A woman arriving in Ireland on a flight from Canada was arrested Sunday after customs officers at Dublin Airport found her luggage was stuffed with more than $1.5 million worth of crystal meth and cannabis, Irish officials said.

The drugs were concealed in vacuum-sealed packages within suitcases of a woman in her 50s who had disembarked a flight from Canada, according to Ireland’s police and customs officials.

Vacuum sealing is typically used by smugglers to mute odours to help avoid detection. The subterfuge, however, failed to fool Charlie, a drug-sniffing dog at Dublin Airport.

Charlie caught a whiff of something during luggage processing and alerted his handlers with Revenue Customs Service to the suspected suitcases, according to Dublin’s Revenue officials.

Officers then uncovered a haul of suspected cannabis weighing approximately 29 kilograms and suspected crystal meth weighing six kilograms, all in sealed plastic inside the luggage.

The cannabis was given an estimated street value by officials of 584,000 euros, which is equivalent to about $940,000. The meth was given an estimated street value of about 368,000 euros — equivalent to more than $590,000.

A photo of the seizure released by Ireland’s police, An Garda Síochána, shows two suitcases almost buried by dozens of vacuum packs, but it does not seem all of the packs could fit into just the two cases.

The Garda would not name the woman who was arrested or say where in Canada she came from. All flights from Canada landing in Dublin on Sunday took off from Toronto, according to flight trackers. Police also refused to say whether the arrested woman was a Canadian or if she was someone from Ireland returning from a visit to Canada. Police also wouldn’t say how many suitcases were involved.

“The seized drugs will be sent to Forensic Science Ireland for analysis. Investigations are ongoing,” a Garda spokesperson said. “ There is no further information available.”

The seizure is part of ongoing operations targeting organized crime groups and the importation, sale and supply of illegal drugs, Revenue officials said.

Airports in Britain and Ireland, countries where recreational cannabis remains illegal, have significantly ramped up surveillance for drugs hidden in passenger luggage because of an increasing pattern of drug mules being recruited to hide vacuum-sealed packages in their suitcases.

There has been a deluge of cannabis caught recently at airports in the luggage of travellers — typically young people — as an alternative smuggling vector for organized crime networks to diversify from much larger loads hidden in commercial shipments. The travellers are often convinced their risk is low, penalties soft, and are paid cash and sometimes given free flights in return for their cooperation.

The age of the woman arrested suggests smugglers are looking to use travellers outside their usual profile to help avoid scrutiny.

• Email: ahumphreys@postmedia.com | X: AD_Humphreys

• The ‘King’ sent to U.S. prison for 20 years for running cocaine and meth smuggling into Canada
• He grew up rich and joined the hottest media empire. Then came the cocaine mules

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our newsletters here.

Despite all the trade-war rhetoric and “51st state” comments from the White House, Americans on the whole still have positive feelings toward their neighbours to the north. But from this side of the border, it’s a different picture.

A poll by Canada’s Angus Reid asked people from both countries about their perceptions of the other. It found that almost half of Canadians hold a negative view of Americans, with 29 per cent choosing “unfavourable” and another 19 per cent “very unfavourable.”

Meanwhile, just 13 per cent of Canadians said they felt very favourably toward Americans, and another 32 per cent said their view was favourable. The final seven per cent weren’t sure or couldn’t say.

The stateside answers to the same question painted a much rosier picture, however. Americans were overwhelmingly upbeat about Canadians, with 39 per cent reporting very favourable views, and another 40 per cent choosing “favourable.”

Just six per cent of Americans said they held unfavourable views of Canadians, while a scant one per cent said their views were very unfavourable. Another 14 per cent weren’t sure.

The pollsters chalk up much of that difference to “an attention gap between the two countries,” noting that Canadians are far more likely than Americans (91 per cent versus 69 per cent) to be following news of the latest tariffs, due to take effect on Aug. 19.

“Trump has soured the Canada-U.S. relationship with tariffs and talk of turning Canada into the 51st state but apparently has not turned most of his ardent supporters against Canadians,” they write. “Self-described MAGA Republicans are more likely to view Canadians positively … than not.”

Indeed, Americans who identified as MAGA Republicans viewed Canadians favourably by a four-to-one margin, with 69 per cent choosing favourable or very favourable, and just 17 per cent saying their views were unfavourable or very unfavourable.

Those unfavourable numbers were smaller for non-MAGA Republicans (10 per cent) and almost non-existent for Democratic voters, at just two per cent.

