Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Opinion

Left Turn: How Viet Nam War Resisters Changed Canada’s Political Compass

Published

9 minute read

Politics is downstream of culture”— Andrew Breitbart

Canada has long desired its own foreign policy independent of neighbouring America. So the news that Canada and communist China are the only partners in resisting Donald Trump’s call for tariff negotiations was good news indeed for Trudeaupia. With former RCMP officers alleging that nine Liberal members of Parliament were colluding with China, the pivot seems confirmed.

How average Canadians feel about this will largely depend on whether they are extremely gullible or, like the Norwegian Blue parrot, just resting. But if we use the current Liberal strategy of resurrecting Gordie Howe’s elbows as a rallying cry option one seems increasingly likely.

Norman Bethune notwithstanding, Canada wasn’t always passionate about aligning with the China of Mao or Zhao Enlai For most of its history until the 1960s, Canada was a small C conservative nation of resource development, small businesses and loyalty to the Crown (the Queen, not the TV show). Sure, it took in TV producers and hosts targeted by the 1950s Hollywood Black list. But as Mark Carney will tell you, Canada’s TV stars of the day were Mr. Dressup and Friendly Giant. Not radical.

Most Canadians sneered quietly at U.S. pretensions and their military. But Canadian politics suddenly pivoted left in the 1960s, from genial Mike Pearson to Pierre “The Rake” Trudeau. In Pearson’s day it was a national scandal that a Canadian cabinet minister slept with a German woman who also shared a pillow with a Soviet official. In Trudeau’s day it was a scandal if he didn’t sleep with Barbra Streisand after their date.

The main factors shoving Canada left were A) Quebec separation and  B) the Viet Nam War from 1963-1975. Quebec’s rejection of the Church in favour of a secular state got most of the ink, producing Trudeau himself, René Levêsque and an unending series of federal/ provincial dog piles. The result is a self-satisfied Quebec and a ROC whose attitude on Quebec has flipped from fraternal twin to very reluctant landlord.

But the impact of B) on Canada was profound and continues today with the leftward bias in Canada’s cultural and media outlook. Specifically, the total of American citizens who moved to Canada due to their opposition to the war ranges from 50,000 to 100,000— at a time when Canada’s population was approximately 20 million. The common denominator for almost all the emigrés was a defiant opposition to America’s compulsory draft system for young men that remained in place till 1972.

The most famous objector was probably boxer Muhammad Ali who demanded conscientious objector status, losing five years of his career while fighting prison as a draft dodger. At least Ali got to stay home.

Others headed north. Some of the new Canadians were draft dodgers, others were deserters. Many were educated middle-class to upper class young men who objected to the War. Chris Turner in the Walrus has described it as “the largest politically motivated migration from the United States since the United Empire Loyalists moved north to oppose the American Revolution.”

After initially rejecting deserters, Canada under Trudeau in 1969 agreed not to ask the draft status of the newcomers. They were allowed to reside in Canada, and many stayed permanently even when the U.S. declared clemency for them. As befits their political leaning in rejecting the War, many later became involved in progressive causes, academia and the arts.

If you hold with Breitbart’s theory that politics is downstream of culture you can see their progressive effect on Canada’s politics and culture. A sample of transplanted Americans includes author William Gibson, politician Jim Green, gay-rights advocate Michael Hendricks, author Keith Maillard, playwright John Murrell, television personality Eric Nagler, broadcaster Andy Barrie, film critic Jay Scott, sportswriter Jack Todd and musician Jesse Winchester. (In our own 1970s education several of our professors at U of T were prominent draft dodgers.)

When Viet Nam disappeared as a cause for Canadians, this leftist cohort championed progressive causes such as socialism, gay rights, feminism, race issues and social sciences. Their critical perspective on American conservative figures such as Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and now Donald Trump guided Canadian attitudes. Media increasingly tilted leftward.

Woke Canadians now think that if you give people safe places to inject their drugs they’ll eventually heal themselves. They also believe if you take away the legal guns in society this will protect them from random violence. They think that wishing to be female is enough to allow men to compete in women’s sports. It’s government by PBS. If you want to see the bias at work you needed only see the high dudgeon of Canada’s “approved media” when conservative social media sites peppered the leaders after the French language debate Wednesday.

