Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Censorship Industrial Complex

Canada caves when free speech is under fire

Published

7 minute read

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By Collin May

When I came under fire, no one in Canada had my back. It was U.S. groups that stepped up. That says a lot about the state of our institutions

It’s been a busy few weeks in Anglosphere politics. Canada and Australia both held federal elections, while in England, voters went to the polls for local
races and a high-stakes parliamentary byelection.

The campaigns—and their results—couldn’t have been more different. In Canada and Australia, incumbent left-leaning governments shaped their
campaigns around external threats, particularly U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade tariffs. They portrayed these as “existential threats” to national
sovereignty, crowding out debate on urgent domestic issues like housing, affordability and migration.

But English voters weren’t interested in fear campaigns. Instead, they used the opportunity to send a clear message of frustration with their own political class, punishing both the stumbling Labour government and the disoriented Conservatives.

Across local councils and mayoral races, the upstart Reform Party, a populist, centre-right movement, swept aside the traditional parties. Reform captured more than 30 per cent of the vote, winning 677 council seats and control of 10 of the 23 contested councils. The Conservatives collapsed, losing 674 seats, Labour dropped 187, and the Lib Dems gained 163. In the first parliamentary byelection since the 2024 national vote, a supposedly safe Labour seat—Runcorn and Helsby—flipped to Reform by just six votes.

These results reveal more than political turbulence. They expose important differences in political culture. British voters, with their long democratic tradition and broader economy, proved more resistant to fear-driven narratives centred on U.S. politics. Canada and Australia, more economically dependent and less institutionally resilient, were more vulnerable to manipulation by politicians exploiting insecurity and simplistic caricatures of American threats.

The cost of this vulnerability is domestic neglect. In Canada, conversations about civil liberties, housing, immigration and cost-of-living pressures, especially on younger Canadians, were largely sidelined.

This failure isn’t abstract. I experienced it firsthand.

In 2022, I was appointed chief of the Alberta Human Rights Commission. Soon after, a small but vocal activist group targeted me with allegations of Islamophobia and racism, based on a misrepresentation of a 2009 academic article I wrote on political theology. Canadian institutions that should have stood for due process and free expression remained silent.

Support only arrived once the story caught the attention of American organizations. Groups like the Middle East Forum, the Clarity Coalition, the
National Association of Scholars and Law & Liberty offered platforms for me to speak, publish and respond. Only then did some Canadian outlets take notice.

At the heart of this silence was a deeper issue: Canada lacked the civic infrastructure to defend free speech, academic freedom and open debate,
especially when they challenge prevailing orthodoxies.

That, thankfully, may be starting to change.

Since my dismissal, several new organizations have emerged. The Clarity Coalition, an alliance of Muslims, ex-Muslims and allies committed to liberal
democracy, launched a Canadian chapter, which I now co-chair with Yasmine Mohammed. In 2024, it joined others to form the Alliance of Canadians
Combating Antisemitism. And earlier this year, lawyer Lisa Bildy, who represented the late Richard Bilkszto, a Toronto principal targeted in a
cancellation campaign, founded a Canadian chapter of the Free Speech Union.

These developments mark a long-overdue pushback. For the first time in years, Canadian groups are coalescing around foundational values and offering critical support to individuals willing to challenge entrenched activist networks. Still, the fight is uphill. These organizations are new, their resources are limited and the pressure is intense.

In my own case, my legal counsel has led a defamation suit against several of the groups that destroyed my reputation and cost me my position. Legal action is costly, and so far, the only significant financial support I’ve received has come from the Lawfare Project, a New York-based legal defence group founded by a Canadian.

That in itself says a great deal.

There are signs of momentum. Muslims Facing Tomorrow, a Canadian group led by the courageous Raheel Raza, recently issued a public statement supporting my legal action and called on Alberta Justice Minister Mickey Amery to reinstate me as chief of the Alberta Human Rights Commission.

If that happens, my first act would be to establish an advisory council on free speech and academic freedom, because no society can remain democratic if it doesn’t defend its core values.

Whether Alberta’s government will act remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: if Canada wants to protect its democratic soul, it must stop relying on
others for courage and start standing up for its principles at home.

Collin May is a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a lawyer, and Adjunct Lecturer in Community Health Sciences at the University of Calgary, with degrees in law (Dalhousie University), a Masters in Theological Studies (Harvard) and a Diplome d’etudes approfondies (Ecole des hautes etudes, Paris).

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.

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

Censorship Industrial Complex

In Britain the “Thought Crime” Is Real

Published on

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

By

A pensioner faced a raid not for plotting mayhem, but for posting a sarcastic tweet fewer than 30 people saw

It takes a very special kind of madness to send six baton-wielding, pepper-spray-toting police officers to arrest a 71-year-old man in his slippers. But here we are: welcome to Britain 2025, where tweeting the wrong opinion is treated with the same urgency as a hostage situation in Croydon.