A much wider gap could be seen among Canadians of different political stripes. Those who voted Conservative in last year’s federal election were the only political group to view the American people favourably at a majority level. with 70 per cent approval.

Meanwhile, fewer than half that number who voted for other parties held the same view — 30 per cent for Liberal voters, 28 per cent for NDP supporters and 27 per cent for the Bloc Quebecois. New Democratic Party voters were also the only group to register zero per cent in the “most favourable” column.

Adding more incendiary language to the questions still found Americans feeling friendlier toward Canadians than vice versa. Both groups were asked if the other country should be treated as an enemy, a potential threat, cautiously, on friendly terms, or as a valued partner and ally.

More than a third of Canadians — 36 per cent — chose “potential threat,” while another 29 per cent went with “cautiously” and six per cent swung all the way to “enemy.”

American responses were far more positive, with more than half (54 per cent) choosing valued partner and ally, and another quarter (24 per cent) going with friendly terms. Just three per cent picked “enemy.”

Canada’s views have shifted immensely during the second Trump administration. The same question on a poll in February 2023 saw 73 per cent of Canadians pick “friendly terms” or “valuable ally,” but that number dropped to 23 per cent in March of 2025 before increasing slightly in the latest poll.

As to whether the latest tariffs will take effect, uncertainty seemed to be the watchword. Of Canadians, 42 per cent thought Trump was serious and will follow through, while 32 per cent were sure he’s bluffing, and 26 per cent didn’t know.

For Americans, closer to the source, it was an almost even split among thinking Trump was serious (37 per cent) or bluffing (33 per cent) or just not knowing (30 per cent).

The Canadian poll was conducted from July 10 to 14 among 2,199 adults and is considered to have a margin of error of plus or minus two per cent, 19 times out of 20. The U.S. poll was conducted from July 31 to Aug. 5 among 1,000 adults and carries a margin of error of plus or minus three per cent.

• ‘Why wouldn’t we be anti-American?’ The long, sordid history of Canadians dissing our neighbour
• Polls show Americans dislike Canada more than ever, and that’s bad news for the trade war

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our newsletters here.

A former informant for a Marxist-Leninist military junta that ruled Ethiopia for 17 years, and who acknowledged that people he reported on were arrested and imprisoned, with some of them subjected to interrogations, beatings, and torture, has won another chance at staying in Canada.

Mesresha Zewide, an Ethiopian citizen who came here 22 years ago as a refugee, was in the process of applying for permanent residency when immigration officials found in April 2017 that his involvement with Ethiopia’s Derg regime made him inadmissible to Canada for crimes against humanity, and ordered his deportation.

“In June 1989, when he was 17 years of age, (Zewide) was forcibly recruited to work for a local kebele in Addis Ababa. Kelebes were neighbourhood associations established by the governing Derg regime to monitor the political opposition, among other functions,” Justice John Norris wrote in a recent Federal Court decision out of Toronto.

For nearly two years, Zewide “gathered information and informed on individuals suspected of being members of the opposition, including the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) and the Ethiopian People’s Liberation Front (EPLF),” said the judge’s July 22 decision.

“People on whom he reported were arrested and imprisoned,” said the decision, noting “some of them would have been subjected to interrogations, beatings, and torture. Such abuses were endemic during the decades the Derg regime was in power.”

Zewide was granted refugee protection in Canada in June 2008 “on the basis of his well-founded fear of persecution at the hands of the EPRDF government.” In May 1991, it overthrew the Derg, the brutal regime for which Zewide worked as an informant, ending the Ethiopian Civil War.

Because of his work for the Derg, Zewide was arrested and detained in Ethiopia. He spent a month in detention before escaping and making his way to Canada.

After he was found inadmissible here, Zewide applied for an exemption on humanitarian and compassionate grounds “on the basis of the unblemished, pro-social life he has lived in Canada since coming here in 2004; his establishment in Canada; the best interests of his daughter (who was born in the United States in 2003 and who continues to live there with her mother); the restrictions he faces when he wishes to travel; and the impact of his provisional status as a Convention refugee on his mental health and overall well being,” said the decision.

Zewide, now 54, “placed particular emphasis on the fact that the events in question happened long ago when, at a young age, he was forcibly conscripted to assist the Derg regime,” said the decision. “He contended that the life he has lived since then, which included political activism in support of human rights in Ethiopia, demonstrated that his past acts do not reflect his true character.”

