Tag: canada

United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, and Canada Will Now Join US to Keep the Strait of Hormuz Open

The leaders of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, and Canada have now signaled they will join the United States in a coalition to secure and keep open the critical Strait of Hormuz, the vital oil chokepoint the bloodthirsty Iranian regime has turned into a terrorist kill zone.

As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, the radical Islamic mullahs in Tehran launched a desperate campaign of economic terrorism after U.S. and Israeli strikes hammered their nuclear sites and terror infrastructure.

Iran mined the strait, attacked unarmed commercial vessels, targeted oil facilities, and effectively closed the waterway that carries nearly 20-25% of the world’s oil supply.

President Trump refused to let America shoulder the entire burden alone. He blasted the freeloading “allies,” took to Truth Social, and demanded that nations dependent on Middle Eastern oil step up and send warships.

“Hopefully China, France, Japan, South Korea, the UK, and others, that are affected by this artificial constraint, will send Ships to the area so that the Hormuz Strait will no longer be a threat by a Nation that has been totally decapitated,” Trump said.

He even threatened to “finish off” Iran and let NATO and Asia handle the mess if they wouldn’t get in gear. As we reported, the initial responses from Europe were weak and uninspiring, classic globalist foot-dragging.

Now, with Iran’s attacks growing more brazen and the Strait’s security directly tied to global oil flows, those same allies are signaling that they are prepared to stand with the United States.

That does not yet mean all seven countries have announced warship deployments.

The joint statement so far supports that they have formally backed efforts to keep passage open and are ready to contribute, while some governments are still working through what their exact role will be.

Britain, for example, has been publicly discussing possible deployments, including ships and mine-countermeasure assets, but final national commitments appear to remain in motion.

Keep reading

Court backs city censorship: Ontario appeal ruling blocks ‘Woman = Adult Female’ ad

The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled against the Christian Heritage Party of Canada (CHP) in a high-profile free speech case, siding with the City of Hamilton’s decision to reject a controversial bus shelter ad.

The case stems from a 2023 attempt by CHP to purchase advertising space on Hamilton transit shelters. The proposed ad featured a smiling woman alongside the message: “Woman: An Adult Female.”

City officials blocked the ad, arguing it could offend transit users, a decision CHP challenged through judicial review before ultimately appealing to Ontario’s top court.

That challenge has now failed.

In its decision, the Court of Appeal upheld the city’s authority to control messaging in public advertising spaces even where that control intersects with constitutionally protected expression.

The ruling effectively shuts down CHP’s argument that a political party has the right to publicly promote what it describes as the biological, biblical, and dictionary definition of a woman in a public forum.

CHP leader Rod Taylor blasted the decision, calling it a blow to fundamental freedoms.

He argued that the ruling undermines core Charter protections, including freedom of speech, press, conscience, and association, and warned that ideological pressure is now influencing both legislatures and the courts.

The party says it will continue advocating for what it calls “truth and freedom,” despite the setback.

In today’s Canada, even defining a word can land you in court — and still lose.

Keep reading

ChatGPT Helped Transgender Teen Plan School Shooting: 8 Dead

An 18-year-old transgender teenager in Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia, is alleged to have used AI model ChatGPT in the run-up to a February 10 school shooting that killed eight people, including her mother, her 11-year-old brother, five students and an education assistant, before she took her own life. OpenAI had already flagged and banned one of Jesse Van Rootselaar’s accounts months earlier for “misuses of our models in furtherance of violent activities,” yet did not alert police. According to a civil claim filed in British Columbia, roughly a dozen employees identified the chats as signalling imminent risk, leadership refused to contact law enforcement, but the shooter later opened a second account and continued planning.  

What Happened in Tumbler Ridge?

The massacre began at home. Police said Van Rootselaar killed her mother and sibling before going to a school in Tumbler Ridge, where an educator and five students were shot dead. Two others were hospitalised with serious injuries. Reuters described it as one of Canada’s worst mass killings. Police also said they had previously removed guns from the home and were aware of the teenager’s mental health history. 

That would already be a story of institutional failure. But the AI angle makes it worse. OpenAI later admitted it had banned Van Rootselaar’s ChatGPT account in June 2025 after detecting violent misuse. The company said it considered referring the case to law enforcement, but decided the activity did not meet its threshold because it could not identify “credible or imminent planning.” Months later, eight people were dead. 

