• Kristian James Samuel White, an Australian police officer, has been found guilty of manslaughter for shocking a 95-year-old nursing home resident with a Taser.
• The jury in Sydney deliberated for 20 hours before reaching the verdict on Wednesday.
• White, who is on bail, faces up to 25 years in prison when he is sentenced later.

A police officer who shocked a 95-year-old nursing home resident with a Taser was found guilty of manslaughter in an Australian court Wednesday.

A jury found Kristian James Samuel White guilty in the trial in Sydney after 20 hours of deliberation. White, who is on bail, could get up to 25 years in prison when he is sentenced later.

Clare Nowland, a great-grandmother who had dementia and used a walker, was refusing to put down the steak knife she was holding when the officer discharged his Taser at her in May 2023. Nowland fell backward after White shocked her and died a week later in hospital.

GRANDMOTHER, 95, DIES AFTER POLICE SHOCK HER WITH STUN GUN: ‘COMMUNITY IS OUTRAGED’

Police said at the time that Nowland sustained her fatal injuries from striking her head on the floor, rather than directly from the device’s debilitating electric shock.

White’s employment is under review and is subject to legal processes, NSW Police Commissioner Karen Webb told reporters after the verdict.

“The court has found Claire Nowland died as a result of the actions of a police officer. This should never have happened,” Webb said, as she offered her “deepest condolences” to Nowland’s family. The state’s police reviewed its Taser policy and training in January and no changes to it were made, she added.

In video footage played during the New South Wales Supreme Court trial, White was heard saying “nah, bugger it” before discharging his weapon, after the officers told Nowland 21 times to put the knife down. White, 34, told the jury he had been taught that any person wielding a knife was dangerous, the Guardian reported.

ALABAMA POLICE OFFICER ON LEAVE AFTER VIDEO SHOWS HER USING STUN GUN ON HANDCUFFED MAN

But after an eight-day trial, the jury rejected arguments by White’s lawyers that his use of the Taser was a proportionate response to the threat posed by Nowland, who weighed about 100 pounds.

The prosecutor argued that White’s use of the Taser was was “utterly unnecessary and obviously excessive,” local news outlets said.

The extraordinary case provoked debate about how officers in the state use Tasers, a device that incapacitates using electricity.

Nowland, a resident of Yallambee Lodge, a nursing home in the town of Cooma, was survived by eight children, 24 grandchildren and 31 great-grandchildren, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported.

Ursula von der Leyen’s new European Commission received the green light from the Parliament, but the outcome of the vote portends stormy waters more than plain sailing.

The 370 votes in favour represent 54% of all votes cast, and even less (51%) of the total number of MEPs, 719. For one reason or another, only one in two lawmakers was able to endorse the new college of commissioners.

This is the slimmest majority in history for a new Commission, and in hindsight, there may be no stable majority at all during the five-year legislature.

How many groups will form the majority?

The voting records highlight how the three centrist groups that formed the previous legislature’s majority could not guarantee a simple majority in the chamber.

The European People’s Party (EPP), Socialists and Democrats (S&D), and Renew Europe accounted for 308 votes together—far from the threshold of 360 votes.

For different reasons, the centre-right EPP and centre-left S&D suffered significant defections. Spain’s Partido Popular, an EPP member with 22 MEPs, voted against the new college because it includes Spanish Vice President Teresa Ribera, a member of its rival centre-left PSOE (S&D) party.

Belgian and French Socialists opposed von der Leyen’s choice of conservative right-wing Italian, Raffaele Fitto, as vice president, which also lost votes from a couple of Italian Socialist MEPs. The 14 German S&D MEPs either voted against or abstained.

This does not mean that these groups will always be split on legislative issues, but it means that to guarantee a majority to pass legislation, some form of political crutch will likely be needed, whether from the right or the left of the hemicycle.

“I believe that we could also find some consensus, some agreement with the Greens on the one hand, or the European Conservatives and Reformists on the other hand,” David McAllister, a prominent, veteran German EPP MEP, told Euronews.

This had always been planned by EPP leader Manfred Weber, who envisaged a “broad centre in the European Parliament, from the Greens to ECR” during a press conference the day before the vote.

However, neither the Greens nor the ECR have entirely supported the European Commission. The Greens/EFA group was split, with 27 votes in favour, 19 against, and six abstentions, while the ECR had 39 lawmakers against, 33 in favour, and four abstentions.

Greens and Conservatives at odds with each other

Above all, these two groups do not seem eager to cooperate with one another.

“There is not a real majority today in the European Union. […] Manfred Weber thinks that it can one day turn to the far right to build relationships or alliances, destroying environmental laws in particular. And then the next day, when it suits them, turn to the coalition of democrats and pro-European forces. It’s absolutely unworthy,” Green MEP Marie Toussaint, who voted against the college along with her entire French delegation, told Euronews.

Other Green members voted in favour of the new Commission but continue to highlight their disagreement with what they see as a clear shift to the right. “We still have fundamental problems with Fitto as executive vice president, and we really think that is a mistake. But it is also clear that we do want to work now,” Greens/EFA co-chair Bas Eickhout told Euronews after the vote.

