Connect with us

Opinion

It’s payback time as culture war cops switch sides, moral confusion reigns and revenge gets ready to rumble

Published

11 minute read

Plus! American liberals are most likely to condone violence, did Guilbeault break CBC’s news firewall and Canadian Press forgets how to rewrite a news release

Just as with Newton’s third law of physics, every political action provokes an equal and opposite reaction.

This is the problem with encouraging cancel culture and the suppression of free expression. Sooner or later, you’re the rednecked mother who’s up against the wall. Keeping in mind that freedom comes with responsibilities, deploying political morality hit squads was a bad idea then and it’s a bad idea now.

Help The Rewrite hold media to account by becoming a free or paid subscriber.

In Canada in recent years, it has been those on the liberal-left side of the ledger who have been pushing illiberal ideas in the form of removal of statues, compelled speech (pronouns), controlled speech (Online Harms Act), regulation of content (Online Streaming Act) and through professional bodies. Examples there include the prosecution of Jordan Peterson by the Ontario College of Psychologists, Amy Hamm by the B.C. College of Nurses and Midwives, the drive to ensure Trinity Western University could not launch a law school and Francis Widdowson’s sacking as a tenured professor at Mount Royal University. Oh, and who can forget the furore, newsroom uprising and National Post apologia when Rex Murphy wrote a column insisting most Canadians are not actually racists.

You may believe these acts to be justified but there is little doubt concerning the intellectual inspiration behind them. It comes from the Liberal-Left where people decided there must be rules to deal with other people they believe hold disagreeable opinions or say unsavoury things. Former prime minister and media darling Justin Trudeau put it down to “fringe” minorities with “unacceptable views” while Jonny Ball, writing in Unherd, has this explanation:

“It is an unfortunate and common misconception among progressives that those who disagree with them must have been bamboozled, or else they must have some illegitimate self-interest which has led them to maintain a position which is not simply a different interpretation or view of the world, but a fundamentally immoral one.”

South of the border, it was only a couple of years ago when the corporate world was embracing woke ideology by changing sports teams’ names and using trans TikTokers to sell beer. It is now guarding its shareholders interests by, for instance, swiftly suspending late night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel indefinitely for making what FCC Chair Brendan Carr deemed inappropriate remarks in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Washington Post editor Karen Attiah was fired for what she insists were comments consistent with her role as a journalist. US President Donald Trump, cheered on by many on the right (but certainly not Ted Cruz) threatened the broadcast licenses of US networks, vowed to designate Antifa as a terrorist organization (there’s a case for that) and target the “radical left.”

And now, those media who stayed silent, complied or cheered while one side trampled on the rights of another and folks like Don Cherry were given the bum’s rush are in full OMG! OMG! Fascism! voice. All you have to do is read the Twitter stream of the Toronto Star’s Bruce Arthur and you’ll see what I mean.

This is the problem with encouraging cancel culture and the suppression of free expression. Sooner or later, you’re the rednecked mother who’s up against the wall. Keeping in mind that freedom comes with responsibilities, deploying political morality hit squads was a bad idea then and it’s a bad idea now.


Canadian media follow American politics and news pretty closely so I was surprised (OK, I wasn’t really) they didn’t pick up on a particularly prescient bit of news about attitudes in the USA.

An overwhelming majority – 72 per cent – agreed violence can never be justified against a political opponent. Good. But among those who approve of it, people who lean left are far more inclined to want to kick other people’s teeth in, according to the poll.

As TheHill.com put it, “The Sept. 10 poll shows the more liberal respondents were, the more likely they were to say violence can sometimes be justified.

“A quarter of respondents who identified as “very liberal” said violence can sometimes be justified to achieve political goals, along with 17 percent of those who identified as “liberal,” 9 percent of moderates, 6 percent of those who said they’re “conservative” and 3 percent of those who identified as “very conservative.”

Meanwhile, oblivious to any threats from the Left, the Canadian Anti-hate Network – a “proudly independent antifascist” body is hiring a full time reporter to focus exclusively on right wing extremists. The job was posted the day after Charlie Kirk was slain.


While there was a lot of justifiable fuss over Trump’s bullying of TV networks, there were no eyebrows raised when Identity and Culture Minister Steven Guilbeault made it clear his government is willing to hold CBC accountable for journalism standards.

Keep in mind that in the past the CBC has vigorously defended the independence of its newsrooms, its president insisting neither she nor its board could interfere in its conduct. Guilbeault’s statement following the suspension of reporter Elisa Serret for going on an antisemitic rant, seems to indicate he sees a role for government as a CBC watchdog.

CBC/Radio Canada belongs to all Canadians and, as leaders, we have a responsibility to hold it to account and demand the highest standards of journalism,” he said, noting, for context, that the government should never interfere in programming decisions.

But those are not journalism standards. A small crack, perhaps, or maybe a chip in the windshield worth watching.


One of the first things young journalists are taught is how to rewrite a press release and not get sucked into using the terminology preferred by its corporate or political authors.

