Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Media

CTV News caught splicing misleading clip of Poilievre

Published

7 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By AnthonyMurdoch

CTV News has since apologized for airing the doctored footage, but claimed it was the result of a ‘misunderstanding’ during the editing process. The Conservatives have since hit back saying they are ‘boycotting’ the outlet until it is admitted the footage was intentionally manipulated.

Canada’s Conservative Party is livid after one of the nation’s largest corporate media outlets, which gets funding from the Trudeau government, was caught splicing a video clip to make it appear party leader Pierre Poilievre said something he did not.  

On Monday, Sebastian Skamski, media relations person for Poilievre, took to X to explain that mainstream media news outlet CTV News ran a doctored video clip of the Conservative leader on television misleading viewers, accusing the news outlet of “propagating” the “Trudeau Liberals’ narrative.”

Skamski explained, and proved, that the news outlet had spliced video of Poilievre talking to make it seem as though he was calling for an election because he opposed Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s dental plan, when the real footage was about the Conservative leader’s opposition to the carbon tax.

“Today @CTVNews was caught splicing a clip of @PierrePoilievre to propagate the Liberals’ narrative. This is not only a total fabrication designed to deceive Canadians but also a major breach of journalistic ethics,” wrote Skamski on X.

“CTV must apologize for their flagrant use of disinformation.” 

Skamski then shared a clip of the original video footage, compared to the doctored CTV footage. 

“Not only is @PierrePoilievre’s quote clearly about the carbon tax (cut from CTV’s broadcast), @CTVNews bizarrely manipulated it,” he wrote. 

The real quote by Poilievre was, “That’s why it’s time to put forward a motion for a carbon tax election.”  

The incident drew immediate backlash from Conservative MPs.

“@CTVNews, you spliced three parts of different sentences together to create a new one that Pierre never said. That’s not a misunderstanding during editing, that’s fabricating disinformation. Where is your apology for that?,” wrote Conservative MP Chris Warkentin on X Monday.  

Conservative MP Melissa Lantsman ripped CTV News as untrustworthy and an outlet that “pumps” out “disinformation” to protect Trudeau.

“CTV gets caught pumping disinformation to protect the Prime Minister who subsidizes them,” she wrote on X Monday. 

After the backlash, CTV News issued an “apology” for the altered news clip, admitting that the clip was presented in an “out of context” manner, claiming the debacle was the result of a “misunderstanding during the editing process.” 

“Last night in a report on this broadcast, we presented a comment by the Official Opposition leader Pierre Poilievre that was taken out of context,” said CTV.  

“It left viewers with the impression the Conservative non confidence motion was to defeat the Liberals’ dental care program. In fact, the Conservatives have made it clear the motion is based on a long list of issues with the Liberal government including the carbon tax. A misunderstanding during the editing process resulted in this misrepresentation. We unreservedly apologize to Mr. Poilievre and the Conservative Party of Canada. We regret this report went to air in the manner it did.”

The Conservatives did not buy the apology, however, announcing Tuesday that the party will refuse to engage with CTV News reporters until “they explicitly acknowledge their malicious editing & omission of context to undermine” Poilievre.

The Liberal federal government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has pumped billions into propping up the mostly state-funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) as well as large payouts for legacy media outlets including CTV, ahead of the 2025 federal election. In total, the subsidies are expected to cost taxpayers $129 million over the next five years.   

Tomorrow, the Conservatives will be voting on a motion of non-confidence in the House of Commons. If successful, it would trigger an election.

The motion is likely to fail, as even though NDP leader Singh pulled his official support for Trudeau’s Liberals two weeks ago, in recent days he has been mum on whether he will vote for or against the Liberals when a vote occurs. 

As for the Trudeau Liberals, it is widely accepted that they are floundering, having lost two recent byelections, one in Quebec and the other in Ontario, in what were considered “safe” Liberal ridings. 

The most recent loss suggests that Trudeau’s Liberal government is indeed hanging on by a thread, as all recent polls show that Poilievre’s Conservative Party is set to win big when the next federal election takes place.

Censorship Industrial Complex

UK’s top cop wants to ‘stop policing tweets’: report

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

‘I don’t believe we should be policing toxic culture wars debates,’ said Sir Mark Rowley, chief of the London Metropolitan Police.

