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

Artificial Intelligence

UK Police Chief Hails Facial Recognition, Outlines Drone and AI Policing Plans

Published on

logo

By

Any face in the crowd can be caught in the dragnet of a digital police state.

The steady spread of facial recognition technology onto Britain’s streets is drawing alarm from those who see it as a step toward mass surveillance, even as police leaders celebrate it as a powerful new weapon against crime.
Live Facial Recognition (LFR) is a system that scans people’s faces in public spaces and compares them against watchlists.
Civil liberties groups warn it normalizes biometric monitoring of ordinary citizens, while the Metropolitan Police insist it is already producing results.
Britain’s senior police leadership is promoting these biometric and artificial intelligence systems as central to the future of policing, with commissioner Sir Mark Rowley arguing that such tools are already transforming the way the Met operates.
Speaking to the TechUK trade association, Rowley described Live Facial Recognition (LFR) as a “game-changing tool” and pointed to more than 700 arrests linked to its use so far this year.
Camera vans stationed on streets have been deployed to flag people wanted for serious crimes or those breaking license conditions.
Rowley highlighted a recent deployment at the Notting Hill Carnival, where he joined officers using LFR.
“Every officer I spoke to was energized by the potential,” he said to The Sun. According to the commissioner, the weekend brought 61 arrests, including individuals sought in cases of serious violence and offenses against women and girls.
Rowley claimed that the technology played “a critical role” in making the carnival safer.
Beyond facial recognition, Rowley spoke of expanding the Met’s reliance on drones. “From searching for missing people, to arriving quickly at serious traffic incidents, or replacing the expensive and noisy helicopter at large public events,” he said, “done well, drones will be another tool to help officers make faster, more informed decisions on the ground.”
The commissioner also promoted the V100 program, which draws on data analysis to focus resources on those considered the highest risk to women.
He said this initiative has already led to the conviction of more than 160 offenders he described as “the most prolific and predatory” in London.
Artificial Intelligence is being tested in other areas too, particularly to review CCTV footage.
Rowley noted the labour involved in manually tracing suspects through crowded areas. “Take Oxford Street, with 27 junctions—a trawl to identify a suspect’s route can take two days,” he explained.
“Now imagine telling AI to find clips of a male wearing a red baseball cap between X and Y hours, and getting results in hours. That’s game-changing.”
While the Met portrays these systems as advances in crime prevention, their deployment raises questions about surveillance creeping deeper into everyday life.
Expansions in facial recognition, drone monitoring, and algorithmic analysis are often introduced as matters of efficiency and safety, but they risk building an infrastructure of constant observation where privacy rights are gradually eroded.
Shaun Thompson’s case has already been cited by campaigners as evidence of the risks that come with rolling out facial recognition on public streets.
He was mistakenly identified by the technology, stopped, and treated as though he were a wanted suspect before the error was realized.
Incidents like this highlight the danger of false matches and the lack of safeguards around biometric surveillance.
For ordinary people, the impact is clear: even if you have done nothing wrong, you can still find yourself pulled into a system that treats you as guilty first and asks questions later.
Continue Reading

Health

MAiD should not be a response to depression

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy MediaBy Daniel Zekveld

Canadians need real mental health support, not state-sanctioned suicide

If the law Parliament plans to roll out in 2027 had been on the books 15 years ago, Member of Parliament Andrew Lawton says he’d probably be dead. He’s not exaggerating. He’s referring to Canada’s scheduled expansion of medical assistance in dying (MAiD) to include people suffering only from mental illness.

Lawton, who survived a suicide attempt during a period of deep depression, knows what’s at stake. So do others who’ve shared similar stories. What they needed back then wasn’t a government-approved exit plan. They needed care, time, and something MAiD quietly discards: the possibility of recovery.

MAiD, medical assistance in dying, was legalized in Canada in 2016 for people with grievous and irremediable physical conditions. The 2027 expansion would, for the first time, allow people to request MAiD solely on the basis of a mental illness, even if they have no physical illness or terminal condition.

With the expansion now delayed to March 2027, Parliament will once again have to decide whether it wants to cross this particular moral threshold. Although the legislation was passed in 2021, it has never come into force. First pushed back to 2024, then to 2027, it remains stalled, not because of foot-dragging, but due to intense medical, ethical and public concern.

Parliament should scrap the expansion altogether.

A 2023 repeal attempt came surprisingly close—just 17 votes short, at 167 to 150. That’s despite unanimous support from Conservative, NDP and Green MPs. You read that right: all three parties, often at each other’s throats, agreed that death should not be an option handed out for depression.

Their concern wasn’t just ethical, it was practical. The core issues remain unresolved. There’s no consensus on whether mental illness is ever truly irremediable—whether it can be cured, improved or even reliably assessed as hopeless. Ask 10 psychiatrists and you’ll get 12 opinions. Recovery isn’t rare. But authorizing MAiD sends the opposite message: that some people’s pain is permanent, and the only answer is to make it stop—permanently.

Meanwhile, access to real mental health care is sorely lacking. A 2023 Angus Reid Institute poll found 40 per cent of Canadians who needed treatment faced barriers getting it. Half of Canadians said they outright oppose the expansion. Another 21 per cent weren’t sure—perhaps assuming Canada wouldn’t actually go through with something so dystopian. But 82 per cent agreed on one thing: don’t even think about expanding MAiD before fixing the mental health system.

That disconnect between what people need and what they’re being offered leads to a more profound contradiction. Canada spends millions promoting suicide prevention. There are hotlines, campaigns and mental health initiatives. Offering MAiD to people in crisis sends a radically different message: suicide prevention ends where bureaucracy begins.

Even Quebec, normally Canada’s most enthusiastic adopter of progressive policy experiments, has drawn the line. The province has said mental disorders don’t qualify for MAiD, period. Most provincial premiers and health ministers have called for an indefinite delay.

Internationally, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has condemned Canada’s approach and urged the government not to proceed. Taken together, the message is clear: both at home and abroad, there’s serious alarm over where this policy leads.

With mounting opposition and the deadline for implementation approaching in 2027, Parliament will again revisit the issue this fall.

A private member’s bill from MP Tamara Jansen, Bill C-218, which seeks to repeal the 2027 expansion clause, will bring the issue back to the floor for debate.

Her speech introducing the bill asked MPs to imagine someone’s child, broken by job loss or heartbreak, reaching a dark place. “Imagine they feel a loss so deep they are convinced the world would be better off without them,” she said. “Our society could end a person’s life solely for a mental health challenge.”

That isn’t compassion. That’s surrender.

Expanding MAiD to mental illness risks turning a temporary crisis into a permanent decision. It treats pain as untreatable, despair as destiny, and bureaucracy as wisdom. It signals to the vulnerable that Canada is no longer offering help—just a final form to sign.

Parliament still has time to reverse course. It should reject the expansion, reinvest in suicide prevention and reassert that mental suffering deserves treatment—not a state-sanctioned exit.

Daniel Zekveld is a Policy Analyst with the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada.

Explore more on Euthanasia, Assisted suicide, Mental health, Human Rights, Ethics

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

 

Continue Reading

Trending

X