Julian Foulkes, once a proud servant of law and order, now finds himself on the receiving end of what can only be described as a full-scale, Kafkaesque raid. His crime? Not drug-dealing, not fraud, not even refusing to pay the TV license. No, Julian questioned a pro-Palestinian demonstrator on X. Because apparently, free speech is now a limited-time offer.

The Curious Case of the Grocery List

The story began in Gillingham when Kent Police decided to deploy what must be half their annual budget to storm the Foulkes residence. Six officers with batons barged into the home of a pensioner who’s spent a decade in service to the very same force now treating him like the Unabomber.

And what high-level contraband did they uncover in this den of danger? Books. Literature. And not just any literature; “very Brexity things,” according to bodycam footage obtained by The Telegraph. One can only imagine the horror. Perhaps a Nigel Farage biography lying next to a battered copy of The Spectator. It’s practically a manifesto.

But wait, it gets better. A shopping list, penned by Julian’s wife (a hairdresser, no less), featured such ominous items as bleach, aluminum foil, and gloves. For those keeping score at home, that’s also the standard toolkit of anyone doing household chores or dyeing hair. But to Kent’s finest, it must have looked like the recipe for domestic terrorism. You half expect them to have called in MI5 to decipher the coded significance of “toilet paper x2.”

Now, this could all be darkly amusing if it weren’t also painfully cruel. While Kent’s squad of crime-fighting intellects were turning over Julian’s life like a garage sale, they rummaged through deeply personal mementos from his daughter’s funeral. Francesca, tragically killed by a drunk driver in Ibiza 15 years ago, had her memory poked through as if it were a bag of potato chips.

An officer was heard stating: “Ah. That’s sad,” before carrying on like she was flicking through junk mail.

After the shakedown came the cell. Eight hours locked up like a mob boss, while the state decided whether tweeting concern about a reported rise in antisemitism qualified as incitement or merely the audacity of having an opinion. It’s hard to say what’s more insulting; the arrest or the mind-numbing absurdity of it all.

A Nation Eating Its Own

Now, let’s not kid ourselves. This isn’t just a Kent problem. This is a snapshot of a country in full bureaucratic freefall. We’ve reached a point where police forces, rather than chasing burglars or catching knife-wielding lunatics, are now busy raiding the homes of retirees over innocuous social media posts.

Julian Foulkes is not a revolutionary. He’s not leading rallies, he’s not printing manifestos in his shed, and he’s certainly not strapping himself to the gates of Parliament. He’s a retired cop who owns a few books, uses X to vent the occasional opinion, and wants to visit his daughter in Australia without being flagged at passport control like he’s smuggling plutonium.

But after hours of interrogation for what the police grandly labeled malicious communication, Foulkes accepted a caution. Not because he believed he’d done anything wrong, he hadn’t, but because the alternative might have been even more grotesque. A criminal conviction. Which, for a man with family overseas, could turn his trips to Heathrow into a permanent no-fly zone.

“My life wouldn’t be worth living if I couldn’t see her. At the time, I believed a caution wouldn’t affect travel, but a conviction definitely would,” he said about being able to visit his daughter.

“That’s about the level of extremist I am… a few Douglas Murray books and some on Brexit.”

He reads. Possibly even thinks. The horror.

The Apology That Barely Was

Kent Police did what all institutions do when caught with their pants around their ankles. They mumbled something vaguely resembling an apology. They admitted the caution had been a mistake and removed it from his record.

And while that’s nice, it rather misses the point. Because they’d already sent a message, loud and clear: Think the wrong thing, tweet the wrong joke, and we might just pay you a visit. It’s the sort of behavior you’d expect in some authoritarian state where elections are won with 98 percent of the vote and the only available television channel is state news. Not the Home Counties.

Foulkes, for his part, hasn’t gone quietly.

“I saw Starmer in the White House telling Trump we’ve had [free speech] in the UK for a very long time, and I thought, ‘Yeah, right.’ We can see what’s really going on.”

He’s not wrong. For a nation so smug about its democratic values, Britain seems increasingly allergic to people expressing them.

He goes further, pulling no punches about the direction his former profession has taken.

“I’d never experienced anything like this” during his time on the force, he said, before diagnosing the whole debacle as a symptom of the “woke mind virus” infecting everything, including the police.

The Tweet That Triggered the Avalanche

The whole affair kicked off in the aftermath of the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, a day of bloodshed that left 1,200 dead and more than 250 taken hostage. The shockwaves weren’t limited to the Middle East. They rattled through Europe, igniting a fresh wave of pro-Palestinian marches across the continent.

