness Minister Bill Blair has just announced that the Mounties in British Columbia have agreed to withdraw from their position on Wet'suwet'en territory and barricade themselves in a nearby town names L'alamo. [Ed., please check town name.] So Just In (from Africa) Trudeau's Liberal government has caved to a few dozen radical activists who don't even have the support of the majority of the Wet'suwet'en people, as represented by their elected (as opposed to hereditary) chiefs. In today's Canuckistan, the mob rules!

Marine Le Pen calls EU "failure", recommends "Frexit"

Regular readers will know that I have lots and lots of time for Marine Le Pen, the president of the French Rassemblement National (= National Rally), a power in French politics for over a decade, resisting globalism and promoting the growing movement to make France France again.

Madame Le Pen weighed in yesterday on Brexit -- the official withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union -- which finally took place on January 31st, at the stroke of midnight, western European time, in accordance with documents previously signed by both parties. In a Tweet, Mme Le Pen called the British exit from the EU the beginning of the collapse of the European Union and the formation of independent European states.

Mme Le Pen wrote (translated), "Brexit Day should mark the beginning of the construction of the European Alliance of Independent Nations, which we wish for." She believes the vast majority of Europeans want independence from the EU, which she predicted will go down in history as an "epic failure."

Inspired by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's success in "getting Brexit done", Mme Le Pen vowed to return France to "common sense". Millions of Frenchmen and women wish her well.

Wot? Brexit ain't done yet? Walt explicates the muddification

The story so far... Way back in June 2016, the people of the so-called United Kingdom got a rare chance to vote on an issue, as opposed to for or against a political party. After years of dithering, the Conservative government of the day, led by the Rt. Hon. David Cameron, called a referendum on whether or not the country should remain in the European Union. This was the result.

Instead of "country", let's say countries. London, the capital region (and (((international banking))) centre) voted to stay in the EU. So did Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The rest of England and Wales voted to take back control of Britain's affairs (particularly her borders) from the globalist Euro-weenies. Since there were more non-London English voters than all the others combined, the overall result was nearly 52% in favour of what became known as Brexit.

The first lesson the British people learned -- should have known already -- is that the people don't actually rule or govern anything. The ruling is done by governments, not the people wot put them there. So it fell to the government of Theresa May (who succeeded Mr Cameron, who had unwisely campaigned on the "remain" side) to make a deal with the other 27 (or so) members of the EU to put the borders back in place and disentangle the great ball of red tape devised by the Brussels sprouts.

A coalition of one-worlders, loony lefties and minor parties clamoured for a do-over of the referendum, and generally obstructed Ms May's efforts, so she called a snap general election in June 2017. It resulted in a Conservative minority government supported by the Ulster Protestant baskets who call themselves the Democratic Unionist Party.

Subsequent UK–EU withdrawal negotiations resulted in a withdrawal agreement in November 2018, but the UK parliament voted against ratifying it three (count `em, three) times. The Labour Party wanted any agreement to maintain a customs union, while many Conservatives opposed the agreement's financial settlement on the UK's share of EU financial obligations, as well as the "Irish backstop" designed to prevent border controls between Ulster and the Republic of Ireland.

Ed. here. I don't understand that last bit. You mean the Protestant Ulstermen refuse to be part of Catholic Ireland, but they don't want a hard border between the two parts of the island? Exactly.

In March 2019, the UK parliament voted for May to ask the EU to delay Brexit until October 31st, so a better deal could be sought. Having failed to pass her agreement, Ms May resigned as prime minister in July and was succeeded by the Rt. Hon. Boris Johnson. He sought to replace parts of the agreement and vowed to leave the EU by the new deadline, with or without an agreement. On October 17th, his government and the EU agreed on a revised withdrawal plan, with provisions for a special status for Northern Ireland. The British parliament approved the new agreement, but rejected plans to pass it into law before the Hallowe'en deadline, and forcing Mr Johnson's government to ask for a third Brexit delay, to 31 January 2019.

So everything's fine now, right? Ed. Errr, no. Having suffered a couple of defections along the way, Mr Johnson heads a minority government, dependent on the support of the DUP. With no guarantee that the enabling legislation will be passed by March 31st... or ever... Mr Johnson wanted an election to put an end to the uncertainty, one way or the other. The head of the Labour Party, Jeremy Lenin [Corby, shurely. Ed.] refused, but on Tuesday did a flip-flop and directed his members to join the Tories in approving an early election to break the deadlock. Brits will go to the polls on December 12th. Merry Christmas! [Happy Holidays!, shurely. Ed.]

