When Did Traditional Values Become Hate Speech?

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

This smear campaign misrepresents peaceful dissent as dangerous radicalism, ultimately undermining trust in institutions and eroding civil debate. Ordinary Canadians are being branded as extremists for holding traditional values.

A disturbing trend has taken hold in Canada and across the Western world, where freedom-lovers and conservatives are categorized as extremists and potential terrorists.

Another headline-grabbing example took place on July 8 when RCMP spokeswoman Staff Sgt. Camille Habel told a CBC interviewer about an alleged militia plot to seize land in Quebec. She said if someone “believed in equal gender rights” but suddenly leaned towards “traditional values … that might be a sign that they’re becoming more extremist.”

Alas, some prominent people have gone so far left that traditional values are “far right” to them. Consider a 2021 report by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. The document said “Ideologically motivated violent extremism [IMVE]… represents a societal issue requiring a whole-of-government approach.”

The document warned that since the pandemic, “IMVE activity has been fueled by an increase in extreme anti- authority and anti-government rhetoric often rooted in the weaponization of conspiracy theories. IMVE influencers promote misinformation and action, including violence.”

The report complained that some witnesses to the committee did not embrace the IMVE term, and instead used phrases such as the “far right” or the “far-right ecosystem.” Here, conservatives, conspiracy theorists and potential terrorists are one big, bad blog.

The tactic is old. In 1943, a Communist directive to American activists advised, “When certain obstructionists become too irritating, label them after suitable buildups as fascist or Nazi or anti-semitic, and use the prestige of anti-fascist and tolerance organizations to discredit them. In the public mind, we constantly associate those who oppose us with those names which already have a bad smell. The association will, after enough repetition, become fact in the public mind.”

This misrepresentation worked well against the Freedom Convoy. One mysterious person with a Nazi flag was enough to dismiss thousands of people as dangerous fascists. But spurious judgments like these malign many good people. This leads to misguided opposition against people who want to uphold Canada, not tear it down.

Trans-activists have their own form of name-shaming. They call out TERFs, meaning trans-exclusive radical feminists. These so-called TERFs believe that biological males have no place in women’s shelters, prisons and sports. This kind of disparagement is all too common. In September 2023, Canadian labour leaders and at least one researcher from a major university joined in a Zoom call to strategize against the 1 Million March 4 Children, a nationwide protest against transgender ideology in schools. A leaked video of the Zoom call showed these leaders and activists using terms like “fascist,” “intolerance,” “hate group,” “transphobic” and “homophobic” against parents and other citizens who wanted ideological concepts on gender kept out of school.

Meanwhile, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN) blacklisted Campaign Coalition for Life as a “hate movement” after receiving $640,000 from the federal government to compile a list of allegedly hateful organizations and people.

“We define ‘hate-promoting’ to refer to ideologies, groups, movements and individuals which target members of protected groups,” explained the CAHN booklet entitled 40 Ways to Fight the Far-Right; CAHN even hosts a one-hour workshop that lays out “the intersection between hate, the far right, and conspiracy theories.”

This mirrors the United States where the left-leaning Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLC) first made a list of bad organizations in 1990. Since 2000, the organization has compiled a “hate map” of these groups, which now number 835. As one example, SPLC calls the Family Research Council an “extremist” “hate group” due to their pro-life, pro-traditional marriage stances.

During Barack Obama’s second term as president, the Department of Defense (DoD) incorporated SPLC assessments into its training on domestic terrorism, leading to undue smears. In 2013, a DoD training presentation at Fort Hood, Texas, listed “Evangelical Christianity,” “Catholicism” and “Tea Party” as fostering extremism. In 2014, soldiers at Fort Bragg in North Carolina were told similar things about pro-gun and pro-life organizations.

In 2015, watchdog organization Judicial Watch openly called on the DoD to stop relying on the “anti-Christian” SPLC for its definitions, saying the group itself was hateful.

A teaching module presented to 9,100 soldiers at Fort Liberty through 2024 labelled National Right to Life and Operation Rescue as potential terrorist threats. Congressional Republicans protested this politicization of military training. In response, an army spokesperson echoed disclaimers made 10 years ago, saying the slides were not policy and were improperly vetted.

In July 2025, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll called it a “grievous error” to equate conservative groups with terrorists and vowed it would never happen again. Unfortunately, Canadians have no such assurances.

Lee Harding is a research fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Up Next

Drug trafficker says Trump battle with the cartels is making an impact

Don't Miss

Carney government should scrap gun ‘buyback’ program and save taxpayer money

Todayville

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

The richest man alive just got a whole lot richer

Crime / 18 mins ago

Drug trafficker says Trump battle with the cartels is making an impact

Automotive / 37 mins ago

America’s Troubled EV Industry Loses Its Subsidized Advantage – Now What?

Business

Bill C-8 would allow minister to secretly cut off phone, Internet service

Published on October 1, 2025

Todayville

From the Canadian Constitution Foundation

“I worry that this law could be used to secretly cut off political dissidents from their phone or Internet service on the pretense that they may try to manipulate the telecom system”

The Canadian Constitution Foundation is concerned about the civil liberties implications of the Carney government’s proposed cyber security bill, C-8, which would allow the minister of industry to secretly order telecommunications service providers like Telus, Bell and Rogers to stop providing services to individual Canadians.

The minister would be allowed to make such an order if she has “reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunications system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption or degradation.”

An individual who does not comply, including by failing to keep the order secret, could face fines of up to $25,000 for the first contravention and $50,000 for subsequent contraventions. Businesses could face fines of up to $10 million for the first contravention and up to $15 million for subsequent contraventions.