A senior decision maker with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) turned him down, concluding that positive humanitarian and compassionate factors “were not sufficient to warrant exempting the applicant from the requirement that he not be inadmissible.”

Zewide applied to Federal Court for a review of that decision, arguing it was unreasonable.

“I agree with the applicant that the decision maker resorted to unwarranted speculation in stating that, in the applicant’s case, ‘even if granted permanent residence, I note that it is doubtful he would be granted citizenship, given his inadmissibility which would not be erased by being granted an exemption for the purposes of permanent residence,’” Norris said.

“At issue here was the applicant’s submission that granting him permanent residence would be an essential step towards eventually being able to apply for Canadian citizenship. According to the applicant, if granted, Canadian citizenship would alleviate the burdens he currently faces in being able to maintain contact with family in Ethiopia and, more generally, would finally resolve the provisional nature of his status in Canada. In rejecting this submission, it was an error for the decision maker to speculate about what might or might not happen in the future. The decision maker had no way of knowing whether or not a future decision maker would be persuaded to grant relief to the applicant. It was unreasonable for the decision maker to rely on this consideration to the applicant’s detriment.”

The decision maker accepted that Zewide’s “involvement with the Derg regime ‘was of short duration and he was very young at the time.’ However, the decision maker also found that the applicant ‘has not expressed remorse for his actions which contributed to the regime’s crimes against humanity. Rather, he has repeatedly defended his actions by stating that he had no choice.’”

This, said the judge, “is a serious mischaracterization of the applicant’s position. To begin with, it is unreasonable to suggest that the applicant had ‘defended’ his actions. He has never done so. Furthermore, by linking an absence of remorse with the suggestion that the applicant had defended his actions, the decision maker implies that the applicant had portrayed his actions as right or justified. This was not the applicant’s position. He accepted that his actions — like those of the Derg regime as a whole — were wrong. He submitted, however, that his wrongful actions should be excused to at least some degree because he was only a youth at the time and he did not have a realistic choice other than to do what he did.”

That doesn’t alter the fact that he is inadmissible, said the judge, but it’s “capable of mitigating the significance of that finding in the overall balancing” under the section of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that would allow Immigration Minister Lena Diab to grant him permanent resident status based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations.

The senior decision maker was required to characterize Zewide’s position accurately, Norris said.

“This was a central argument on a key issue raised by the applicant,” said the judge. “The failure to grapple with it meaningfully calls into question whether the decision maker was actually alert and sensitive to the matter before them…. So, too, does the decision maker’s suggestion that the applicant should consider himself lucky to have been granted refugee protection in Canada in the first place and to be able to enjoy even provisional status in Canada. This failure to be alert and sensitive to the particular circumstances of the applicant’s case undermines the reasonableness of the decision maker’s overall balancing of positive and negative factors.”

Norris allowed Zewide’s application for judicial review and sent his case back “for redetermination by another decision maker.”

He “should be given a reasonable opportunity to provide the new decision maker with updated submissions and supporting evidence,” said the judge.

• Pakistani cop ordered deported from Canada for contributing to ‘crimes against humanity’ wins another shot at refugee status
• He allegedly led 13 people to their death in a Croatian vineyard. He’s fighting to stay a Canadian

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

Battered by fresh U.S. threats of tariffs and annexation, Canada is turning toward Europe, with speculation among some that we might one day even join the European Union.

After all, Canada does share a land border with an EU country.

This is the story of Hans Island, the “Whisky War” and how Canada and Denmark resolved a major disagreement over territory in the Arctic without firing a shot. Or at least not the kind that comes from a firearm.

The unassuming little land mass in question is called “Tartupaluk” in Greenlandic. It sits in the Kennedy Channel of the Nares Strait, between Denmark’s semi-autonomous Greenland and Ellesmere Island, Nunavut, about 18 kilometres from each.

“Tartupaluk is a barren and uninhabited, rock island of approximately 1.2 square kilometres … It’s an icy rock,” Danish Ambassador to Canada Nikolaj Harris told National Post. The island has limited raw material or strategic value, he noted.

Keith Dewing, a research scientist for the Geological Survey of Canada who has visited Hans Island, describes it this way: “It’s all limestone, fairly flat-lying, dipping slightly.”

No one’s idea of a vacation spot.

Be that as it may, for nearly 50 years, between 1973 and 2022, Denmark and Canada skirmished diplomatically over ownership of the tiny island.

Britain transferred its Arctic territories in 1880 to Canada. Hans Island was never directly mentioned, though the Inuit in Northern Canada used the island for traditional hunting.