OpenAI then told Canadian officials that, under its newer and “enhanced” law-enforcement referral protocol, the same initial account ban would now be referred to police. That is an extraordinary concession. It amounts to an admission that the safeguard in place at the time was inadequate to the risk in front of it. 

The Lawsuit Against OpenAI / ChatGPT

The most serious details now sit inside a civil claim brought by the family of a surviving victim. The filing alleges that Van Rootselaar, then 17, spent days describing gun-violence scenarios to ChatGPT in late spring or early summer 2025. It says the platform’s monitoring system flagged those conversations, routed them to human moderators, and that approximately 12 OpenAI employees identified them as indicating an imminent risk of serious harm and recommended that Canadian law enforcement be informed. The claim alleges leadership refused that request and merely banned the first account. 

The same filing alleges the shooter later opened a second OpenAI account, used it to continue planning a mass-casualty event, and received “mental health counselling and pseudo-therapy” from ChatGPT. It further alleges the chatbot equipped the shooter with information on methods, weapons, and precedents from other mass casualty events. These are allegations, not proven findings, but if they are even broadly accurate, the case is not simply about a product being misused. It is about a company building an intimate, persuasive machine that could flag danger, simulate empathy, and still fail to stop the person it had already flagged. 

The filing also accuses GPT-4o of being deliberately designed in a more human, warmer, more sycophantic style that could foster psychological dependency and reinforce users rather than redirect them. These claims fit a wider concern now being raised by researchers, families, and even some people inside the industry: a chatbot that is rewarded for being agreeable can become dangerous precisely when a human being most needs resistance. 

Keep reading

Israel seeking ‘significant change’ in how Canada tackles antisemitism

Israel is pursuing a sweeping diplomatic and public relations campaign to convince Canada to change the way it tackles acts of antisemitism.

From the office of Israel’s president down to its ambassador in Ottawa, the message is the same: Canada must do more to curb threats against Jews.

But while the country’s ambassador is suggesting Ottawa should limit certain “freedoms” in order to deal with threats his government links to Iran, he hasn’t said which freedoms should be limited.

“We have a very clear objective this year, and that is to create a significant change in the way antisemitism is being dealt with here in Canada,” Israeli Ambassador Iddo Moed told a virtual forum last week.

“It is hard for a liberal person to think that we have to limit other people’s freedoms, so that our freedom will be protected. But that’s where we are right now.”

Carleton University political scientist Mira Sucharov, who researches Israeli-Palestinian relations and Jewish politics, said there “are two things happening” — Israel is trying both to improve protection for Jews worldwide and to generate support for the war it has launched with the U.S. against Iran.

Moed spoke after Israel issued a series of high-level statements following shootings at three Toronto-area synagogues.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog convened a call with Toronto-area Jewish community leaders on March 9 — a rare move by a country whose head of government, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has refused to speak with Prime Minister Mark Carney.

“We must learn the lessons of previous antisemitic attacks, including the horrific Bondi Beach terror attack,” Herzog wrote on social media, citing the mass shooting last December at a Hanukkah event in Australia.

“All eyes are on Canada: it’s time to halt the unprecedented wave of Jew-hatred that has erupted ever since Oct. 7,” Herzog added, referencing the 2023 attack by Hamas and its allies against Israel which started the war in Gaza.

Keep reading

Toronto police ‘Muslim Liaison Officer’ charged with sexual assault

Does the name Farhan Ali ring a bell?

It should.

Ali is the Toronto police officer who believes that the Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attack in Israel was actually a good thing for the Muslim faith. Yeah, apparently a massacre of almost 1,200 innocent people is positive P.R. for the religion of peace. He actually boasted about this on an official Toronto Police Service podcast called Project Olive Branch last year.

You see. Ali is (or was) a member of the Muslim Liaison Unit—whatever the hell that is.

And really, what’s with all these “liaison” units? There’s a black liaison unit, an aboriginal liaison unit, and of course, a 2SLGBTQI+ liaison unit. Who or what is the “plus” by the way? Anyway, I think the cops in the 2SLGBTQI+ unit get to drive that special police cruiser with a paint job suggesting that this SUV collided with a transport truck loaded with Froot Loops cereal.

Anyway, we did look up the mission statement for the Toronto Police Service’s Muslim Liaison Unit. Apparently, it was formed to “engage with the Muslim community and combat Islamophobia.”