The orders would remain secret indefinitely, with the minister required only to present an annual report to Parliament on the number of orders made and her opinion on their necessity, reasonableness and utility.

CCF Counsel Josh Dehaas said that the power to cut off the Internet or cellphone service of Canadians is a “very serious power that requires very strong safeguards, which are presently lacking in the bill.”

“While this power may be necessary in some cases to prevent cyber attacks, it also poses serious risks to civil liberties,” Dehaas said. “I worry that this law could be used to secretly cut off political dissidents from their phone or Internet service on the pretense that they may try to manipulate the telecom system,” Dehaas explained. “Such an action would violate our most cherished freedoms including free speech.”

CCF Litigation Director Christine Van Geyn said that the government cannot be trusted with such a power unless proper safeguards are in place.

“You may think that the idea of the government cutting off political dissidents from the necessities of life sounds far-fetched, but that’s exactly what happened during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests in Ottawa,” she said. “The federal government ordered banks to freeze hundreds of bank accounts without any judicial authorization, cutting protesters off from their money in the middle of a very cold winter.”

“Although the Federal Court agreed with the CCF that freezing bank accounts this way violated the constitutional right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, that kind of damage isn’t easily repaired,” Van Geyn added.

Ottawa has appealed the Federal Court’s finding. The CCF is awaiting a decision from the Federal Court of Appeal.

Dehaas said that Parliament should consider requiring either judicial pre-authorization or an immediate, automatic judicial review of any decision to cut off an individual or business from their Internet or phone.

The CCF is also concerned that Bill C-8 would allow the minister to weaken telecommunications companies’ encryption standards, allowing for unconstitutional access to Canadians’ private information.

Finally, the CCF is concerned that the bill could allow the minister or any person designated by the minister to engage in unconstitutional searches.

Joanna Baron, the CCF’s Executive Director, said that Canadians must be vigilant about their constitutional rights and freedoms because they can be easily taken away, especially in times of crisis.

“I would encourage Canadians to fight for their freedoms, whether it’s by taking the CCF’s free privacy course, signing up for our weekly Freedom Update newsletter or becoming a monthly donor,” Baron said.

“Concerned Canadians are also encouraged to write to their MPs using our form letter, to tell them to amend these bills to ensure Canadians’ rights to privacy and free expression are protected,” Baron added.

Business

Elon Musk announces ‘Grokipedia’ project after Tucker Carlson highlights Wikipedia bias

Published on October 1, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Joseph Quinn

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger explained how Wikipedia systematically blacklists and “deprecates” conservative sources. Wikipedia remains one of the most heavily used information sources online and is integrated with Google search results.

Elon Musk has announced plans to build “Grokipedia,” a new open-source online encyclopedia under his artificial intelligence company xAI.

“Will be a massive improvement over Wikipedia,” Musk wrote on X. “Frankly, it is a necessary step towards the xAI goal of understanding the Universe.”

We are building Grokipedia @xAI.

Will be a massive improvement over Wikipedia.

Frankly, it is a necessary step towards the xAI goal of understanding the Universe. https://t.co/xvSeWkpALy

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 30, 2025

The announcement came days after Tucker Carlson’s interview with Larry Sanger, a co-founder of Wikipedia and a vocal critic of the organization since his departure in 2002.

Larry Sanger built Wikipedia as an unbiased repository of the world’s knowledge, and then stood helplessly by as activists and intel agencies turned it into the most comprehensive propaganda op in human history. There’s nothing more corrupt.

(0:00) The Origins of Wikipedia… pic.twitter.com/J59oEejCG2

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) September 29, 2025

Sanger explained how Wikipedia systematically blacklists and “deprecates” conservative sources. Seeing LifeSiteNews on the list, Carlson said that the platform has become “a weapon of ideological, theological war.”

Musk echoed Sanger’s criticisms, affirming Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton’s claim that “Wikipedia is a smear machine for the Left.”

💯

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 30, 2025

Musk later amplified memes promoting Grokipedia, calling it “an open source knowledge repository that is vastly better than Wikipedia.”

Join @xAI and help build Grokipedia, an open source knowledge repository that is vastly better than Wikipedia!

This will be available to the public with no limits on use. https://t.co/3CnfrvNIpI

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 30, 2025

He also affirmed Sanger’s “Nine Theses,” which call for dismantling Wikipedia’s centralized editorial control.

Some good suggestions from the co-founder of Wikipedia https://t.co/bgwBmi6uXN

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 30, 2025

Musk has not released technical details of the Grokipedia project but said that Grok AI will be independent of Wikipedia “by the end of the year.”

Wikipedia should have just taken that $1 billion offer from Elon Musk, it’s too late, the rival is coming: Grokipedia! pic.twitter.com/cLBKfPRgyO

— SMX 🇺🇸 (@iam_smx) September 30, 2025

Wikipedia remains one of the most heavily used information sources online and is integrated with Google search results. Critics argue that its governance model allows biased editors – described as “ideologically-driven thought police” – to shape content and suppress dissenting viewpoints, particularly on political, cultural, and religious topics.

A similar initiative called “Infogalactic” was launched in 2016. A “fork” of Wikipedia, it was designed to decentralize control and allow multiple perspectives. While Infogalactic never reached Wikipedia’s scale, it established a model for alternative knowledge repositories.

Attracting a critical mass of editors and establishing credibility remain significant challenges facing such alternatives. Musk’s involvement signals a higher-profile challenge to Wikipedia’s dominance, combining xAI’s technological resources with his public platform on X.

Musk has not provided a clear timeline, but the announcement positions xAI to mount a direct challenge to Wikipedia’s dominance of the information ecosystem.