Opinion
It’s payback time as culture war cops switch sides, moral confusion reigns and revenge gets ready to rumble
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.)
Help The Rewrite hold media to account by becoming a free or paid subscriber.
President Trump delivered one of his bluntest warnings yet to Colombian President Gustavo Petro during a Saturday press conference, brushing aside Petro’s claim that he had no concerns about his own safety following the U.S. military operation that captured Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro. Asked directly about Petro’s remarks, Trump pointed to Colombia’s role in the global cocaine trade and made clear he was not backing off earlier threats. Petro, Trump said, presides over cocaine production facilities whose product is being funneled into the United States, adding that the Colombian leader “does have to watch his a**.”
The exchange revived tensions that have been simmering since December, when Trump publicly warned Petro to shut down multiple major cocaine labs inside Colombia. At the time, Trump said U.S. authorities had precise intelligence on their locations and openly labeled Petro a “troublemaker,” cautioning him to “watch it.” Since returning to office, Trump has taken a far more confrontational posture toward leftist leaders in the hemisphere, and Petro — a self-described Marxist and former guerrilla — has repeatedly found himself in Washington’s crosshairs.
NOW – Trump says Colombian President Gustavo Petro has "to watch his ass" as he's making cocaine and sending it to the U.S. pic.twitter.com/H2ctUOmX9O
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) January 3, 2026
Petro’s clashes with the United States extend well beyond rhetoric. He was previously sanctioned by the Treasury Department and had his U.S. visa revoked after urging American service members to defy Trump’s orders and join what he described as a multinational force to “free Palestine.” He has also triggered diplomatic flare-ups over deportation flights, branded Trump an “obstacle to democracy,” and drew widespread condemnation last October after suggesting humanity should “get rid of Trump,” punctuating the comment with a finger snap during a televised interview.
Those remarks now hang over a far more consequential moment in U.S.–Latin American relations. Trump’s comments came in the immediate aftermath of the high-risk operation that resulted in Maduro’s capture and removal from Venezuela — a move the president hailed as a “brilliant operation.” Carried out under the banner of Operation Absolute Resolve, the joint military and law enforcement mission ended with Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, flown to the United States without the loss of American personnel or equipment. The takedown marked the most aggressive assertion of U.S. power in the region in decades, with administration officials openly framing it as a modern enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine — rechristened by Trump as the “Donroe Doctrine.”
Maduro’s legal exposure is extensive. Indicted in 2020, the longtime socialist ruler has been accused by U.S. prosecutors of leading the Cartel de los Soles, a transnational cocaine trafficking network. According to the indictment unsealed by Attorney General Pam Bondi, Maduro’s regime worked hand-in-glove with Colombian insurgent groups including the FARC and ELN, as well as Mexican cartels such as Sinaloa and Los Zetas, to move enormous quantities of cocaine into the United States. He and Flores now face charges ranging from narco-terrorism and cocaine importation conspiracy to weapons offenses involving machine guns and destructive devices.
Petro has tried, cautiously, to put distance between himself and the fallen Venezuelan dictator. In late 2025, he referred to Maduro as a dictator for the first time, but stopped short of acknowledging the narco-trafficking allegations that have followed Caracas for years. Even after Maduro’s arrest, Petro has continued to dismiss U.S. accusations as a manufactured “narrative,” despite a trail of indictments and evidence stretching back more than half a decade.
For Trump, the message Saturday was unmistakable. The Maduro operation was not a one-off, and public defiance from regional leaders will be met with pressure, exposure, and consequences. Petro may insist he has nothing to worry about — but Trump made clear he disagrees, and he is no longer content to issue quiet warnings.
Nearly a quarter of TV-Y7-rated shows crossed into what it labeled explicit territory, including direct statements about sexual orientation or gender identity and depictions of related behavior. The group argued that this goes well beyond background representation and enters the realm of ideological messaging directed at children who are still years away from adolescence.
