Censorship Industrial Complex
Who tries to silence free speech? Apparently who ever is in power.

Now that Trump is running Washington, Conservative thinkers must ponder a new-found appreciation for silencing speech they don’t like.
From StosselTV
War on Words: Both Parties Try to Silence Speech They Donāt Like
Donald Trump, before he was reelected, said heād end government censorship. But now that heās in office? He calls speech he doesnāt like āillegal.ā
Free Speech should be a bedrock American value, no matter whoās in office. After the murder of Charlie Kirk, Republicans, who once complained about censorship, became censors. Democrats suddenly flip-flopped. All politicians should remember, the way to fight speech you donāt like, is with more speech, not censorship.
After 40+ years of reporting, I now understand the importance of limited government and personal freedom.
——————————————
Libertarian journalist John Stossel created Stossel TV to explain liberty and free markets to young people.
Prior to Stossel TV he hosted a show on Fox Business and co-anchored ABCās primetime newsmagazine show, 20/20.
Stosselās economic programs have been adapted into teaching kits by a non-profit organization, “Stossel in the Classroom.” High school teachers in American public schools now use the videos to help educate their students on economics and economic freedom. They are seen by more than 12 million students every year.
āāā
To make sure you receive the weekly video from Stossel TV, sign up here: https://www.johnstossel.com/#subscrib…
āāā
Censorship Industrial Complex
Canadaās privacy commissioner says he was not consulted on bill to ban dissidents from internet

From LifeSiteNews
Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne that there was no consultation on Bill C-8, which is touted by Liberals as a way to stop ‘unprecedented cyber-threats.’
Canadaās Privacy Commissioner admitted that he was never consulted on a recent bill introduced by the Liberal government of Prime Minister Mark Carney that became law and would grant officials the power to ban anyone deemed a dissident from accessing the internet.
Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne said last week that in regard toĀ Bill C-8, titled āAn Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts,ā that there was no consultation.
āWe are not consulted on specific pieces of legislation before they are tabled,ā he told the House of Commons ethics committee, adding, āI donāt want privacy to be an obstacle to transparency.ā
Bill C-8,Ā which is now in its second reading in the House of Commons, was introduced in June by Minister of Public Safety Gary Anandasangaree and has a provision in which the federal government could stop āany specified personā from accessing the internet.
All that would be needed is the OK from Minister of Industry MƩlanie Joly for an individual to be denied internet service.
The federal government under Carney claims that the bill is a way to stop āunprecedented cyber-threats.ā
The bill, as written, claims that the government would need the power to cut someone off from the internet, as it could be ānecessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunications system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption, or degradation.ā
While questioning Dufresne, Conservative MP Michael Barrett raised concerns that no warrant would be needed for agents to go after those officials who want to be banned from the internet or phone service.
āWithout meaningful limits, bills like C-8 can hand the government secret, warrantless powers over Canadiansā communications,ā he told the committee, adding the bill, as written is a āserious setback for privacy,ā as well as a āsetback for democracy.ā
Barrett asked if the goal of the bill is for Parliament to be granted āsweeping powers of surveillance to the government without a formal review?
Dufresne said, āItās not a legal obligation under theĀ Privacy Act.ā
Experts have warned that Bill C-8 is flawed and must be āfixed.ā
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) blasted the bill as troublesome, saying it needs to āfixā the ādangerous flawsā in the bill before it becomes law.
āExperts and civil society have warned that the legislation would confer ministerial powers that could be used to deliberately or inadvertently compromise the security of encryption standards within telecommunications networks that people, governments, and businesses across Canada rely upon, every day,ā the CCLAĀ wroteĀ in a recent press release.
Canadaās own intelligence commissioner hasĀ warnedĀ that the bill, if passed as is, would potentiallyĀ not beĀ constitutionally justified, as it would allow for warrantless seizure of a personās sensitive information.
Since taking power in 2015, the Liberal government has brought forthĀ many new bills that,Ā in effect, censor internet content as well asĀ go afterĀ peopleās ability to speak their minds.
Recently, Canadian Conservative Party MP Leslyn LewisĀ blastedĀ another new Liberal āhate crimeā bill, calling it a ādangerousā piece of legislation that she says will open the door for authorities to possibly prosecute Canadiansā speech deemed āhateful.ā
She alsoĀ criticized itĀ for being silent regarding rising āChristian hate.ā
Censorship Industrial Complex
Winnipeg Universities Flunk The Free Speech Test