The recent Liberal Party Team Canada propaganda war— featuring longtime U.S. exiles Mike Myers and Neil Young ripping Trump’s tariffs– is just the latest in a cultural war against America. However, there seems for the first time in a long time to be pushback against this entrenched attitude of privilege. The state’s patronage of CBC has been a popular element of Pierre Poilievre’s platform. The publication of polling favourable to Liberals— after legacy pollsters in the U.S. distorted the 2024 election— is being questioned.

One popular mainstream media narrative concerns how Pierre Poilievre “lost” a 20-point lead in the polls from last November— the insinuation being Canada is rejecting him. But a fair reading of the polls is that the NDP under Mr. Rolex, Jagmeet Singh, has bled as much as ten points to the Liberals. In addition the Bloq support in Quebec is dropping due to soft separatists fearing assimilation by Trump’s America.

The debates of the past two nights show just how desperately the Laurentian elites are clinging to power when around the western world their pals are being booted. They’ll support the anodyne banker and court more years of Liberal chaos if it buys them peace in their gated suburbs. And deny that any of this pleases the ruling class back in China.

Bruce Dowbiggin @dowbboy is the editor of Not The Public Broadcaster  A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada’s top television sports broadcaster. His new book Deal With It: The Trades That Stunned The NHL And Changed Hockey is now available on Amazon. Inexact Science: The Six Most Compelling Draft Years In NHL History, his previous book with his son Evan, was voted the seventh-best professional hockey book of all time by bookauthority.org. You can see all his books at brucedowbigginbooks.ca.

BRUCE DOWBIGGIN Award-winning Author and Broadcaster Bruce Dowbiggin's career is unmatched in Canada for its diversity and breadth of experience . He is currently the editor and publisher of Not The Public Broadcaster website and is also a contributor to SiriusXM Canada Talks. His new book Cap In Hand was released in the fall of 2018. Bruce's career has included successful stints in television, radio and print. A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada's top television sports broadcaster for his work with CBC-TV, Mr. Dowbiggin is also the best-selling author of "Money Players" (finalist for the 2004 National Business Book Award) and two new books-- Ice Storm: The Rise and Fall of the Greatest Vancouver Canucks Team Ever for Greystone Press and Grant Fuhr: Portrait of a Champion for Random House. His ground-breaking investigations into the life and times of Alan Eagleson led to his selection as the winner of the Gemini for Canada's top sportscaster in 1993 and again in 1996. This work earned him the reputation as one of Canada's top investigative journalists in any field. He was a featured columnist for the Calgary Herald (1998-2009) and the Globe & Mail (2009-2013) where his incisive style and wit on sports media and business won him many readers.

Follow Author

Digital ID

Roblox to Mandate Facial and ID Verification

Published on

logo

By

The platform’s age checks are part of a bigger push to create online spaces policed by biometrics.

The rollout begins this week as an optional process and will become compulsory in December in countries including Australia, the Netherlands, and New Zealand, reaching the United States and other regions by early 2026.
The company says these steps are meant to make its vast online world safer for younger audiences, restricting how players of different ages can interact inside user-created “Experiences.”
To take part in chat features, users must now verify their age either by scanning a government-issued ID or recording a short facial video through Persona, an outside verification company.
Conversations are limited to others in the same or adjacent age groups unless users connect through “Trusted Connections,” which verifies they have a real-world relationship.
Roblox says the goal is to limit unsafe interactions and hopes the model will become “a new industry standard.”
While promoted as a safety improvement, this model also signals a move toward identity-linked participation in online spaces.
Digital ID verification effectively removes the anonymity that has long been part of internet culture.
It ties access to personal credentials, leaving fewer opportunities for users to interact without surrendering identifiable data.
The same technologies now appearing on entertainment platforms are increasingly being discussed by US policymakers as potential requirements for accessing social media, adult content, or even general-purpose platforms.
Several US states have already passed or proposed laws mandating age verification or digital ID checks for online activity, a trend that privacy advocates warn could erode personal freedom and create databases of sensitive personal information.
According to Roblox, “information uploaded to Persona is retained for a period of 30 days” before deletion.
Persona’s privacy policy indicates that it may collect extensive information, including device identifiers, geolocation data, and records from brokers and public sources.
This wide net of data collection extends well beyond what is required to confirm age, deepening concerns about how biometric and ID data could be reused or shared.
The company has not specified exact rollout dates for all markets but expects global enforcement to be completed within a year.
This makes Roblox the first major online platform to require facial age checks for chat participation.
The move comes as Roblox faces ongoing lawsuits and public pressure related to reports of grooming and child exploitation on the platform.
On the same day the company revealed its latest update, advocacy groups UltraViolet and ParentsTogether Action hosted an online protest, submitting a petition signed by 10,000 parents and grandparents calling for stronger child safety rules.
Roblox also introduced a new Safety Center, described as “a dedicated resource for parents and caregivers that provides clear guidance and tools to help them make informed decisions, set up Parental Controls, and support their child’s online experience.”
Still, the underlying trade-off remains significant. Roblox’s “Facial Media Capture Privacy Notice” confirms that it may conduct “other facial media processing” for “safety, assurance, or feature-specific purposes,” though the company says “Roblox does not use such facial media to identify you personally.”
Yet by normalizing ID scans and biometric checks, the company moves closer to a model of online life where anonymity is the exception rather than the rule, a change that could permanently alter how people experience privacy in digital environments.
Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