Brexit has turned into a tussle for the soul of the country, and will be the main issue on which weary voters will have to decide. Mr Johnson's Conservatives tout his deal with the EU and claim they can get Brexit done at last, while Comrade Corbyn's Labourites are promising to negotiate a "softer" Brexit, following which they will give the British public the final say by... wait for it... holding a second referendum!

Will this vote break the Brexit deadlock? Who knows? [Certainly not you! Ed.] The rise of smaller parties means the possibility of a hung parliament is greater now than in previous decades. If the December election fails to deliver a party with an overall majority, Brexit could go in a number of different directions. A hung parliament with a minority Conservative government would likely mean more of the same paralysis that has dogged British politics for the past year. If Labour emerges as the largest party, that makes a second Brexit referendum more likely, given that's also the ambition of the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party.

And even if the Conservatives won a majority on the back of their promise to "get Brexit done," the saga won't be over. Mr Johnson would be able to get his deal through Parliament by the next deadline, but that's only the start. Months of negotiations with the EU about a future trading partnership would certainly follow, and the risk of a no-deal Brexit could return all over again if a trade deal isn't concluded by the end of the Brexit transition period in 2020. So while this vote will likely set a new Brexit course for Britain, it would be naive to think the issue will be off the agenda by the beginning of 2020. We wish all our British readers a Happy New Year!

Allowing millions of 3rd Worlders into Europe "cardinal mistake": Putin

When it comes to the wisdom (or otherwise) of filling your country with unassimilable Muslim "refugees" and asylum-seekers, Vladimir Putin is on the right track. Speaking at the beginning of the G20 summit in Osaka, the Russian president declared recently that liberalism in Europe and the US has "outlived its purpose".

The Father of All the Russias [Archaism! Ed.] criticised Western views on gay rights, immigration and multiculturalism, all of which he sees as parts of an attack on traditional family values. Speaking to the Financial Times, Mr Putin said the "liberal idea" was on its way out, as the public has turned its back on "social justice" issues. And he called German chancellor Angela Merkel's 2017 decision to allow more than a million "refugees" into her country (and thus into the European Union) a "cardinal mistake".

President Putin said, "[Liberals] cannot simply dictate anything to anyone just like they have been attempting to do over the recent decades. This liberal idea presupposes that nothing needs to be done. That migrants can kill, plunder and rape with impunity because their rights as migrants have to be protected. Every crime must have its punishment. The liberal idea has become obsolete. It has come into conflict with the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population."

Indeed. But do you hear anything like that from any of the mainstream political leaders in western Europe or the AABC countries? Sadly, no. Walt would like to hear one, just one of the 20+ hopefuls looking to lose the 2020 election say at least that it's time to have a "conversation" about the wisdom of the Democrats' liberal (and worse) policies. But I'm not holding my breath.

Further reading: "Francis Fukuyama: unassimilated immigrants pose threat to liberalism", WWW 18/6/19.

VIDEO: Vote NO MA'AM!

There's a lesson for American voters in the current brouhaha between Canada and the EU over free trade. A couple of years ago, when Canada was under the dictatorship of Steve Harpoon, the Dear Leader drank the koolaid of globalization and started work on making a free trade deal with the European Union. The Canada-Europe Trade Agreement (CETA) was worked out, and endorsed by the Gliberal government of Justin Trudeau, which took power a year ago. Open trade and open borders are the kind of thing liberals love, and CETA fits their one-world agenda perfectly.

Fast forward to October of 2016, when CETA is due to be ratified by the member states of the EU, all 28 of them. 27 countries fell into line without any fuss. And then there was Belgium. That country is divided more or less in half by language and ethnicity. The southern half, Wallonia, is home to French-speaking Walloons. (Gotta love that name.) The Walloons, it turns out, think increasing globalization is not a good idea. Gives too much power to multinationals, you see. The parliament of Wallonia passed a resolution against CETA last Friday, so Belgium's federal government is unable to give its consent.