In a remarkable shift, Britain’s most senior police officer is to recommend changes to the law which could allow police to “stop policing tweets” within weeks.

Sir Mark Rowley, chief of London’s Metropolitan Police, said he will approach the Home Secretary with proposals which could see police return to policing real-life crime.

Sources close to Rowley told the UK’s Daily Telegraph:

He wants Shabana Mahmood, the new Home Secretary, to change the rules so police officers are not required to record or investigate complaints when there is no evidence the suspect intended real-world harm.

The change would be a remarkable departure from the crackdown on “non-crime hate incidents,” which have seen British people given sentences of several years for remarks made online.

Rowley’s move to change the law comes alongside the UK Labour government’s proposal to introduce digital ID – which could tie access to bank accounts and work to online speech.

Return to common sense policing?

The Telegraph’s source said Rowley “is proposing a shake-up of legislation that would give officers greater discretion to use ‘common sense’ when deciding whether to record and investigate complaints about comments on social media.”

The proposed change follows the arrest of comedy writer Graham Linehan, prompting the Metropolitan Police Chief to respond.

Responding to Linehan’s arrest, Rowley said on September 3 that a return to common sense was needed as a series of high-profile arrests over “non-crime hate incidents” was undermining public trust in the police.

He said the policies of successive governments had left the police in an “impossible position” over hate speech laws.

“[O]fficers are currently in an impossible position. I have offered to provide suggestions to the Home Office on where the law and policy should be clarified.”

Telegraph journalist Allison Pearson, who was doorstepped by police last November for a tweet described as a “non-crime hate incident,” responded on September 9 by saying Rowley’s step towards defending free speech was “disingenuous” at best.

“At the risk of being arrested,” Pearson said, “I suggest Met chief Mark Rowley is a total muppet.”

Commenting on the recent arrest of comedian Graham Linehan for online speech, she added, “It is disingenuous in the extreme for the commissioner to say officers’ hands are tied in cases like that of Graham Linehan.”

Pearson explains that Linehan, famous for writing sitcoms, was arrested by five armed police after a “notorious trans activist” reported his tweets to police.

Rowley’s claim is that guidelines to police compel them to treat such appeals as crime reports, leaving no room for discretion.

Pearson then refers to the many real-life crimes to which British police do not routinely respond – even over decades:

It’s perfectly clear that the police have discretion to ignore complaints, even crimes, if they want to. Let’s see now:

Phone theft – ignored.

Shoplifting – essentially legal.

Carjacking – we’ll send you a crime number.

Burglaries – help yourself, lads!

Sexual harassment, child gang rape – er, sorry, cultural sensitivities.

Pearson concludes that the police chief is himself being dishonest – at best – in saying that speech crime laws tie the hands of officers.

For Sir Mark to claim that his officers were unable to use their common sense and ignore a complaint from a notorious trans activist about [Linehan] is to insult the public’s intelligence.

Baronness Winterbourne of the House of Lords responded, recommending that “[i]nstead of blaming Parliament for your officers’ inability to think for themselves intelligently, perhaps you might firmly tell them, please, to stop being stupid.”

As the latest Telegraph report shows, government advice to police already exists – which has not prevented the policing of so-called “non-crime hate incidents.”

More than 13,200 non-crime hate incidents were recorded by police in the 12 months to June 2024, a similar number to the previous year, despite new guidelines requiring police to investigate only ‘when it is absolutely necessary and proportionate and not simply because someone is offended.’

Rowley was also recorded on a UK radio show defending the officers who carried out Linehan’s arrest.

Graham Linehan’s case is but one of many in which British people have been prosecuted for online speech. As the Free Speech Union reported in April 2025, new data showed that over 12,000 people in Britain are arrested for speech crimes every year.

Hitchens: Disband the police?

Peter Hitchens, a veteran conservative commentator and staunch Christian, spoke out on GB News – calling for the British police to be completely abolished and replaced.

Hitchens, a devout Christian, said the British police should be “disbanded” as they have become a “sinister menace to the freedom of speech.”