Can you imagine? For the past two and half years, antisemitism has raged in Toronto. It’s the number one hate crime by a country kilometre. And the solution? Well, we don’t believe there’s a Jewish Liaison Unit at the Toronto Police Service. No, we have a Muslim Liaison Unit because clearly Islamophobia is running wild on the mean streets of Hogtown. Forgive me for referencing the non-halal nickname for Toronto. Hopefully we didn’t commit Islamophobia or a Bill C-9 violation there? Maybe “Hogtown” needs to get rebranded a la Yonge Dundas Square?

Anyway, during that shocking episode of Project Olive Branch, Ali and his sidekick, Constable Haroon Siddiqui, actually said that criticism of Toronto’s vile pro-Hamas rallies was an example of… “Islamophobia”?!

We’re not making this up.

Keep reading

Liberals reject strengthening self-defence laws in Canada

On Monday’s Rebel Roundup livestream, David Menzies and Alexa Lavoie said the Liberals were, yet again, on the wrong side of an important issue.

“I love what Pierre Poilievre had to say after a few high-profile home invasions,” David said, recalling the Conservative leader’s pledge to “fix” self-defence laws by removing the caveat regarding “excessive force or unnecessary force, which nobody can define.”

Referring to an incident from Lindsay, Ont. where a man defended himself from an intruder armed with a crossbow, David said Canada’s current legal framework is “insane.”

Granting homeowners the right to use lethal force during a break in is “the right call,” he added.

“What are you talking about,” Alexa said in response to MP Sahota’s comments.

If someone, especially an armed criminal, enters into an individual’s private dwelling, then that person “should have the right to reply and defend myself and the people who live under my roof,” she said.

The justice system put in place by the Liberals is also releasing more dangerous offenders back onto the streets, putting ordinary citizens in at risk, Alexa continued.

“They should have the right to defend themselves,” she said, slamming politicians like Sahota for not “living in our reality.”

Keep reading

Doug Ford launches war on transparency, shielding cabinet from Freedom of Information records

Ontarians, the government is coming for your right to know.

For years, freedom of information requests have been one of the few tools ordinary citizens, journalists, and researchers have had to hold power to account and peel back the curtain on government decisions.

That tool is now under direct assault.

Public and Business Service Delivery Minister Stephen Crawford confirmed the Doug Ford Progressive Conservative government’s plan to exempt the premier, his cabinet ministers and their staff from freedom of information laws entirely.

They’re selling it as “modernization” and a way to “protect against Chinese spies,” but it smells more like a brazen Big Government power grab to operate in total secrecy.

This comes hot on the heels of Premier Ford facing intense pressure to release his personal cellphone records — the same phone he uses for official business, with sources saying that his chief of staff and senior aides dodge government communication disclosure laws by utilizing encrypted apps like WhatsApp and Signal.

When access to information shrinks, accountability dies.

Journalists can’t break stories. Researchers can’t expose failures. Families and communities lose their voice against policies that reshape their lives.

This isn’t partisan; it affects everyone. The government may view transparency as a “burden,” but really, it’s the bare minimum in a democracy.

If the government is truly acting in the best interest of the public, then why make it harder for the public to see how they’re shaping policy and decisions?

The public has a right to know, and that means access that isn’t coming in the form of heavily redacted fragments months later.

Keep reading

TDF opposes continued use of discriminatory hiring practices in Government and Academia

New research finds the vast majority of Canadian university job postings include DEI criteria that restrict applicants based on race, gender, or sexuality.

Recent media reports indicate that many Canadian universities engage in targeted discriminatory hiring practices that restrict eligibility, among other things, based on race, sexuality and gender. For example, the University of Toronto restricted applications for an associate professor to women, gender minorities, Indigenous peoples, or persons with disabilities.

The University of Waterloo restricted the hiring of several science, technology, engineering and mathematics research chairs to candidates who “self-identify” as women or another gender minority.

There are many other recent examples.

A 2025 study by the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy found that all 10 sampled universities (which accounted for 477 of the 489 job advertisements reviewed) employed some form of DEI requirement or strategy when filling academic vacancies. It reported that “98 percent of the academic postings directly or indirectly discriminated against candidates and/or threatened academic freedom.” 