Move over Soviet Russia: UK Police Make 10,000 Arrests Over “Offensive” Online Speech

Published on

logo

By

In a nation where 90 percent of crimes go unsolved, the real emergency seems to be someone being offensive online.

Let’s get something straight. If you’re reading this from inside the United Kingdom and you’ve ever committed the heinous act of sarcasm on the internet, better close the curtains. The police might be on their way. Armed, possibly. With body cams. And a warrant to seize your copy of The Complete Fawlty Towers, just in case.
Last year, British police arrested nearly 10,000 people for saying things online that someone, somewhere, decided were “offensive.”
According to data pried out of police forces by the Daily Mail, that’s around 26 people a day. And yes, some of those probably were saying awful things. But many were not. Many were simply annoying. And in the UK now, being annoying online is grounds for a knock at the door.
The arrests were made under laws like the Communications Act 2003 and the Malicious Communications Act 1988, pieces of legislation drafted before TikTok existed, and when “going viral” still referred to the flu.
These laws were originally written to stop actual threats. Not to stop someone from tweeting something sarcastic about climate protesters.
But times have changed. Cumbria Constabulary, apparently keen to earn their badge in “Feelings Policing,” clocked in 217 arrests last year. That’s 42.5 arrests per 100,000 residents.
Meanwhile, Staffordshire managed only 21. What were they doing instead, catching burglars? How outdated.
Gwent Police weren’t far behind, either. The Welsh force made 204 arrests.
Toby Young of the Free Speech Union called the number “alarmingly high.” His assessment may be generous.
What’s truly Olympic-level absurd is the sheer inconsistency. If you’re a bit spicy with your language in Cumbria, you might be arrested before the kettle boils. In Staffordshire, you’d likely get nothing but a raised eyebrow and a politely worded leaflet.
David Spencer from Policy Exchange nailed it when he said, “The variance in approach by police forces suggests that how much freedom of speech we are allowed depends on where we live.”
A troubling sentence, because once you need a zipcode to know what jokes are legal, the country starts to resemble something more out of Kafka.
Polling suggests only 7 percent of people think online “hate speech” should be a police priority. Seven percent! Yet Britain’s police are allocating significant resources to patrol the pixelated badlands of X and Facebook while 90 percent of actual crimes went unsolved last year.
So, to recap: Your house gets burgled? Fill out a form and cross your fingers. Criticize the government’s foreign policy on Facebook? Patrol car, cuffs, and possible prison time.
It doesn’t help that the laws in question use terms like “grossly offensive” and “insulting” without defining them. As Lord Frost pointed out in the House of Lords: “’Grossly offensive’, ‘abusive’, ‘insulting’ and ‘false’ – says who?” Exactly. It’s like trying to enforce a speed limit based on whether the officer feels you were driving too smugly.
Here’s the cherry on the dystopian sundae: According to Free Speech Union’s Toby Young, Russia arrested 3,253 people last year for online speech. Britain arrested four times that. That’s embarrassing and the sort of international statistic that ought to appear in Amnesty International reports.
Continue Reading

Trending

X