“They’re not responsible for crime anymore,” Hitchens explained. “They’re a politically correct body who think they’re policing thought.”

He told GB News’ Michelle Dewberry that “the police don’t believe they should be doing what we think they should be doing. They do believe they should be arresting people for incorrect tweets. The only solution is to disband them and start again.”

Elsewhere Hitchens argued this was no novel development, saying this “new style of policing” went back 20 years.

Two-tier Keir Starmer

The embattled Prime Minister Keir Starmer has long been accused of “two-tier” policing in cracking down on “far-right thugs” who commit online speech crimes.

As the murder of Charlie Kirk focuses attention on the toxic speech of the left, Britain’s justice system sees no evil when left-wingers call for the collective murder of people on the right.

Whilst former Conservative councilor Lucy Connolly received a 31-month sentence for an angry tweet about illegal migrants, a councilor for Starmer’s own Labour Party was found not guilty of incitement to violence after demanding that everyone he saw as “far right” be murdered.

Ricky Jones was declared innocent after publicly calling for his comrades to “cut the throats” of the so-called “disgusting Nazi fascists” who were protesting over the murder of children by a man of migrant heritage. Three girls were killed in Southport by a Rwandan youth last July. After stabbing the nine children in a frenzied assault, Axel Rudakubana told police, “It’s a good thing those children are dead.”

When angry protests broke out at the murders, Jones responded on video, saying of the so-called “far-right” protesters: “We need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.”

Jones was freed, Connolly was jailed.

Despite the obvious dangers in preferring the policing of speech to genuine threats and crimes, there seems to be no cause for concern from the point of view of Britain’s prime minister.

During Wednesday afternoon’s questions, Sir Keir Starmer was asked whether he would commit to revising speech laws to “ensure legitimate free expression is protected.”

Starmer replied with a stock response: “I’ve been clear throughout, we must ensure the police focus on the most serious issues and the issues that matter most to our constituencies and all communities.”

He ended by saying he was proud of Britain’s long history of free speech, which he said he would always protect.

“And that includes tackling issues like antisocial behavior, knife crime and violence. And we have a long history of free speech in this country. I’m very proud of that, and I will always defend it.”

Continue Reading

International

Nepal Tried To Censor The Internet. Young People Set Parliament on Fire.

Published on

logo

By

The government found itself answering to the voices it tried to erase.

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

If you were looking for a tutorial in how not to govern, Nepal’s ruling class has generously offered a new lesson plan.

Step one: shut down social media because it makes you feel insecure. Step two: pretend the resulting nationwide meltdown is a fluke. Step three: watch your approval rating turn into a riot and your parliament building go up in flames.

What began as a bureaucratic tantrum over unregistered apps spiraled, almost immediately, into a full-blown generational uprising.

The uprising kicked off when Nepal’s Ministry of Communication had the bright idea to demand that social media companies register under new regulations, rules so vague they could have been written by someone trying to criminalize sarcasm.

When the platforms didn’t register, the state did what all cornered bureaucrats do: they pulled the plug.

The geniuses in Kathmandu decided that banning Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and WeChat, because they would not censor, would somehow bring digital order to the country.

Instead, they triggered the kind of public explosion normally reserved for collapsing currencies or rigged elections.

It’s important to make clear that the social media blackout may have lit the match, but the country was already soaked in gasoline. For most of the people in the streets, the platform bans weren’t the whole problem. They were the final insult.

The real list of grievances reads like a greatest hits album of government failure. Start with corruption, a national tradition at this point. The 2017 Airbus deal, where Nepal Airlines managed to misplace $10.4 million in public funds without even delivering entertaining excuses, became a case study in how to lose money in government without really trying. No one went to jail. No one even got demoted. But the public remembered. They always do.

Then there is the economy, or what’s left of it. Officially, youth unemployment hit 20 percent in 2024. Unofficially, it’s worse, depending on how you define “employment” and whether you count selling SIM cards on a sidewalk as a career. One in every thirteen Nepalis works abroad just to keep their families from sinking, sending back enough remittances to prop up a government that thanks them with platitudes and zero policies.

For young people still stuck in Nepal, the message has been clear: there is no future here unless your dad is on a party committee. The government hasn’t so much failed to create jobs as it has outsourced hope entirely.

