Censorship Industrial Complex
Retired judge says Freedom Convoy organizers on trial represent all opponents to current government
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Brian Giesbrecht
Hold the line
The marathon trial of Tamara Lich has resumed. This is definitely the most high-profile trial in Canada in years. Millions of our tax dollars have been spent to prosecute this Métis grandmother (and Chris Barber). Seasoned prosecutors have been seconded, and all of the resources of both the federal and Ontario governments have been employed to get a conviction. Seemingly at any cost.
So, the charges must be extremely serious? Surely, we are talking about some deadly terrorist attack, or something that involves multiple murders and mayhem – at the least!
Well…, no. That tiny, polite grandmother is charged, essentially, with……. mischief.
Mischief? Isn’t that a charge that is usually used to deal with a kid spray-painting graffiti on a wall, or an inebriated fellow doing something foolish while under the influence?
Not so, in the case of Tamara. They are going after her with everything at their disposal. They are pulling out all the stops – spending millions of dollars of our money to nail this gentle, former physical fitness trainer and bookkeeper on a tarted-up charge of mischief. They seem determined to make an example of her.
But an example of what? Here’s my answer: An example of what will happen to any of us if we express views that the government in power does not like -what our Prime Minister refers to as “unacceptable views” that conflict with his progressive vision. They aren’t just going after Tamara; they are going after us.
If you doubt this, think of any protest in memory that has the support of progressives, where any of the organizers have been prosecuted so vigorously just to teach that person a lesson.
After all, there are no shortage of protests. We have had dozens of indigenous, BLM, climate, and Palestinian protests in recent years. Every large protest attracts some undesirables, who participate in violence and mayhem. The BLM and antifa protests – the one our PM actively participated in despite all of his lockdown rules then in place – toppled statues and did much property damage. Surely at least one of the Canadian protest organizers could have been charged, as Tamara was. Not so.
But the vast majority of the people participating in these large protests simply want to make their point. That’s the purpose of protests. They allow people to have their say, and let off steam. Our western liberal democracies allow such things. In fact, without active citizen participation, our liberal democracies would wither and die. Citizens of liberal democracies must be free to peacefully protest when they feel the need to do so. Democratic governments must be robust enough to tolerate protests, and other forms of dissent.
In the trucker convoy protest the main point that the protesters wanted to make was about government overreach. They believed that the government reaction to the nasty Covid virus was extreme and overdone. The final straw was the imposition of a vaccine mandate on truckers at a time when everyone knew that the vaccine did not prevent a person from either becoming infected with, or transmitting, the virus. When the Trudeau government imposed its vaccine mandate this was known with certainty. The protestors were aware of that, and suspected that the decision to impose an unnecessary mandate was purely political. They insisted on their right to make a personal choice about what went into their bodies, and argued that the vaccine mandate was a denial of their basic freedoms. They wanted to state their case to the prime minister about it. But he had no time for them.
That’s what the convoy protest was all about. It was just one of many protests any liberal democracy has had, are having, and will have in the future.
But in how many of those protests do we find a Tamara – namely one person singled out as a sacrificial lamb? Shackled, dumped in a filthy cell, forced to share that cell with a mentally unstable person, and without even a book to read. And then hauled back and forth to court to be yelled at by openly hostile prosecutors. Followed by a year long trial. For a mischief charge. (Lich describes her ordeal in “Hold the Line.”
The answer is that where progressives rule – that’s here, folks – this only happens to people with “unacceptable views”. The authorities in progressive-run administrations only go after conservatives, because those are the people with “unacceptable views”. They leave progressives alone. Justin Trudeau will “take a knee” in protests he agrees with – but will bring the hammer down with thundering force on any “unacceptable fringe view” that he doesn’t like. Hamas protesters appear to be able do virtually whatever they want – even confining Jewish citizens to “ghettos”, and yelling vile, antisemitic slurs at them. The authorities will simply let it pass. Like Sergeant Schultz in “Hogan’s Heroes” they “see nussing”.
But if you happen to drive a truck, and insist on your right to decide what drugs will be injected into your body, you are fair game. There will be no shortage of police chiefs and other government officials willing to go after you.
That’s where we are now, with the trial in its final stages. There’s a good chance that Tamara will be acquitted. She is in front of an experienced and independent judge, and the evidence against her is contrived.
But there are many lesser-known people prosecuted during the lockdown and convoy protest who do not have Tamara’s high profile that gives her the ability to raise the hundreds of thousands of dollars she has needed to defend herself. Many ordinary Canadians have been convicted of offences relating to the lockdown and convoy protests for the simple reason that they couldn’t afford the time and money to defend themselves against often unfair charges.