Enter Canada's International Trade Minister, Chrystia Freeland, who was sent to Brussels to tweak the deal a little bit and so persuade the stubborn Walloons to change their minds. As Walt pointed out in April, Ms Freeland is a certified and certifiable member of the liberal elite. She is the spoiled child of privilege, the type who feels she is entitled to her entitlements, such as spending $6000 of taxpayers' money to hire a photographer to record her presence at a trade summit in Paris, or swanning around the world -- first class, of course -- preaching the benefits of globalization, free trade agreements and helping all the poor people of the Third World.

When the Walloons failed to succumb to Ms Freeland's charm (?) offensive, she threw a hissy fit, storming out of the meeting room to tell the meeja "These people are impossible! I'm going home to my children!" Well, at least she didn't call the Walloons "deplorable", but she's the sort of liberal feminist who might have used that word. Just like... you know who!

Walt asks the MEN of America, do you want to be ruled for the next four years by the gender warriors --  WIMMIN like (((Madeleine Albright))), Elizabeth Warren, Justice (((Ruth Bader Ginsburg))) and... you know who?! NO?! Better join NO MA'AM -- the National Organization of Men Against Amazonian Masterhood. When the existence of this organization was revealed on Married With Children (watch the video below), you probably thought it was just a joke. It's no joke now! Vote accordingly!

Anti-immigrant backlash leads to Brexit

The people of Britain -- well, England and Wales at least -- gave the two-fingers-up sign to their kingdom's elites. (For our American readers, two fingers up is the British equivalent of flipping the bird.) In yesterday's referendum on the European Union, the Brits voted by a margin of 52% to 48% to head for the Brexit -- leave the failed experiment in one-worldism and go back to their old xenophobic ways.

Walt was able to watch the rolling commentary on ITN, and was greatly amused by the expressions of shock and horror on the faces of the analysts, experts, pundits, celebs and other members of the chattering classes. How, they asked, could the hoi polloi have been so stupid as to ignore the pleas of the Davids -- Cameron, Beckham et al. -- to remain in the (soon to be) Islamic States of Europe? Why, they must be nothing but a bunch of narrow-minded racists!

Well, no! IMHO the majority of Brits simply wanted to take back their country from the overbearing, out-of-touch Eurocrats. One of the leaders of the "Leave" campaign
Former London mayor Boris Johnson, said Britain will continue to be a "great European power" even when it leaves the EU. "We cannot turn our backs on Europe. We are part of Europe," he said, "but there is simply no need in the 21st century to be part of a federal system of government based in Brussels.... It was a noble idea for its time. It is no longer right for this country."

Mr Johnson was being rather diplomatic. In fact Britons have never really wanted to be part of Europe. They have never really felt like Europeans. The English Channel might as well be 1000 miles wide, for in the minds of the average Brit "the wogs [foreigners] start at Calais". Today that is more true than ever as British border guards patrol the outskirts of Calais -- that's in France -- to turn back the hordes of African and Arab "refugees" waiting there for a chance to jump on a truck bound for Britain.

Make no mistake about it. The influx of millions of foreigners -- symbolized by the ubiquitous "Polish plumber" -- provoked the anti-immigrant backlash which was the chief factor which propelled the "Brexiteers" to victory. John McDonnell, deputy leader of the Labour Party, who campaigned for the "Remain" side, said "A lot of people's grievances are coming out and we have got to start listening to them." Britons want out of the EU, and they want the foreigners out of Britain. Or at least, they don't want any more allowed in, and that's why they voted to regain control of the country's border.

Donald Trump saluted the Brexit vote as he arrived at his golf course in Scotland today, saying the British " took back their country; it’s a great thing." He said, "People are angry all over the world," and that the UK vote was driven by worries about "the borders". Mr Trump also said that people were angry about similar things in the United States. He suggested that other counties may follow the UK's lead. "This will not be the last," he added.

Indeed. The politicians who should be listening now to the voice of the real people are the leaders of Germany, France, and the USA. Walt is somewhat bemused by the anti-immigrant feelings of the Brits, considering that most of the Polish plumbers are white, Christian and able and willing to work. It could have been a lot worse, as has been the case in France and Germany, now being overrun by Arab and African Muslims who know no "work" other than begging, stealing and waging jihad against their hosts.

Nationalism is resurgent, not just in Britain but in the rest of Europe, and America too. Leaders who are in touch with their people are listening. One of the first to congratulate Britain's Leave campaign on the win and the pending separation was Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Freedom Party, who tweeted, "Hurrah for the British! Now it is our turn. Time for a Dutch referendum!" And Marine Le Pen, leader of France's Front National, called Brexit "a victory for liberty". And so it is. Well done, John Bull. Let the rest of the world take note.