But so did Greenlandic Inuit.

“The island was historically used by Greenland Inuit as a landmark, and also as a stopping point during travel and hunting journeys, when crossing from Greenland to Ellesmere Island,” said Harris.

In fact, Hans Island was named posthumously after a Greenlandic Inuk, Hans Hendrik, who assisted Arctic expeditions in the mid-1800s.

In 1933, The Permanent Court of International Justice awarded Hans Island to Denmark, though, according to The Canadian Encyclopedia, Canada placed a temporary scientific base on Hans Island during the Second World War. Then the court disbanded in 1946 (so much for permanence), leaving the isolated slab of rock with no clear owner.

In 1973, Canada and Denmark decided to define their borders through the Nares Strait, agreeing to decide Hans Island’s ownership later.

But how would they do so?

There is disagreement over who asserted the first claim. Some sources (including Danish Ambassador Harris and the United Nations ) say Canada took the initiative. Other sources, such as the Canadian Encyclopedia , The Guardian and Business Insider , say Denmark made the first move to declare ownership of the island.

Here’s Harris’s version: “(W)hen a Canadian delegation visited the island, they placed a Canadian flag and a bottle of Canadian Club whisky, and when the Danish Navy came by, they removed the whisky and the Canadian flag and they placed instead a Danish flag and a bottle of schnapps.

“(T)hese actions were intended to reinforce the parties’ respective sovereignty claims, but they didn’t really contribute to solving the legal dispute.”

The booze battle flowed for years. The only shots fired in the dispute were shots of alcohol.

Whisky, Canada’s weapon of choice in the fracas, was deliberately chosen.
“It (whisky) really does have a lot more cultural significance and symbolic meaning than just, oh, we’re just giving someone a means to get drunk. It’s, we’re giving someone something that recognizes sociability and recognizes our shared kind of community,” said Dr. Dan Malleck, a professor in Health Sciences at Brock University.

Schnapps is equally significant for the Danes.

“When we have schnapps. It’s normally at festive meals such as our very traditional Christmas lunches … it’s a thing for the Danes during December,” said Harris.

In 2001, Dewing and another researcher with the Geological Survey of Canada, Chris Harrison, surveyed and visited Hans Island after they had done some mapping on Ellesmere Island.

“The thing that was weird to us is that if you’re on Ellesmere where we were mapping, the rocks are all tilted, like they’ve been heavily faulted and it looks like the Rocky Mountains, but when you go to Hans Island, [it] is flat lying,” said Dewing.
Dewing didn’t see any bottles or flags during the 15 minutes or so that he was on the disputed island.

The “war” ratcheted up some years later. In a National Post article in 2022, Rob Huebert, an associate professor of political science at the University of Calgary, wrote : “In 2002, the exchange of booze and flags that had characterized the dispute was completely upended when the Danes used an ice-capable frigate, HDMS Vaedderen, to land troops on the island. Despite Canadian pleas not to repeat these escalatory actions, they did it again in 2003 with her sister ship, the Triton.”

As a result, in 2005, then-Canadian defence minister Bill Graham arrived on Hans Island to officially claim it as Canadian territory after the Danish incursions. This was actually difficult to do, Huebert writes, since Canada had no real “ice-capable vessels” at the time.

Eventually, the two NATO allies issued a joint statement that acknowledged their differences and pledged a peaceful resolution.

Still, diplomacy can proceed — pardon the pun — at a glacial pace.

In 2018, “a joint Canadian Danish Greenland task force was formed,” Harris noted.
The Whisky War finally concluded on June 14, 2022, with Hans Island divided 60-40 between Denmark, which got the larger portion, and Canada.

Consequently, Canada now has a land border with Europe.

“[I]t was signed at the headquarters of the Royal Canadian Geographical Society in Ottawa, by the two foreign ministers, from Canada and Denmark and the premier of Greenland … And during the ceremony … they also exchanged a bottle of whisky and a bottle of schnapps,” said Harris.

As minor as the decades-long dispute seems, its peaceful conclusion showed the effectiveness of diplomacy in border disputes.

“The efforts deployed to reach this outcome demonstrate their leadership in the region and commitment to resolve disputes peacefully and in accordance with international law,” said Global Affairs Canada spokesperson Charlotte MacLeod.

As well, “We all took it as a clear reference to Russia’s sort of full-scale and illegal invasion of Ukraine earlier the same year,” said Harris.