Something similar is happening in Britain right now, where widespread dissatisfaction with government failure to limit and regulate mass immigration – particularly of immigrants who have no intention of integrating- has resulted in both protests, and out-of-control rioting. Mass immigration, like lockdown legislation, is a topic on which conservatives and progressives tend to disagree sharply. The Starmer government’s one-sided reaction to the protests and riots – as in the case of our lockdown regulations and convoy protest – is causing both unfairness and injustice for many ordinary Brits. There is general agreement that the thugs who participated in violence in the riots deserve their fate, and are rightly being jailed. But the vast majority of ordinary Brits, who are appalled at what uncontrolled immigration is doing to their country, are being silenced by threats of prosecution and jail.
People are being prosecuted simply for making intemperate comments on social media. Some who did not even participate in the protests are being jailed.
Those Britons are receiving the same threat that our prime minister has given to us – if you have an “unacceptable view” you had better not share it. Leaders, like Starmer and Trudeau, who choose to shame and silence half of their populations are playing with fire. They can only survive by becoming increasingly authoritarian.
Their brute message takes many forms. “Two tier policing” is one – namely, the police treating lockdown, or immigration protestors in a completely different way than they do pro-Hamas or BLM type protestors. “Lawfare” is another – weaponizing the law to go after those you disagree with. The Online Harms Act pushed by the Trudeau government will do exactly that. All involve the bullying of people who do not agree with the progressive views now in fashion.
These illiberal tactics threaten the rule of law that has evolved in western civilization through Magna Carta, and on to the present. The rule of law is fragile, and it is not compatible with opportunistic politicians who tamper with it by weaponizing the law to crush dissent, and to destroy their enemies. Those leaders risk seriously damaging our basic institutions with their cynical experiments in authoritarianism.
Canada, like Britain, also sees tension rising over the immigration issue. Most Canadians welcome controlled immigration. But they want immigrants who intend to integrate into the Canadian mosaic. This issue will become increasingly contentious, and Canadians who are opposed to what the current federal government is doing with immigration must be allowed to voice their opposition. That opposition includes the right to protest peacefully.
We are going to see many contentious issues arise over the next few decades. It is very likely that the government of the day will not like some of the views that are voiced by dissenters. The point is that Canadians must have the right to peacefully present their views, as Tamara Lich has done, without being treated the way dissidents are in authoritarian regimes. Conservative thinkers must not allow themselves to be intimidated into silence by progressives.
And we must be able to rely on our courts to protect those rights. The courts largely failed to protect the freedoms of lockdown dissenters in the COVID years. This has to change, or our individual freedoms will not be worth the paper they are written on. Overreaching governments must be held to account.
There is much to think about as the longest and most expensive mischief trial in Canadian history finally heads to its conclusion. The trial judge will tell Tamara if she is guilty or not guilty. But the Trudeau and Ford government are effectively on trial as well. Was their treatment of this one small lady something that should happen here? Is this what Canada has become? The Lich decision has the potential to be an important turning point for this country.
Tamara Lich did not lie down in front of a tank. She did not spend years in the Gulag. But she has been treated shabbily by the Trudeau and Ford governments. And in her gentle and respectful response to this Big Brother bullying she has taught us something. It is this: Stand up for your beliefs. Hold the line.
At some point the Trudeau Liberals will be relegated to the history books. What will they be remembered for? Trudeau’s imposition of The Emergency Act will certainly be on the top of that list. That is – without doubt – one of the low points in the history of this great country. But surely, the trial of Tamara Lich will be right up there on that list as well. A polite Métis grandmother, imprisoned and relentlessly persecuted for daring to stand up for what she believes in, has become an inspiration for those of us who cherish freedom.
Brian Giesbrecht, retired judge, is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Censorship Industrial Complex
Is free speech over in the UK? Government censorship reaches frightening new levels
From LifeSiteNews
By Frank Wright
Instead of changing policies which threaten the collapse of Western civilization, the liberal-global governments prefer to make public opposition to their politics a crime.
The UK’s crackdown on free speech continues, with two online platforms withdrawing over censorship concerns – whilst liberal-critical speakers are banned from entering Britain, and even arrested on arrival.
Following the introduction of laws which could see online platforms fined millions of pounds, free speech social media company Gab and video sharing platform Bitchute have withdrawn their services from UK users.
As Reclaim the Net, a UK-based online freedom campaign group, said on March 28:
“The British government has begun aggressively extending its censorship regime beyond its borders, invoking the sweeping powers granted by the Online Safety Act 2023 to demand compliance from foreign-based platforms.”
Bitchute withdrew its services from UK users “over online censorship laws,” as the Free Speech Union reported on April 10. Gab’s statement, published on its UK domain, said the company was acting to protect British users from being jailed for posting on its platform:
After receiving yet another demand from the UK’s speech police, Ofcom, Gab has made the decision to block the entire United Kingdom from accessing our website.