Sadly, it appears Canadian Press has abandoned that approach, preferring in its report on the federal government’s creation of a new housing agency to use Prime Minister Mark Carney’s language and refer to $13 billion in deficit spending as “investment.” The “Carney government launches ‘Build Canada Homes’ with $13B initial investment” headline appeared across the country. This is a betrayal of sound journalism practices that will only further diminish the public’s trust in establishment media.


The role of journalists is to make sure the public hears the truth, which means challenging statements, particularly those that are unsourced. The CBC’s Rosemary Barton did not do that when interviewing Government House Leader Stephen MacKinnon on her program.

Mackinnon explained that he had spoken with a number of Conservative MPs who told him that they were under pressure from their constituents to cooperate with the government and take it easy with that Opposition thing. Rather than challenging and asking for names of the MPs, the source of the constituent pressure (Liberals, CPC, NDP members, etc) or any proof whatsoever to support MacKinnon’s claim, Barton just let it slide.


Condolences to the dozens of Global News reporters who were let go in Corus’s latest round of cuts. Not much left in its newsrooms in the West.


Two bouquets this week, one to the New York Times for launching a newsletter – Believing – dedicated to the coverage of religion, a topic of immense importance to many people that most publishers abandoned years ago. And an even bigger floral arrangement goes to independent old time reporter Bob Mackin for being – to the best of my knowledge – the only journalist to correct the government’s very truthy claim that it had “cancelled” the consumer Carbon Tax. As Mackin smartly noted, “The tax law was not repealed. Only the tax reduced to zero. The law is still there and the tax could make a comeback someday.”

There may still be a heartbeat. For more on media bias regarding targeting the “far right” while ignoring the “far left” see my column Tuesday in The Hub.


(Peter Menzies is a commentator and consultant on media, Macdonald-Laurier Institute Senior Fellow, a past publisher of the Calgary Herald, a former vice chair of the CRTC and a National Newspaper Award winner.)

Share

Help The Rewrite hold media to account by becoming a free or paid subscriber.

 

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author

Energy

Why Japan wants Western Canadian LNG

Published on

From Resource Works

From Tokyo’s perspective, Canada offers speed, stability, and insulation from global energy shocks

In a Dec. 22, 2025 article, influential Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun laid out why Japan is placing growing strategic weight on liquefied natural gas exports from Western Canada – and why the start of full-scale operations at LNG Canada marks a significant shift in Japan’s energy-security calculus.

The article, written by staff writer Shiki Iwasawa, approaches Canadian LNG not as a climate story or an industrial milestone, but as a response to the vulnerabilities Japan has experienced since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine upended global gas markets.

1. Shorter distance and faster delivery

The most immediate advantage identified is geography. LNG shipped from British Columbia’s Pacific coast reaches Japan in about 10 days, roughly half the time required for cargoes originating in the Middle East or the U.S. Southeast, which can take 16 to 30 days.

For Japan – the world’s largest LNG importer – shorter voyages mean lower transportation costs, tighter inventory management, and reduced exposure to disruptions while cargoes are at sea.

2. Avoidance of global maritime choke points

Just as important, Canadian LNG avoids the world’s most precarious shipping bottlenecks.

The Asahi report emphasizes that shipments from B.C. do not pass through either:

  • the Strait of Hormuz, increasingly volatile amid Middle East conflict, or
  • the Panama Canal, where climate-driven water shortages have already led to passage restrictions.

Japanese officials explicitly frame these routes as strategic liabilities. As one senior government official responsible for energy security told the newspaper: “We, the government, have high hopes. It means a lot not having to go through the choke points.”

From Japan’s perspective, Canada’s Pacific-facing terminals offer a rare combination of proximity and route resilience.

3. Political reliability and allied status

The article contrasts Canada sharply with Russia, once a significant LNG supplier to Japan through the Sakhalin-2 project.

Before the Ukraine war, Russia accounted for about 10 per cent of Japan’s LNG imports. When Japan joined international sanctions, Moscow responded by restructuring the project’s ownership – a move that underscored how energy supplies can be weaponized.

A government source reflected on that experience bluntly: “We had thought it would be OK if we diversified procurement sources, but we were at risk of power outages even if only 10 percent (of LNG) didn’t reach Japan.”

Canada, by contrast, is described as a friendly and politically stable nation, free from sanctions risk and viewed as a long-term, rules-based partner.

4. Scale, certainty, and investment momentum

The Asahi article devotes considerable attention to the fundamentals of LNG Canada itself.

Key features highlighted include:

  • approximately $14 billion in total development costs,
  • 14 million tonnes per year of production capacity,
  • two liquefaction trains already operating,
  • natural gas sourced from inland Canada and transported via a 670-kilometre pipeline to the coast,
  • and the successful shipment of first cargoes in mid-2025.

Mitsubishi Corp., which holds a 15 per cent stake, has rights to market 2.1 million tonnes annually to Japan and other Asian buyers. Mitsubishi expects the project to generate tens of billions of yen in annual profits starting in the fiscal year beginning April 2026.

