Italy recently introduced femicide (murder of women) as a distinct crime. Most news outlets say that the law makes murdering a woman punishable by life in prison if the victim's female gender was the murderer's motive. The crime of femicide will be punished more harshly than murder in general. Most news outlets say what happens when the victim is a woman. But I haven't seen an article that specifically adresses whether the law protects men and trans people as well. For example, murdering a man due to hatred of men, or murdering a trans person due to hatred of trans people, etc. People online talk about the law assuming it only protects women, so I assume that's what the law says. But I haven't found a definite source that confirms this. If it is true, then the law is exremely illiberal and discriminatory. Violence against woman is exremely serious, but on legal level, we should all have equal protection. If femicide is recognized as a distinct crime, then so should androcide (murder of men) and transicide (murder of trans people). Does anyone know more than me about this law? Source: https://apnews.com/article/italy-femicide-law-crime-gender-violence-women-99e4be4aaba9f6b940d834ed6c7cb4d0

I don't understand why European authorities have difficulty effectively addressing this issue. They could permit the use of lethal force if necessary to halt illegal immigration or prioritize mass arrests and deportations although these steps may be controversial. In recent years, many European countries have faced increasing pressure from public opinion regarding immigration, leading to a contentious debate about how to manage these flows. Some argue that allowing for stricter measures could deter illegal entry, while others advocate for more humane approaches. Alternatively, they might consider employing illegal migrants as cheap labor in regulated sectors where they can be monitored. This approach mirrors practices in Gulf states, where cheap laborers are kept separate from the main population in a highly controlled environment. Such a system allows these nations to meet labor demands without the complexities of integration. In Europe, acknowledging that human rights do not apply uniformly is controversial but brings to light the differing priorities of nations when it comes to immigration policies. Some argue that the rights of citizens should take precedence over those of illegal migrants, especially in contexts where public safety and social cohesion are perceived to be at risk. A more effective approach but extremely controversial for European states would be to distinguish between cheap laborers and unassimilated immigrants, separating them from the core population. This could involve placing these individuals in specific sectors, perhaps in industries that rely heavily on labor but are closely monitored, without granting the possibility of citizenship, as those in these categories may be less likely to assimilate. The focus should instead be on integrating educated and affluent immigrants, who are generally more likely to adapt to and embrace the culture of their new country. For instance, an immigrant engaged in academic or business pursuits often has the skills and background that align well with Western values and societal norms, making it easier for them to assimilate. This contrasts sharply with individuals performing manual labor, who may face barriers to integration due to language, education, or cultural differences.

The United Nations is one of the organizations behind many nefarious agendas, including the sexualization of our children through our schools & the destruction of the Western countries through mass unchecked immigration.

The attack on Western civilization is like an earthquake where political fault lines run through everything: families, friends, nations, hearts. For too long, the real problem; the dynamic that is breaking us apart, has evaded our consciousness. The Right blames the Left, and the Left attacks the Right. But the problem is not Left verses Right. Just as a therapist does not treat family or marital problems by pointing to one thing or person, we must do the same. If we are serious about making things better, we must act as a therapist and understand our dysfunction by studying the dynamic that has brought us to this point. And to do so, we must look within; at those on our own side of the political spectrum as well as those across from us. Traditional liberals and mainstream conservatives have long considered each other political enemies. And this is a problem. If the West is to survive and defeat the fringe ideologies that have grown in power on both sides of the spectrum, traditional liberals and mainstream conservatives must recognize and prioritize what ties them together and separates them from the fringe ideologies-- respectively, progressive ideology and the "woke right" that has now seeped into political discussion on mainstream platforms. Classical liberals and mainstream conservatives are bound together though their belief that all people are created equal and that our most fundamental rights are given to us by a higher power -- not the state. This belief, this truth; the underlying foundation of our civilization, makes traditional liberals and conservatives vastly different than their radical counterparts. Is there potentially a silver lining behind New York City's election of communist Mamdani and the rise of Nick Fuentes on the right? Can conservatives and liberals awaken to the pathology of those on their own side of the spectrum and reject radical ideology by forming an unlikely alliance and prioritizing what is most important and fundamental to our civilization?

How come european leaders allow the muslim invasion to Europe?