This latest email from Ofcom ordered us to disclose information about our users and operations. We know where this leads: compelled censorship and British citizens thrown in jail for ‘hate speech.’ We refuse to comply with this tyranny.
The UK government claims its laws support “online safety” – but as Reclaim the Net explains, “critics argue … the term … is being used as a smokescreen for state-sanctioned thought control.”
The future of information in Britain looks bleak, as one UK commentator said, promising a “TV version” of the internet – sterilized by UK government media watchdog Ofcom:
“Unless the White House really forces Britain to do it, Ofcom will not be abolished, because the mainstream parties approve of it and no party that doesn’t will be allowed anywhere near power.”
Millennial Woes concludes that there is likely a “hit list” of further online platforms to be taken down in order, beginning with video outlets Odysee and Rumble, the messenger service Telegram, then the free speech publisher Substack – and on to Elon Musk’s X.
Woes warns:
“If allowed to continue in its current mode, Ofcom will take down the platforms it wants to, then tame the others by hook or by crook. The Internet in Britain will be a homogenised, redacted farce – a pathetic ‘TV version’ of what people in more civilised countries have.”
Cambridge professor arrested
The charge of “state-sanctioned thought control” is reinforced by the arrest – on Good Friday –-of a Palestinian Christian and Cambridge University professor at London’s Heathrow Airport. The reason for Professor Makram Khoury-Machool’s detention was that he has spoken out against Israel’s war in Gaza, as reports from the UK said.
“Keir Starmer’s long and intensifying war on pro-Palestine, anti-genocide speech through the misuse of the Terrorism Act … has continued to escalate,” noted UK outlet Skwawkbox, which covers stories such as this – neglected by the mainstream press “because it doesn’t fit their agenda.”
Professor Khoury, whose speech was criminalized under anti-terror laws, had in the past co-founded an anti-extremism institute in 2016 at Cambridge University.
British left-populist George Galloway responded on X (formerly Twitter), saying the arrest of this “gentle, devout moderate academic father” suggests that the “government has declared war on its own citizens, that liberty is dead in this land, and that Britain is no longer a safe country.”
Galloway’s warning of “It can happen to you. And it will” came a day after reports that a French philosopher noted for his outspoken criticism of mass migration had been banned from entering the UK.
French anti-migration speaker banned
Renaud Camus is the author of The Great Replacement – coining a term now used to describe the liberal-global policy of the replacement of Western populations via mass immigration.
The “great replacement” is routinely “debunked” by the ruling elite as a “conspiracy theory.” As Camus once said to Britain’s Matt Goodwin, “How can it be debunked when it is evident in every street?”
He was due to speak at a “remigration conference” in England on April 26. Organized by the nationalist Homeland Party, it is dedicated to the discussion of policies similar to those now being enacted by the Trump administration.
According to the Daily Telegraph, Camus was denied entry to the UK by government order.
In an email seen by The Telegraph, the Home Office informed Mr Camus that he had been denied the electronic travel authorisation (ETA) needed to enter Britain.
‘Your presence in the UK is not considered to be conducive to the public good,’ the email read.
The Telegraph reports that Mr Camus, “who is gay and has advocated for non-violence,” supplied one convincing explanation for his treatment:
[He] told The Telegraph that ‘of all the European governments guilty’ of allowing unchecked migration, ‘the British government is one of the guiltiest’.
‘No wonder it does not want me to speak,’ Mr Camus added.
The fact the British government is banning speakers who promote policies now being enacted with widespread support in the United States has not only provoked criticism – it may derail UK/U.S. trade negotiations.
Days ago, Vice President JD Vance warned UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer that Britain will get no deal with the U.S. over tariffs if its “hate speech” laws remain in place.
“Sir Keir Starmer must embrace Donald Trump’s agenda by repealing hate speech laws in order to get a trade deal over the line, a Washington source has told The Independent.”
A “Washington source” told the UK-based Independent, “No free speech, no deal. It is as simple as that.”
Vance has been a stern critic of British and European moves towards increasing censorship and the suppression of freedom of opinion, describing it in his February Munich speech as a “threat” to democracy “from within” Western Europe – and one which is led by its liberal-globalist governments.
Vance is reportedly “obsessed by the fall of Western civilisation,” The Independent’s Washington source explained. It is clear that Vance believes that this fall is very much a threat created by the political decisions of governments like Starmer’s.
The use of “hate speech” and “anti-terrorism” laws in these cases shows how the UK state-sanctioned suppression of speech affects anyone – from the left, right, or from the Christian faith – who criticizes the policies of the government.
These are not fringe extremist views, but those held by increasing numbers of ordinary people in Britain and throughout the Western world. Instead of changing policies which threaten the collapse of Western civilization, the liberal-global governments prefer to make public opposition to their politics a crime.
