Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Censorship Industrial Complex

Trump admin probing U.K.’s crackdown on free speech

Published

4 minute read

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

The Trump administration quietly dispatched U.S. diplomats to Britain in March to investigate growing free speech concerns. According to The Telegraph, they met with pro-life campaigners arrested for silent prayer and questioned UK officials about internet speech laws.

Key Details:

  • A five-person U.S. delegation visited Britain in March to probe free speech issues, meeting activists like 74-year-old Rose Docherty, arrested for silently praying outside an abortion clinic.

  • The team also met with UK Foreign Office officials and Ofcom, which now polices online content under the country’s Online Safety Act.

  • In February, Vice President JD Vance warned free speech is “in retreat” in Europe and pointed to arrests of pro-life demonstrators in the UK.

Diving Deeper:

According to The Telegraph, the Trump administration sent a team from the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor to Britain in March for meetings with victims of what the administration views as increasingly authoritarian speech restrictions. The diplomats reportedly engaged with pro-life campaigners, including 74-year-old Rose Docherty, who was arrested for quietly praying near an abortion facility under the UK’s controversial “buffer zone” law.

“I didn’t break the law, I didn’t influence, I didn’t harass, I didn’t intimidate,” Docherty told reporters. “This can’t be just. It’s heartening that others around the world, including the U.S. government, have realised this injustice and voiced their support.”

The U.S. team also met with British government officials, including members of the Foreign Office and Ofcom. Ofcom’s growing authority over digital speech, enhanced under the UK’s new Online Safety Act, has become a flashpoint between Washington and London. The legislation allows British regulators to impose large fines on American tech companies for failing to adequately monitor and censor online content—a power U.S. officials say could have serious consequences for American firms and speech protections.

Vice President JD Vance spotlighted the issue during his speech at the Munich Security Conference in February, calling out the United Kingdom by name. “I look to our very dear friends, the United Kingdom, where the backslide away from conscience rights has placed the basic liberties of religious Britons, in particular, in the crosshairs,” he said. Vance specifically cited cases like Docherty’s, warning of a broader erosion of fundamental rights across Europe.

The administration’s concerns extend beyond religious liberty. The case of Lucy Connolly, a 42-year-old British mother sentenced to 31 months in prison for social media posts after a horrific mass killing in Southport, has also attracted attention from Trump allies. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, a longtime ally of President Trump, described the case as emblematic of a “two-tier Britain” and claimed, “My American friends cannot believe what is happening in the UK.”

Despite mounting criticism, British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has denied there is a crisis. In a February meeting with President Trump at the White House, Starmer said, “We’ve had free speech for a very, very long time in the United Kingdom, and it will last for a very, very long time.”

That reassurance hasn’t quieted concerns. A separate report from The Times of London in March found that British police make more than 30 arrests every day over alleged offensive online or public statements—amounting to approximately 12,000 arrests annually.

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

Canada’s PM Mark Carney Revives Online Censorship Agenda

Published on

logo
Steven Guilbeault, once Canada’s Environment Minister is now poised to spearhead a different kind of oversight, this time, over what Canadians can see and share online.
In his new post as Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, Guilbeault has been entrusted with executing Bill C-11, a contentious piece of legislation passed in 2023 that gives the federal government unprecedented power over online streaming platforms.
Celebrating the appointment, Guilbeault publicly thanked newly elected Prime Minister Mark Carney, expressing his intent to “build a stronger country, based on the values of Canadians.”
This shift in leadership places Guilbeault at the center of an ongoing battle over internet regulation. Bill C-11, which was rushed into law during Justin Trudeau’s final term as Prime Minister, obligates major tech companies to fund and prioritize Canadian content, particularly that of the mainstream media, regardless of whether users are seeking it.
While the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) was initially expected to enforce the new requirements, it recently admitted that the regulatory framework won’t be ready until late 2025. That leaves platforms, creators, and consumers in limbo, uncertain about how deeply the government’s hand will extend into digital media.
Carney, seen as a political continuation of Trudeau’s legacy, appears ready to go even further. Before the most recent election, the Liberal Party was already moving to introduce Bill C-63, a so-called Online Harms Act.
While framed as a tool to protect minors from exploitation, the bill also includes expansive measures to monitor and penalize what it terms “hate speech.” This vague language has prompted concern from legal scholars and civil liberties organizations about the law’s potential to suppress legitimate expression.
With Guilbeault now steering Canada’s cultural and digital policies, free speech advocates worry the government is tightening its grip not only on environmental and economic life but on the very flow of information and dialogue in the digital sphere. What began as a push for national content promotion may ultimately serve as a model for broader censorship under the guise of cultural stewardship.
Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

Canada caves when free speech is under fire

Published on

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.

Continue Reading

Trending

X