A new year-end analysis is raising fresh questions about what major streaming platforms are serving to young audiences, and whether parents are being given an honest picture of that content. According to a report released by Concerned Women for America, more than four in ten children’s programs labeled as suitable for general audiences on Netflix now include LGBTQ-themed material, despite ratings that suggest the shows are appropriate for very young viewers. The group’s review of 2025 programming found that 41 percent of Netflix shows rated TV-G contained what it described as overt gay or transgender content. Even in the TV-Y category, which is meant for children up to age seven, 21 percent of programs included similar material. For slightly older children, the share jumped sharply, with 41 percent of TV-Y7 programs containing LGBTQ themes. Taken together, CWA concluded that roughly one-third of all Netflix programming across the three primary child-rated categories — TV-G, TV-Y, and TV-Y7 — now includes such content.
Hey @netflix, what is going on here? pic.twitter.com/8XXY0neBnE
— Concerned Women for America LAC (@CWforA) December 9, 2025
Beyond simple presence, the report also attempted to measure intensity. Programs were categorized on a scale ranging from “meta” references and implied messaging to “queer-coded” characters and fully explicit content. CWA found that nearly a quarter of TV-Y7-rated shows crossed into what it labeled explicit territory, including direct statements about sexual orientation or gender identity and depictions of related behavior. The group argued that this goes well beyond background representation and enters the realm of ideological messaging directed at children who are still years away from adolescence.
The report also points to a noticeable pattern in reboots and long-running franchises. According to CWA, revived or extended versions of familiar children’s shows often introduce LGBTQ characters or storylines that were absent from the originals. Titles cited include The Magic School Bus, Power Rangers, The Baby-Sitter’s Club, She-Ra, and The Fairly OddParents. CWA said this trend suggests a deliberate choice by creators to reshape legacy brands that parents may trust based on earlier iterations.
To place the shift in a broader cultural context, the report traces the normalization of LGBTQ representation in television back several decades. When Ellen DeGeneres’ character came out on the sitcom Ellen in 1997, it was widely viewed as a watershed moment in entertainment. What once sparked national debate, the group notes, has since become routine — driven in part by sustained pressure from advocacy organizations such as GLAAD, which has tracked and promoted increased representation through its annual “Where We Are on TV” reports. GLAAD’s most recent assessment claimed another year-over-year increase in LGBTQ characters across television.
CWA argues that the implications are different when that momentum is applied to children’s programming. In its view, the growing volume of LGBTQ content aimed at young audiences — coupled with the unapologetic defense of those choices by showrunners and studios — reflects a belief within the industry that children’s entertainment should actively shape cultural attitudes rather than simply entertain. For parents relying on ratings systems to make informed decisions, the group warns, the labels no longer tell the full story.
Trump confirms first American land strike against Venezuelan narco networks
The U.S. Just Removed a Dictator and Canada is Collateral Damage
Scathing Indictment Claims Nicolás Maduro Orchestrated Drug-Fueled ‘Culture Of Corruption’ Which Plagued Entire Region
US Justice Department Accusing Maduro’s Inner Circle of a Narco-State Conspiracy
-
Environment13 hours agoLeft-wing terrorists sabotage German power plant, causing massive power outage
-
Opinion2 days agoHell freezes over, CTV’s fabrication of fake news and our 2026 forecast is still searching for sunshine
-
International5 hours agoPoilievre, Carney show support for Maduro capture as NDP’s interim leader denounces it
-
COVID-192 days agoA new study proves, yet again, that the mRNA Covid jabs should NEVER have been approved for young people.
-
Daily Caller12 hours agoMinnesota Governor resigns from re-election campaign as massive government frauds revealed
-
International11 hours agoMaduro, wife plead not guilty in first court appearance
-
Energy12 hours agoTrump’s Venezuela Move: A $17 Trillion Reset of Global Geopolitics and a Pivotal Shift in US Energy Strategy
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy15 hours agoIs Canada still worth the sacrifice for immigrants?