On the other side, Conservative MEPs who supported the Commission claim their choice was made precisely to reverse the Green Deal and change the previous legislature’s policies. “There may be different numbers in this Parliament compared to the previous one. I think that the role of the European Conservatives will be to really move the axis of this European legislature rightwards,” Carlo Fidanza, head of the Brothers of Italy delegation—the largest in the ECR—told Euronews.

ADVERTISEMENT

Lawmakers from ECR’s Polish member party PiS voted against the Commission, but this did not concern ECR’s co-chair Nicola Procaccini, who recalled the group’s tradition of allowing delegations freedom of choice.

Nor does he feel he belongs to a new majority, indeed in his words, “there is no majority”.

“In the EU, the Commission is not linked to a majority in the European Parliament. There was no ‘Ursula majority’ last time, and there is no majority now. Each vote will have a different majority, based on contents,” he claimed during a press briefing.

This is the prevailing sentiment in Strasbourg after the vote, and the President of the European Commission likely knows it. Ursula von der Leyen never mentioned the word “majority” during her long speech presenting the college of commissioners to the Parliament, nor did she mention any political groups she plans to rely on.

ADVERTISEMENT

Her mantra remains cooperation with “pro-EU”, “pro-Ukraine”, and “pro-rule of law” political forces, adaptable to the Greens or the Conservatives depending on the circumstances and the topics at hand.

On the other hand, the European Parliament can continue its legislative work even if fractured and with an unstable majority, according to German Socialist MEP René Repasi, who believes the “real work” is done at the technical level in the EP’s committees.

“[This situation] basically means that we need to trust more that compromise amendments forged at a committee level will be respected by the plenary,” he told Euronews. “If we make compromise amendments in committees, we do not reopen them here in the plenary. I think there is a way we can move forward.”

TORONTO (AP) — Canada is already examining possible retaliatory tariffs on certain items from the United States should President-elect Donald Trump follow through on his threat to impose sweeping tariffs on Canadian products, a senior official said Wednesday.

Trump has threatened to impose tariffs on products from Canada and Mexico if the countries don’t stop what he called the flow of drugs and migrants across southern and northern borders. He said he would impose a 25% tax on all products entering the U.S. from Canada and Mexico as one of his first executive orders.

A Canadian government official said Canada is preparing for every eventuality and has started thinking about what items to target with tariffs in retaliation. The official stressed no decision has been made. The person spoke on condition of anonymity as they were not authorized to speak publicly.

When Trump imposed higher tariffs during his first term in office, other countries responded with retaliatory tariffs of their own. Canada, for instance, announced billions of new duties in 2018 against the U.S. in a tit-for-tat response to new taxes on Canadian steel and aluminum.

Many of the U.S. products were chosen for their political rather than economic impact. For example, Canada imports $3 million worth of yogurt from the U.S. annually and most comes from one plant in Wisconsin, home state of then-House Speaker Paul Ryan. That product was hit with a 10% duty.

Another product on the list was whiskey, which comes from Tennessee and Kentucky, the latter of which is the home state of then-Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell.

Trump made the threat Monday while railing against an influx of illegal migrants, even though the numbers at Canadian border pale in comparison to the southern border.

The U.S. Border Patrol made 56,530 arrests at the Mexican border in October alone — and 23,721 arrests at the Canadian one between October 2023 and September 2024.

Canadian officials say lumping Canada in with Mexico is unfair but say they are happy to work with the Trump administration to lower the numbers from Canada. The Canadians are also worried about a influx north of migrants if Trump follows through with his plan for mass deportations.

Trump also railed about fentanyl from Mexico and Canada, even though seizures from the Canadian border pale in comparison to the Mexican border. U.S. customs agents seized 43 pounds of fentanyl at the Canadian border last fiscal year, compared with 21,100 pounds at the Mexican border.

Canadian officials argue their country is not the problem and that tariffs will have severe implications for both countries.

Canada is the top export destination for 36 U.S. states. Nearly $3.6 billion Canadian (US$2.7 billion) worth of goods and services cross the border each day. About 60% of U.S. crude oil imports are from Canada, and 85% of U.S. electricity imports are from Canada. Canada is also the largest foreign supplier of steel, aluminum and uranium to the U.S. and has 34 critical minerals and metals that the Pentagon is eager for and investing in for national security.

“Canada is essential to the United States’ domestic energy supply,” Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland said.

Trump has pledged to cut American energy bills in half within 18 months, something that could be made harder if a 25% premium is added to Canadian oil imports. In 2023, Canadian oil accounted for almost two-thirds of total U.S. oil imports and about one-fifth of the U.S. oil supply.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is holding a emergency virtual meeting on Wednesday with the leaders of Canada’s provinces, who want Trudeau to negotiate a bilateral trade deal with the United States that excludes Mexico.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said Wednesday that her administration is already working up a list of possible retaliatory tariffs “if the situation comes to that.”