Both Canada and Denmark now fight together against threats in the Arctic and elsewhere.

For example, “Canada and Denmark both are present with troops, in the multinational brigade in Latvia to defend NATO’s eastern flank … Also, we signed (a) defence agreement this year and we are in the process now of implementation,” said Harris.

The relationship continues to strengthen – at a time when both countries have been directly targeted by U.S. annexation threats: Canada over the 51st state and Denmark over the future of Greenland.

“The land boundary on Tartupaluk reflects the strong historic and cultural relations between communities in Canada and Greenland. It paves the way for stronger cooperation and the establishment of an even closer partnership between them, including the establishment of a Canadian consulate in Greenland in 2026,” wrote MacLeod.

“Our relations never have been better and closer,” said Ambassador Harris.

Amid the diplomatic camaraderie, Hans Island itself still appears to be of little actual use to either country.

“Tartupaluk is not permanently occupied… and it has no settlement or permanent installation, border post or other sort of infrastructure,” Harris summarized.

• Canada-U.S. trade war: A timeline of Trump’s tariffs and Canada’s response
• Canada and France opening consulates in Nuuk, Greenland

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our newsletters here.

OTTAWA — Do Canadians currently prefer Prime Minister Mark Carney’s ideas over those of Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s or do they simply trust Carney more than Poilievre? A new Leger poll suggests the difference between the two may largely be based on vibes.

To test the theory, the Postmedia-Leger poll chose six policy positions on which Mark Carney’s Liberals and Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives broadly share similar objectives, even if their proposed approaches may somewhat differ.

The 1,514 online poll sample was then randomly split into two equal groups: 757 respondents were asked how much they trusted Carney on each policy when he said they were good for Canada, while 757 were asked the same questions about Poilievre. The policy positions were identical for both groups; only the leader referenced in the questions changed.

The results were unequivocal: no matter the policy, respondents trusted Carney more than Poilievre when either man said a policy would be good for Canada. The gap ranged from nine to 14 points.

That’s roughly the same lead the Liberals have held over the Conservatives in polling since Carney was elected prime minister last spring, Leger executive vice-president Andrew Enns noted in an interview. In this poll, despite a two point drop, the Liberals (46 per cent) still hold a 12 point lead over the Conservatives (34 per cent).

The poll suggests that while Carney’s reputation still affords him the benefit of the doubt from Canadians, Poilievre still has a tone and image problem to overcome if he wants to defeat the Liberals, Enns added.

The pollster noted that while Poilievre has years of political “reputational baggage,” Carney is still a relatively new politician with professional experience that clearly impresses many Canadians.

“You look at the two party leaders from a substance standpoint; they’re coming at things very similarly. (Carney’s) got probably more of a resume advantage… and probably has a style advantage. Or maybe Poilievre has the style disadvantage because… he generates a pretty negative reaction for a lot of people, just seeing the guy,” Enns said in an interview.

The policy positions put to respondents of the poll were that Canada needs to:

• dramatically speed up the construction of major infrastructure and energy projects;
• increase its energy production and build new pipelines;
• allow fewer numbers of immigrants into Canada;
• negotiate a trade deal with the United States even if some concessions need to be made by Canada;
• significantly increase spending on Canada’s military to meet NATO commitments and protect the Arctic;
• grow its energy sector and still make meaningful progress in meeting our global warming and climate change commitments.

The biggest trust gap (14 points) was on Canada’s need to significantly increase military spending. A clear majority (60 per cent) of respondents who were asked if they trusted Carney when he said that, whereas Poilievre only garnered the trust of 46 per cent of his respondents.

The lowest trust gap (nine points) was on trust in developing the energy sector while still making progress in climate change commitments. There, 56 per cent of Carney questionnaire respondents said they trusted the prime minister when he said it was good policy, whereas 47 per cent said the same of Poilievre.

And both leaders got their lowest trust scores when it came to the proposal that it’s important for Canada’s economic future to negotiate a trade deal with the United States even if some concessions need to be made by Canada. Half of those asked if they trusted Carney on that policy said yes, whereas 38 per cent said the same when it came from Poilievre’s mouth.

“I think that’s a sign of you know a significant number of Canadians don’t want to make any concession, and so that, by its nature, kind of lowered it on both,” Enns noted.

What also jumped out at Enns is how, for most of those now-popular policies, Poilievre was pushing his proposals well before the Liberals adopted them under Carney. The results suggest the Conservatives don’t need to make significant policy adjustments but need to focus on the leader’s image, demeanour and communication style, he said.