Foulkes, like many watching the news, saw a video of a mob in Dagestan storming an airport reportedly to find Jewish arrivals.

So, when he saw a post from an account called Mr Ethical; who, with all the irony the internet can muster, threatened legal action if branded an antisemite, Foulkes couldn’t help himself. He replied:

“One step away from storming Heathrow looking for Jewish arrivals….”

A social media post exchange where Mr Ethical responds to Suella Braverman saying if called an antisemite he will sue, followed by Julian Foulkes commenting about storming Heathrow looking for Jewish arrivals.

That was it. One tweet. One line. No threats. No calls to violence.

Foulkes maintains he’d never interacted with the account before. There was no feud, no history. His post had fewer than 30 views.

And yet, within days, he had six police officers treating his home like a crime scene.

What does this tell us? That we’ve entered an era where satire is indistinguishable from evidence. Where sarcasm is treated like sedition. And where a retired constable who’s paid his dues can still find himself pulled into the maw of state-sanctioned nonsense for a tweet.

So yes, the caution’s gone, wiped clean like it never happened. But the message is still smoldering in the ashtray: think twice before you speak, and maybe don’t speak at all if your bookshelf includes anything more provocative than a Gordon Ramsay cookbook. Because in modern Britain, it’s not always the rapists and murderers who get doorstepped, it’s pensioners with opinions. And if that’s where we’ve landed, then the only thing truly extreme is how far the country’s gone off the rails.

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

Continue Reading

Aristotle Foundation

The University of Saskatchewan is on an ideological mission

Published on

Aristotle Foundation Home

By Peter MacKinnon

The program is part of an ideological crusade within our universities, one that includes identity-based admissions and faculty appointments, and discourages those who differ from speaking out or taking issue with its direction.

It needs to end

I must disclose my background here; I was employed by the University of Saskatchewan for 40 years including 13 years as president. The institution’s distinctive origins combined the development of liberal education with a responsibility to build the province’s agricultural industry, and it did the latter with world-class agricultural programs and research institutes, and with faculty and students of many backgrounds from around the globe.

Now, we are told, the academic personnel in this worldly environment require mandatory training on racism: an Anti-Racism/Anti-Oppression and Unconscious Bias Faculty Development Program. It is compulsory; those who decline its offerings will be shut out of collegial processes previously thought to be their right as tenured faculty.

It was earlier reported that the program emerged from collective bargaining at the initiative of the university’s faculty union; if so, this does not relieve the administration from responsibility; it signed the collective agreement.

“Program” is a euphemism. It is a propaganda module in which scholarly expertise and balance will not be found. It does not appear that the instructor has a university academic post and the program’s ideological hue is revealed in the two required readings, one by Idle No More co-founder Sheelah McLean whose theme is that the success of Saskatchewan’s white people is built on “150 years of racist, sexist and homophobic colonial practices.”

The second is by five “racialized” faculty who claim that Canadian university systems are rigged to privilege white people. Dissent, contrary views or even nuance are neither expected nor tolerated here. Opinions that are different are not on the reading list.

One participant, a law professor, was invited to leave after 30 minutes because he did not lend his voice to its purpose and orientation; he revealed that he was present because it was required. The purpose of the program is indoctrination and there is no room for dissent.

The program is part of an ideological crusade within our universities, one that includes identity-based admissions and faculty appointments, and discourages those who differ from speaking out or taking issue with its direction.

It is not present to the same degree in all of these institutions, but it is visible in most and prominent in many. It disparages merit, distorts our history and rests on the proposition that a white majority population has perpetrated a wide and pervasive racist agenda against others. It takes its conclusions as self-evident and not requiring evidence. It is authoritarian and intolerant, and should have no place in institutions committed to excellence and the search for truth.

The question, of course, is what is to be done. There is a view that “this too shall pass;” it is a fad that will recede in time.

But we must note, these are public institutions supported by tax dollars, and by the contributions of time and money by alumni and supporters. We should not tolerate their politicization and sidetracking of the academic mission in favour of the ideology on display here. The pushback should begin with governments and extend to others who care about these vital institutions.

But first the ideology must be recognized. There is no public uproar and little clamour from within the institutions; dissenting professors and students fear that negative professional and personal repercussions may follow. University-governing bodies stand down or away, not wanting to be involved in controversy. Resistance must come from outside the institutions: governments must insist that the propaganda must end, and they should be joined by alumni, supporters and the general public. The credibility of our universities depends on their willingness to say no.

Peter MacKinnon has served as president of three Canadian universities and is a senior fellow at the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy. Photo: WikiCommons

Continue Reading

Trending

X