The new boat people: how come nobody wants them?

Two related stories in the meeja this weekend are causing a good deal of handwringing and hypocrisy at urgent sessions of the Disunited Nations, the European Quasi-union and other One-World talking shops. The Brotherhood of Man is being challenged by the arrival of boatloads of 1000s of mostly Muslim "refugees" from north Africa, the Middle East and south Asia now washing up on the shores of Europe and southeast Asia. Although no-one likes to admit it, the real reason no-one wants them is to be found in the two words preceding "refugees" in the previous sentence.

First, the bad news from the Mediterranean. In spite of widely reported drownings of hundreds of refugee wannabes, the tidal wave of dark people keeps increasing in size, and now threatens to inundate Italy and slop over into Switzerland, Germany and Austria. Everyone agrees that Something Must Be Done. Surely we're not going to let those "poor" people drown! But what is to be done? And by whom?

To make matters worse [Is that possible? Ed.] an adviser to the Libyan government [They have a government? Ed.] told BBC News this weekend that Islamic State (IS) fighters are being smuggled into Europe in the midst of the "genuine" refugees. Officials in Italy and Egypt have previously warned that IS militants could reach Europe by migrant boat, but say now -- possibly for fear of being labelled as "racists" or "Islamophobes" -- that it is very difficult to verify or assess such claims.

The Libyan official, Abudul Basit Haroun, based his claim on conversations with smugglers in parts of North Africa controlled by the militants. He "alleged" -- the BBC's word -- that IS was allowing the boat owners to continue their operations in exchange for half of their income. Earlier this year, -- the EU’s "alleged" -- Walt's word -- border control agency, Frontex, warned that it was "possible" that foreign fighters were using "irregular migration routes" to get into Europe.

Egypt’s ambassador to the UK has warned of "boats full of terrorists" if the international community does not act, while the Italian government has expressed fears of militants infiltrating the boats, while emphasizing that the boats are... wait for it... a "humanitarian crisis".

So what to do? BBC News reports today that EU foreign and defence ministers are expected to approve a mission to destroy the boats used by people-smugglers operating in war-torn Libya. (Notice how no-one talks any more about who start the war that destabilized Libya. Ye reap what ye sow.)

Speaking on arrival for an urgent meeting with the sprouts in Brussels, EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said "today the main point will be taking the decision to establish the operation, the EU operation at sea to dismantle the criminal networks that are smuggling people in the Mediterranean." She did not say whether the boats would be destroyed before or after they were loaded.

Meanwhile, a parallel "humanitarian crisis" unfolds 1000s of miles away, in the Indian Ocean, where three countires -- Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia -- are being condemned by the do-gooders at the UN for refusing to rescue, let alone accept, 1000s of Muslim migrants adrift in the Andaman Sea.

Last week, at least 700 Bangladeshis and Rohingya from Myanmar were rescued off the Indonesian island of Aceh, bringing the numbers of "refugees" in camps there to at least 1500. The Rohingyas, if you haven't heard of them, are an ethnic group who have lived for yonks in northwest Burma [or Myanmar. Take your pick. Ed.] but are denied citizenship because they are, errr, Muslims, and Burma is a Buddhist country. 1000s of Rohingyas have shipped out, fleeing persecution and poverty in Myanmar. They are stranded at sea along with additional 1000s of Bangladeshis -- also Muslims -- who are just looking for work.

Aid agencies say a "grave humanitarian crisis" is in train as countries in the region refuse to accept the migrants. Visible on the sides of the refugee boats are numerous black marks which appear to have been made by ten-foot poles. Thailand, the closest country to Bangladesh and Burma is, like Burma, a Buddhist country, which doesn't want to be overrun by Muslims. Thailand's reluctance is understandable, given that they already have a problem with Islamic terrorists in their southernmost provinces.

Malaysia and Indonesia are, errr, Muslim countries, but don't seem any more disposed to receive their co-religionists than the Buddhists of Thailand. Indonesian authorities have told fishermen not to help the migrants unless their boats are sinking or they are in the water. Military spokesperson Fuad Basya said fishermen could deliver food, fuel and water to the boats, or help with repairs, but that bringing them to shore would constitute an illegal entry into Indonesia.