“For a lot of opposition leaders, you know, a lot of times they’re on the wrong side of too many policies, and that that needs to change. But in this case, I would say the Conservatives aren’t that far off the mark from a policy standpoint,” said Enns.

While voters were ready to “hold their nose” and vote for Poilievre at the end of Justin Trudeau’s time as Liberal leader, the same does not hold true any longer with Carney, he said.

“If I was a Conservative strategist, I think they they might have been more careful with their leader brand at that time,” he added. “I think they were they were building up some personal negatives around around the leader, and now I think those are those are kind of haunting them a bit.”

The Leger poll sampled 1,514 Canadians online between Aug. 1 and 3, 2026. For comparison purposes, a probability sample of this size yields a margin of error no greater than plus or minus 2.5 per cent (19 times out of 20) for the sample.

National Post

cnardi@postmedia.com

• Poilievre says Carney needs to deliver ‘results that he promised’ in U.S. trade talks
• Talk of Conservative ‘infighting’ misses the bigger story: the party is messily reinventing itself

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our politics newsletter, First Reading, here.

The Israel Defence Forces will not carry out any withdrawal from the Gaza Strip until the Hamas terrorist organization is fully disarmed, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday.

“Israel rejects the 15-point document,” Netanyahu said during a Cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, referring to the disarmament roadmap announced by U.S. President Donald Trump’s Board of Peace on July 30.

Disarming the Iranian-backed terrorist group means that Hamas gives up its “heavy weapons, the less heavy weapons, all the weapons,” he reiterated, saying there had to be “real disarmament, not fictitious disarmament.”

Jerusalem is discussing the matter with the Trump administration, the premier said, adding that the Americans “have ideas, some of them acceptable to us and some not acceptable to us.”

The IDF will continue to thwart threats against Israeli forces and civilians, he vowed.

Israeli Energy and Infrastructure Minister Eli Cohen said on Saturday that Jerusalem opposes the 15-point Roadmap for Gaza “in its current form,” adding that “Hamas is planning a deception.”

Hamas “will say that it intends to abide by the agreement, hand over some of its weapons, and obtain what we used to call, in the language of the past, a hudna. (But) the era of hudna is over,” Cohen told Israel’s Channel 14 broadcaster.

“Hudna” means truce or armistice in Arabic. Hamas has used ceasefires in the past only to regroup ahead of renewed assaults on the Jewish state.

Cohen continued, “Ultimately, Hamas is a murderous terrorist organization. We do not believe a single piece of paper that Hamas (signs).”

Hamas violated the Gaza ceasefire 17 times in a single day, Doron Spielman, Netanyahu’s international spokesman, said on Saturday.

Citing a situation report he received shortly before an interview with Newsmax host Tom Basile, Spielman noted the Friday violations included attempted infiltrations across the Yellow Line to carry out attacks on Israelis, as well as tunnelling and rearming.

He added that the terrorist organization is in blatant violation of the 20-point plan brokered by U.S. President Donald Trump, which requires Hamas to lay down its arms.

Spielman drew a sharp distinction between the Trump framework, to which Israel agreed, and the 15-point BoP proposal reached with Hamas terrorists through Qatar, Turkey and Egypt. Jerusalem is not a party to the newer plan, he said.

Netanyahu publicly rejected the 15-point framework last week, stating that no Israeli withdrawal will occur before full disarmament.

Earlier on Saturday, Hamas informed the Trump administration that it agrees to the terms of the Roadmap, which requires the terrorist group to lay down its weapons and transfer rule over Gaza to a technocratic Palestinian body, AFP reported.

“Hamas and other factions have confirmed to mediators their readiness to begin implementing the agreement and move to the second phase, provided it receives Israeli approval and that Israel begins implementing the agreement,” a Hamas official told the news agency.

“Hamas is urging the U.S. administration to exert pressure on Israel to compel it to abide by the agreement and move to the second phase,” the unnamed terrorist continued.

On Thursday, Netanyahu pledged that Israel will not pull back from its current positions in the Gaza Strip until Hamas is completely disarmed.

“I am standing firm on our security interests: We will not withdraw from our current lines until Hamas is completely disarmed,” Netanyahu said in a Hebrew-language video posted to his Facebook page.

He added that IDF soldiers had been instructed “to do everything necessary to defend themselves, to defend our territory, to defend our citizens.”

U.S. President Donald Trump and his team believe they can persuade Hamas to demilitarize the Gaza Strip, he said, adding, “We are examining that.”