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Tom Flanagan
Frances Widdowson faced mob hostility for saying unmarked graves have yet to be proven
Dr. Frances Widdowsonās visit to Winnipeg on Sept. 25 and 26 should have been an opportunity for debate. Instead, the cityās universities endorsed a statement that undermines academic freedom.
Widdowson, a political scientist known for questioning official narratives about residential schools, came to meet students who wanted to ask about claims of āunmarked graves.ā Those claims, which became national headlines in 2021 after ground-penetrating radar surveys at former school sites, remain unproven because no physical evidence of burials has been found.
For many Canadians, the claims of āunmarked gravesā were a shocking revelation, given how widely the story was reported as a settled fact.
That context alone should have been enough to spark discussion. Instead, the University of Manitoba and the University of Winnipeg joined the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs in issuing a statement that should embarrass both schools. At institutions dedicated to study and inquiry, the instinct should be to ask more questions, not to shut them down.
At first, the statement sounded reasonable. It said the universities did not ācondone violence or threats to anyoneās safety.ā But that did not stop Widdowson from being roughed up by a mob at the University of Winnipeg. It would be refreshing if the universities condemned mob violence with the same urgency they condemned a professor answering questions. Their silence sends its own message about which kind of behaviour is tolerated on campus.
The bigger problem is the statementās claim that there is a single ātruthā about residential schools, known to āsurvivors,ā and that questioning it amounts to ādenial.ā In reality, 143 residential schools operated with federal support for more than a century. What happened varied widely from place to place and decade to decade.
That is a subject for historical research, grounded in evidence and debate, not pronouncements about capital-T āTruthā issued by communications offices. Canadians deserve to know that history is still being studied, not declared untouchable.
Worse still was the statementās promise to āpress the Government of Canada to enact legislation that makes residential school denialism a crime.ā The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs is free to say what it wants. But universities lending their names to a demand that historical inquiry be criminalized is beyond misguided; it is dangerous.
Criminalizing ādenialismā would mean that even challenging details of the residential school record could be punishable by law. Canadians should think carefully before accepting laws that turn historical debate into a criminal offence.
The University of Chicagoās widely praised statement on academic freedom puts it well: āthe Universityās fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. It is for the individual members of the University community, not for the University as an institution, to make those judgments for themselves.ā That principle should also guide Canadian universities. Academic freedom is not a luxury; it is the foundation of higher education.
Worst of all, these positions were not even issued in the names of presidents or academic leaders. They were issued under āmedia relations.ā Imagine being a serious scholar or scientist at one of these universities and discovering that the media office had taken a political stance on your behalf.
I know how I would feel: undermined as a professional and silenced as a citizen.
Tom FlanaganĀ is a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Calgary and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada. He is a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and co-editor of the best-selling bookĀ Grave Error: How the Media Misled Us (and the Truth about Residential Schools).
-
Alberta2 days ago
Click here to help choose Alberta’s new licence plate design
-
National2 days ago
Democracy Watch Renews Push for Independent Prosecutor in SNC-Lavalin Case
-
Alberta2 days ago
Busting five myths about the Alberta oil sands
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy2 days ago
Ottawa Should Think Twice Before Taxing Churches
-
Business1 day ago
US government buys stakes in two Canadian mining companies
-
Health1 day ago
New report warns WHO health rules erode Canadaās democracy and Charter rights
-
Energy1 day ago
Minus Forty and the Myth of Easy Energy
-
Business5 hours ago
Emission regulations harm Canadians in exchange for no environmental benefit