The Muslim boat people are believed to be severely malnourished. Survivors who have made it to shore say there have been deadly fights on board over food. UNHCR spokesthingy Vivian Tan called the lack of rescues over the past weekend "a bad sign" and warned that "time is running out" to help the migrants. The BBC quotes her as saying, "We were hoping that more ships would be found, and that more people would be rescued and allowed to come onto shore. Unfortunately, this didn't seem to have happened".

Who will take in the poor Muslim "refugees"? Walt suggests that American and Canadian authorities keep their eyes on their countries' Pacific coast, to see what the tide will bring in. Hey, it's happened before, and of course we "Christians" couldn't refuse entry to these huddled masses, because to do so would be anti-Muslim, racist, etc etc etc.

Right wing parties win big -- really big -- in European elections

Much soiling of silky shorts in European corridors of power today, as one-worlders, socialists and "progressive thinkers" recoil in horror at the sweeping gains made in European Parliament elections by Eurosceptic and right-wing parties. BBC News headlines the story "Eurosceptic 'earthquake' rocks EU elections".

The aim of parties like France's Front National and Britain's United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) is to slash the powers of the European Union or, even better, abolish it altogether. Their countries, they say, have all but completely ceded national sovereignty to the huge and unwieldy EU, making it impossible to determine their own destinies or even control their own borders. (If you think that means "restrict immigration", you're probably right!)

Yesterday, 21 of the EU's 28 nations held elections to choose representatives to the European Parliament. The other seven countries, including Britain and the Netherlands, had voted earlier in the week. And the big winner? ... May I have the envelope, please? ... Step forward France, where Marine Le Pen's Front National topped the polls with 26% support -— 4.1 million votes.

In her victory speech, Mme Le Pen said, "The sovereign people have spoken...acclaiming they want to take back the reins of their destiny!" She called the results "the first step in a long march to liberty." See "Against Islamization, the French send in La Marine!"

Need I tell you that the French government took a rather different view. Prime Minister Manuel Valls called the National Front win "more than a news alert...it is a shock, an earthquake." And President François Hollande is supposed to be holding a crisis meeting -- his office called it "urgent talks" -- with his top ministers even as Walt writes.

But France is not the only country experiencing widespread disillusionment with the EU and the Islamization of Europe. (Don't kid yourself. That's what this is really all about!) In Not-so-great Britain, Nigel Farage, leader of the fiercely Eurosceptical United Kingdom Independence Party, said, "It does look to me [like] UKIP is going to win this election and yes, that will be an earthquake, because never before in the history of British politics has a party that is seen to be an insurgent party ever topped the polls in a national election."

The first official results announced late Sunday had UKIP at about 30% -- 12% better than their result in the last European elections in 2009.
In Denmark, although the governing Social Democrats hung onto their five seats to remain the biggest Danish party in the European Parliament, the big winner was the populist Danish People's Party, which gained three seats for a total of four.

In Germany, a year-old party that wants that country to stop using the euro single currency reportedly won 6.7% of the vote.
In Greece, the leftist Eurosceptic Syriza party led with 26.49%, but the far-right Golden Dawn party finished a respectable third, with 9.33%.

In the Netherlands, however, the right-wing Party for Freedom, led by Geert Wilders surprisingly dropped a seat from five to four. As the Dutch voted in one representative each from a radical feminist party and an animal rights group, it's just possible that they didn't take the exercise very seriously. However, Mr. Wilders, optimistic as ever, said his party looked forward to working with Mme Le Pen, calling her "the next French president."

Are there any lessons in this for American and Canadian political parties? Probably not. Lamestream pundits in the USA are pushing the line that this year's mid-terms will show the Tea Party on the wane, with moderate Republicans moving the GOP towards the centre. And, as Ron Paul and a long line of others have found out, it's all but impossible to get Americans to actually vote for any group which the media call "extreme"... even if the "extremism" is in defence of liberty and personal freedom.

Canada is even worse. The old-line Conservative and Liberal parties are not nearly as far to the right or left as their names would suggest. Rather, they are parties of the "radical centre". Even the New [sic] Democratic Party, nominally of the left, hews so close to the centre that its members have changed the party anthem to "The Very Pale Pink Flag". Don't look for any political earthquakes in North America any time soon.