At a Nov. 4 news conference, Mitsubishi president Katsuya Nakanishi said the company is actively considering additional investment to expand capacity, with internal sources indicating output could eventually double.

5. LNG’s continuing role in Japan’s energy system

The article situates Canadian LNG within Japan’s broader energy strategy. Under Japan’s Economic Security Promotion Law, LNG is designated a “specified critical product.” The government maintains dedicated funds to secure supply during emergencies.

While nuclear power remains central to long-term planning, officials acknowledge LNG’s indispensable role. A senior economy ministry official told Asahi: “Nuclear power is the key player in the spotlight, but thermal power (mainly fueled by LNG) is the key player behind the scenes.”

Japan’s latest Basic Energy Plan projects LNG imports rising to 74 million tonnes by 2040, roughly 10 per cent higher than today, underscoring why secure, politically insulated suppliers matter.

What Japan’s view tells Canada

In a recent Canada-Japan leaders’ meeting on the sidelines of APEC, Prime Minister Mark Carney and Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi discussed expanding economic ties, with energy cooperation specifically highlighted around the LNG Canada project as a key element of their bilateral relationship. While Takaichi didn’t make a detailed public statement about Canadian LNG itself, the joint statement underscored Japan’s interest in stable and diversified LNG supplies—of which Canadian exports are a part of the broader Indo-Pacific energy security context.

What emerges from Asahi Shimbun’s reporting is a pragmatic assessment shaped by recent shocks. Japan values Canadian LNG because it is closer, less exposed to conflict-prone routes, backed by a stable political system, and already delivering cargoes at scale.

For Canadian readers, the message is unambiguous: Western Canadian LNG is not being embraced because of rhetoric or aspiration, but because it aligns with the operational, geopolitical, and economic priorities of one of the world’s most energy-dependent nations.

Continue Reading

Business

What Do Loyalty Rewards Programs Cost Us?

Published on

You’ve certainly been asked (begged!) to join up for at least one loyalty “points” program – like PC Optimum, Aeroplan, or Hilton Honors – over the years. And the odds are that you’re currently signed up for at least one of them. In fact, the average person apparently belongs to at no less than 14 programs. Although, ironically, you’ll need to sign up to an online equivalent of a loyalty program to read the source for that number.

Well all that warm, fuzzy “belonging” comes with some serious down sides. Let’s see how much they might cost us.

To be sure, there’s real money involved here. Canadians redeem at least two billion dollars in program rewards each year, and payouts will often represent between one and ten percent of the original purchase value.

At the same time, it’s estimated that there could be tens of billions of unredeemed dollars due to expirations, shifting program terms, and simple neglect. So getting your goodies isn’t automatic.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Just why do consumer-facing corporations agree to give away so much money in the fist place?

As you probably already know, it’s about your data. Businesses are willing to pay cold, hard cash in exchange for detailed descriptions of your age, sex, ethnicity, wealth, location, employment status, hobbies, preferences, medical conditions, political leanings, and, of course, shopping habits.

Don’t believe it works? So then why, after all these years, are points programs still giving away billions of dollars?

Every time you participate in such a program, the data associated with that activity will be collected and aggregated along with everything else known about you. It’s more than likely that points-based data is being combined with everything connected to your mobile phone account, email addresses, credit cards, provincial health card, and – possibly – your Social Insurance number. The depth and accuracy of your digital profile improves daily.

What happens to all that data? A lot of it is shared with – or sold to – partners or affiliates for marketing purposes. Some of it is accidentally (or intentionally) leaked to organized criminal gangs driving call center-related scams. But it’s all about getting to know you better in ways that maximize someone’s profits.

One truly scary way this data is used involves surveillance pricing (also known as price discrimination) – particularly as it’s described in a recent post by Professor Sylvain Charlebois.

The idea is that retailers will use your digital profile to adjust the prices you pay at the cash register or when you’re shopping online. The more loyal you are as a customer, the more you’ll pay. That’s because regular (“loyal”) customers are already reliable revenue sources. Companies don’t need to spend anything to build a relationship with you. But they’re more than willing to give up a few percentage points to gain new friends.

I’m not talking about the kind of price discrimination that might lead to higher prices for sales in, say, urban locations to account for higher real estate and transportation costs. Those are just normal business decisions.

What Professor Charlebois described is two customers paying different prices for the same items in the same stores. In fact, a recent Consumer Reports experiment in the U.S. involving 437 shoppers in four cities found the practice to be quite common.

But the nasty bit here is that there’s growing evidence that retailers are using surveillance pricing in grocery stores for basic food items. Extrapolating from the Consumer Reports study, such pricing could be adding $1,200 annually to a typical family’s spending on basic groceries.

I’m not sure what the solution is. It’s way too late to “unenroll” from our loyalty accounts. And government intervention would probably just end up making things worse.

But perhaps getting the word out about what’s happening could spark justified mistrust in the big retailers. No retailer enjoys dealing with grumpy customers.

Be grumpy.

The Audit is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Continue Reading

Trending

X