• IDF staying in Gaza ‘until Hamas is completely disarmed,’ Netanyahu says
• Vivian Bercovici: No more plausible deniability for Netanyahu

Canadian Jewish advocacy and rights organizations welcomed the arrest of two more people in connection with an antisemitic demonstration in Toronto earlier this year, saying “there must be consequences for promoting hatred.”

The Toronto Police Service announced Saturday that two additional suspects had been charged with the willful promotion and the public incitement of hatred on March 15, bringing the total number of people charged in the months-long investigation to eight.

“Governments and authorities must hold criminals accountable,” the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) said in a statement on X, tagging the UJA Federation of Greater Toronto and B’nai Brith Canada.

“And our political leaders must ensure their words and actions do not embolden extremists who demonize Israel and contribute to an increasingly hostile environment for Jewish Canadians.

Following a March 15 hateful protest targeting Toronto’s Jewish community—with propaganda and signs evoking the Nazi era—we joined @UJAFederation, @BnaiBrithCanada and thousands of Canadians in demanding that authorities take a tougher stand.

We welcome the Toronto Police’s… https://t.co/V2y8rJBpIy pic.twitter.com/JI9tzA39xM

— CIJA (@CIJAinfo) August 9, 2026

Police allege that the accused retrieved antisemitic signs from a storage locker before attending a protest at Bathurst Street and Sheppard Avenue West that Sunday and allegedly displayed the signs in public as they marched toward a group of pro-Israeli demonstrations while shouting derogatory slurs.

Some of the signs, as reported by National Post at the time, featured a caricature of an emaciated Orthodox Jewish man exiting a cave, asking whether “Iran has stopped” yet, a drawing of a caricatured Jewish man wearing a kippah crying “Help us, Daddy!” into a walkie-talkie covered in an American flag as three missiles rain down in the background, and one of rats crawling in and out of a hole in the ground shaped like the Star of David.

CIJA, UJA and B’nai Brith immediately called for an investigation and co-signed an open letter to Toronto Police Service Chief Myron Dimkew, in which they said the imagery was “reminiscent of Nazi incitement.”

On Friday, members of the hate crime unit executed a search warrant and arrested two additional suspects from Toronto — Shahram Nayeb-Yazdi, 63, and 40-year-old Daniela Bonamico — both of whom were scheduled to appear at the Toronto Regional Bail Centre on Saturday.

In its statement, CIJA alleged the latter “has imported a foreign conflict into Canada and taken her campaign abroad through the so-called Gaza Flotilla — a PR stunt that did nothing to help Palestinians.

On the flotilla coalition’s website, Bonamico describes herself as “the daughter of Italian immigrants born into a civil war torn and occupied village” who has been a “multidisciplinary artist” in Toronto for 20 years.

Police previously announced charges of willful promotion and public incitement of hatred against six other people in connection with the investigation, starting with Torontonian Muhammad Anas Sial, 33, in April.

In June, Hosaam Hemdan, 19, Omer Turcan, 43, Yasaf Skaikh, 46, Hasan Aydin, 47, all of Toronto, along with Whitby’s Syed Hussaini, 43, were also hit with the same charges. Hemdan, Turcan, and Hussaini were also charged with disguise with intent.

Police noted that when an alleged criminal offence is believed to have been motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, prosecutors can seek to have the motivation considered an aggravating factor at sentencing if the accused are convicted.

Wilful promotion of hatred and advocating genocide are hate-propaganda offences under the Criminal Code and require the Attorney General’s consent before charges can be laid, police said. Such charges may therefore be laid at a later stage of an investigation.

Anyone with more information is asked to contact police.

CIJA, meanwhile, also called on Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand and Global Affairs Canada to explain what steps are being taken to prevent people it describes as extremist and hate crime suspects from exporting “their vitriol beyond Canada’s borders.”

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Many Canadian exporters who have traded duty-free under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement are facing the threat of 50 per cent duties on their goods under Section 338 tariffs , which Washington is set to impose on hundreds of products starting August 19.

These firms may also need to increase their customs-bond coverage, which guarantees payment of duties and fees if an importer defaults, as higher tariffs increase the U.S. government’s exposure.

But trade lawyers and customs professionals say another change could affect far more Canadian exporters.

On June 3, U.S. President Donald Trump signed executive order that seeks to tighten U.S. customs enforcement to crack down on trade fraud and shell importers that evade duties.