In the case of the British state, its hardline stance to defend its idea of democracy from free speech is now threatening its economic future. The politics and laws celebrated as the guarantee of safety increasingly resemble a form of extremism which will not tolerate debate.
From LifeSiteNews
Schwab’s World Economic Forum became a globalist hub for population control, radical climate agenda, and transhuman ideology under his decades-long leadership.
Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum and the face of the NGO’s elitist annual get-together in Davos, Switzerland, has resigned as chair of WEF.
Over the decades, but especially over the past several years, the WEF’s Davos annual symposium has become a lightning rod for conservative criticism due to the agendas being pushed there by the elites. As the Associated Press noted:
Widely regarded as a cheerleader for globalization, the WEF’s Davos gathering has in recent years drawn criticism from opponents on both left and right as an elitist talking shop detached from lives of ordinary people.
While WEF itself had no formal power, the annual Davos meeting brought together many of the world’s wealthiest and most influential figures, contributing to Schwab’s personal worth and influence.
Schwab’s resignation on April 20 was announced by the Geneva-based WEF on April 21, but did not indicate why the 88-year-old was resigning. “Following my recent announcement, and as I enter my 88th year, I have decided to step down from the position of Chair and as a member of the Board of Trustees, with immediate effect,” Schwab said in a brief statement. He gave no indication of what he plans to do next.
Schwab founded the World Economic Forum – originally the European Management Forum – in 1971, and its initial mission was to assist European business leaders in competing with American business and to learn from U.S. models and innovation. However, the mission soon expanded to the development of a global economic agenda.
Schwab detailed his own agenda in several books, including The Fourth Industrial Revolution (2016), in which he described the rise of a new industrial era in which technologies such artificial intelligence, gene editing, and advanced robotics would blur the lines between the digital, physical, and biological worlds. Schwab wrote:
We stand on the brink of a technological revolution that will fundamentally alter the way we live, work, and relate to one another. In its scale, scope, and complexity, the transformation will be unlike anything humankind has experienced before. We do not yet know just how it will unfold, but one thing is clear: the response to it must be integrated and comprehensive, involving all stakeholders of the global polity, from the public and private sectors to academia and civil society …
The Fourth Industrial Revolution, finally, will change not only what we do but also who we are. It will affect our identity and all the issues associated with it: our sense of privacy, our notions of ownership, our consumption patterns, the time we devote to work and leisure, and how we develop our careers, cultivate our skills, meet people, and nurture relationships. It is already changing our health and leading to a “quantified” self, and sooner than we think it may lead to human augmentation.
How? Microchips implanted into humans, for one. Schwab was a tech optimist who appeared to heartily welcome transhumanism; in a 2016 interview with France 24 discussing his book, he stated:
And then you have the microchip, which will be implanted, probably within the next ten years, first to open your car, your home, or to do your passport, your payments, and then it will be in your body to monitor your health.
In 2020, mere months into the pandemic, Schwab published COVID-19: The Great Reset, in which he detailed his view of the opportunity presented by the growing global crisis. According to Schwab, the crisis was an opportunity for a global reset that included “stakeholder capitalism,” in which corporations could integrate social and environmental goals into their operations, especially working toward “net-zero emissions” and a massive transition to green energy, and “harnessing” the Fourth Industrial Revolution, including artificial intelligence and automation.
Much of Schwab’s personal wealth came from running the World Economic Forum; as chairman, he earned an annual salary of 1 million Swiss francs (approximately $1 million USD), and the WEF was supported financially through membership fees from over 1,000 companies worldwide as well as significant contributions from organizations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Vice Chairman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe is now serving as interim chairman until his replacement has been selected.
Police Associations Endorse Conservatives. Poilievre Will Shut Down Tent Cities
Red Deer Justice Centre Grand Opening: Building access to justice for Albertans
When it comes to pipelines, Carney’s words flow both ways
Conservatives promise to ban firing of Canadian federal workers based on COVID jab status
Trump considers $5K bonus for moms to increase birthrate
Former WEF insider accuses Mark Carney of using fear tactics to usher globalism into Canada
Carney’s Hidden Climate Finance Agenda
-
Business2 days agoOttawa’s Plastics Registry A Waste Of Time And Money
-
Automotive2 days agoMajor automakers push congress to block California’s 2035 EV mandate
-
COVID-192 days agoFormer Australian state premier accused of lying about justification for COVID lockdowns
-
Mental Health2 days agoSuspect who killed 11 in Vancouver festival attack ID’d
-
Business2 days agoNet Zero by 2050: There is no realistic path to affordable and reliable electricity
-
International2 days agoConclave to elect new pope will start on May 7
-
Autism2 days agoUK plans to test children with gender confusion for autism
-
Addictions2 days agoFour new studies show link between heavy cannabis use, serious health risks