Add to that the political circus. Since 2008, when the monarchy was finally shelved, Nepal has cycled through 14 different governments. Not one of them finished a full term. The entire concept of political continuity in the country has been reduced to a punchline. Voters aren’t even surprised anymore. They just check the news to see who’s getting fired this week.

And when the people want to speak out and air their grievances, the government tries to censor the social media platforms. That was a big mistake.

Crowd of protesters pressing against a blue metal barricade as helmeted riot police stand in the foreground on a city street with trees and buildings behind them.
Police are struggling to contain the protesters.

By Tuesday morning, the government caved. Access to all 26 banned platforms has been restored. Officials framed it as a thoughtful policy revision. Everyone else recognized it for what it was: a full-speed backpedal from a policy that went up in smoke the moment it hit the street.

Nobody outside the ruling class was surprised when the blackout turned ugly. What was surprising was the speed and scale of the blowback. By Monday, Kathmandu looked like a city prepping for regime change. Crowds breached a security post near Parliament.

Aerial view of thousands of people marching down a wide city avenue, crowding both lanes and sidewalks between multistory buildings with a tree-lined median.
Protesters have taken to the streets in major cities.

Witnesses described scenes of live ammunition mixed with rubber bullets and water cannons. At least 19 people are confirmed dead. Hundreds are injured. Emergency rooms are stacked. The situation is still active.

Eventually, someone in the cabinet remembered what year it was and realized cutting off Instagram might not be the win they thought it was.

And what exactly are these “demands”? According to the kids holding the line in the streets, it’s not just about the apps anymore.

They want resignations. Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli was at the top of the list, trailed closely by a conga line of officials accused of corruption and a fondness for authoritarian stunts.

The Prime Minister did resign, with no clear successor in place, shortly after his home was torched by protesters.

The outrage didn’t stay bottled up in Kathmandu, either. It spilled out across the country: Pokhara, Chitwan, Janakpur.

Nepali Congress MP Rajendra Bajgain finally emerged to deliver a soundbite: “If the Congress government cannot protect democracy, it must immediately step down.”

But among younger Nepalis, this wasn’t about party politics. This was about basic survival. Social media platforms aren’t luxuries; they’re oxygen. That’s how people earn, learn, and stay connected to relatives wiring home money from Qatar or Malaysia or wherever else Nepali labor is exported to keep the country’s GDP from flatlining.

So when the apps disappeared, so did a lifeline. WhatsApp storefronts went dark. Online tutors were suddenly out of business. Whole families lost touch. And the kids took it personally, because it was personal.

It’s economic sabotage. But it’s also something else: a class marker. Because the people making these decisions, funnily enough, aren’t the ones relying on WhatsApp to get paid or Messenger to call their mom abroad.

Dense crowd of protesters on a city street holding up placards—many with Nepali script—and waving red-and-blue Nepal flags, with a man in a blue surgical mask visible in the foreground and apartment buildings and utility poles lining the background.
A dense crowd of protesters on a city street holding up placards.

A solid chunk of those who charged the barricades on Monday were students who were still in class earlier that morning. Some probably still had homework due.

That’s the level of disillusionment the Nepali state has managed to achieve in an instant: students walking out of chemistry class to take on a censorship system their teachers are too scared to criticize.

Embassies from the US, France, and five other countries released a tidy joint statement reminding Nepal that free expression is still, technically, a thing.

And that brings us back to the big picture. Nepal, which once got a gold star for being the region’s plucky democratic experiment, was trying to join the regional authoritarian club, just without the efficiency.

Since abolishing its monarchy in 2008, the country has bounced between dysfunction and disillusionment like a pinball machine nobody wants to unplug.

This time, though, the government’s attempt to control the conversation detonated. The apps are back, sure. But trust? That’s still offline.

What started as censorship has ballooned into something larger: a hard look at who gets to decide how people live, speak, and survive.

The kids aren’t logging off. And the state, despite reconnecting the internet, may have finally disconnected from its last thread of legitimacy.

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

Resist censorship and surveillance. Reclaim your digital freedom.

Get news, features, and alternative tech explorations to defend your digital rights.

Continue Reading

Trending

X