“They’re going to a stricter importer regime … directing U.S. authorities to strengthen the importer registration, bonding, disclosure, vetting, and enforcement,” said Martha Goncalves, partner for tax, customs and international trade at PwC Canada.

“The U.S. is actually raising the bar on who can import and how much information that they must provide.”

So is this another way of targeting Canada?

Goncalves doesn’t see it that way and notes that it’s a global directive.

“(The U.S. administration is) trying to change the global trading system, and this is just part of their playbook,” she said. “Unfortunately, Canada being just directly to the north, we get hit hardest because we have such a big footprint of Canadian exports going to the U.S.”

The attempt to crack down on fraudulent trade and shell companies that evade tariffs and fees is a good thing, said Carrie Owens , a lawyer specializing in international trade from Washington-based firm Kelley Drye and a former director at U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

“The purpose of this is good … It’s to stop illicit trade.”

The intent doesn’t worry her, but the breadth of implementation does.

The order defines “U.S.” and “foreign” importers of record (IOR) and directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secretary to adopt stricter entry requirements for the latter. Owens worries that Canadian firms that now operate as non-resident importers — or through thinly capitalized U.S. entities — could be classified as foreign IORs if they lack enough U.S. assets or qualifying ownership.

The order also directs DHS to prohibit foreign IORs from filing informal entries, a simplified customs process generally used for lower-value shipments .

“They’re going to be considered foreign importers of record even though they are organized under the laws of the United States. They have been here for decades,” Owens said.

Because the order could fundamentally change how many legitimate companies import into the United States, and many may not yet realize it, experts fear it will lead to trade disruptions.

“The tariffs are a cost of doing business … Potentially, the actions that are happening could disrupt the flow of goods,” Owens said.

The guidance and implementing rules are still being developed, with key reforms targeted for completion within 180 days of the order, but companies need to prepare now.

“It’s a readiness issue for most companies,” said Goncalves.

Companies that act as IOR themselves, rather than relying on a U.S. buyer or related U.S. entity to do so, may face the greatest operational and cash-flow impact — particularly if they lack an established U.S. presence.

Goncalves said companies should first determine who will serve as IOR on each shipment — the Canadian seller, a U.S. buyer or a related U.S. entity — before restructuring their supply chain. They should also assess bond needs and broker arrangements, determine whether they or their broker are CTPAT-validated (Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism), and ensure customs entries accurately reflect tariff classification, origin, and valuation.

“Companies need to know who the importer of record is first … and then trust their data,” Goncalves said.

Owens fears that the biggest practical consequence will be the potential loss of continuous bonds, which allow traders to send multiple shipments under one bond.

The order directs DHS to require that foreign importers of record generally cannot rely on continuous bonds for formal entries unless CBP is satisfied that U.S. revenue is protected and the importer will follow customs rules. Foreign IORs must also be CTPAT-validated if CBP determines they are eligible, or use a CTPAT-validated, licensed customs broker to file customs entries.

Amy Magnus, director of customs affairs and compliance for U.S. Customs broker A.N. Deringer, Inc., is less concerned about a shift away from continuous bonds. She does not believe that requiring a single-entry bond for every shipment would be workable for frequent importers, customs brokers, or surety firms.

Again, further guidance should roll out later this year, but registering as an IOR, getting brokers and bonds — or simply increasing bond amounts — takes time.

Magnus recommends that companies consult with lawyers — especially U.S. trade-savvy lawyers — and their brokers now, if they are not already doing so.

“If (you) want to continue doing business in the United States … make sure your compliance is meeting these new demands,” she said.

And when it comes to fines, the order delivers another punch: it directs DHS to set a penalty floor of at least 50 per cent of the assessed amount, except in exceptional circumstances related to national security, and to stop mitigating penalties for repeat offenders.

“They are saying that they will not mitigate (fines) beyond 50 per cent,” Magnus warned. “So if you get a $1 million fine … you’re still looking at a lot of money.”

Enforcement is already ramping up, experts say, so it’s important that exporters take the time to get organized and seek the appropriate help now.

Magnus noted an increase in trade-fraud enforcement and pointed to a new Department of Justice–DHS resource guide that signals greater use of criminal as well as civil tools against trade fraud.

“When the Department of Justice is involved with trade fraud enforcement,” she said, “it starts to take on a… different tone.”

National Post

• Refunds coming for Canadian exporters owed roughly $10B from Trump’s illegal tariffs
• A legal challenge is likely on Trump’s new tariffs. It may be too late

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our newsletters here.