These “DEI” policies require hiring committees to exclude people based on gender, race, religion and/or sexuality. In practice, this often means discriminating against straight men and/or Jews and Christians of European ethnic background. The policies are based on the false premise that past discrimination can be remedied by present discrimination. 

While Canadian courts have, unfortunately, found that some of these policies may not offend the Charter or human rights legislation, they are immoral and corrosive to civil society. In a multicultural society such as Canada, they racially divide and antagonize people, incentivize them to identify tribally and encourage sectarianism. The federal and provincial governments should reverse these policies and prioritize merit-based hiring.

Keep reading

Bill C-9 against quoting Bible verses could turn Canada into police state: pro-freedom group

A Canadian constitutional freedom group warned that the imminent passage of a bill that threatens religious expression when it comes to quoting from certain Bible passages after it becomes law will turn Canada into a “police” state.

The Democracy Fund (TDF) alerted Canadians that Bill C-9, or the “Combatting Hate Act,” will expand the “legal definition of hatred and removes key free expression safeguards in the Criminal Code.”

“TDF will continue to oppose the Bill and all attempts by the government to censor Canadians,” the group warned.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, all debate on Bill C-9, a bill that could open the door to the criminalization of religious expression and belief when quoting certain parts of the Bible, was stopped last week.

Bill C-9 passed the committee phase last Friday and will soon pass third reading in the House of Commons.

TDF was invited to testify before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights regarding Bill C-9. In a brief it filed, the TDF outlined its reasons for opposing the bill.

“Ironically, the government has moved to end debate on issues of public concern for a bill that would end debate on issues of public concern. The Bill empowers prosecutors to bring charges based on the merest suggestion that the impugned conduct is motivated by an ill-defined concept of ‘hatred,’ massively increasing potential jail time and legal jeopardy for defendants,” the TDF noted.

“In our experience, these types of offences tend to be laid against marginalized and working-class people rather than powerful elites and political insiders. However, all Canadians can expect greater digital censorship and increased online police surveillance if the Bill becomes law. We only have to look at the UK example, where police make approximately 12,000 annual arrests for online ‘hate incidents’ under similar legislation.’”

Bill C-9 is a Liberal Party censorship bill that has attracted massive backlash from religious Canadians of many faiths. Once it becomes law, certain protections for sincerely held religious beliefs, particularly regarding LGBT issues, could be removed.

In comments to LifeSiteNews, Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) campaigns manager David Cooke warned that Bill C-9 would result in the “prosecution of Canadian Christians” when quoting the Bible on issues of life and family.

The federal government, under Prime Minister Mark Carney, recently passed an amendment to the bill removing a religious exemption, prompting condemnation from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, who issued an open letter calling for its removal.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Bill C-9 has been blasted by constitutional experts as allowing empowered police and the government to go after those it deems to have violated a person’s “feelings” in a “hateful” way. The bill was introduced by Justice Minister Sean Fraser last year.

CLC had earlier warned that Bill C-9 would open the door to the “criminalization of religious expression and belief” when quoting the Bible

Keep reading

‘Hateful’: Lawmakers push dark scheme to make certain Bible verses illegal

Lawmakers are pushing an agenda right now that would threaten free speech and make some of the verses of the Bible illegal to recite, under the guise of “Combatting Hate.”

The work on Bill C-9 in the Canadian parliament has been outlined in a report from the RAIR Foundation, which recorded speeches from a recent rally against the misnamed plan.

While the bill does contain some things that could be helpful in a free society, such as actions targeting displays of terror symbols, limits on “intimidating people” trying to access religious sites, and restrictions on intentionally obstructing someone from entering a place of worship, there remains a problem.

That’s the agenda to strip out a decades-old religious rights protection provision in Canada’s Criminal Code. Under that precedent, there is a “good faith” religious defense, meaning that those expressing sincere religious expression are protected from prosecution for “hate” even if those views offend “prevailing cultural norms,” the report said.

The removal “collapses a critical constitutional firewall and opens the door to politically motivated prosecutions of pastors, rabbis, religious leaders, teachers, parents, and ordinary citizens who refuse to affirm state-mandated gender ideology or other government approved narratives,” the report said.

Transgenderism has become a hot button topic for Democrats and other leftists in the United States since Joe Biden spent his four years in the Oval Office pushing the agenda that fails on basic science. Being male or female is embedded in the human body down to the DNA level and the administration of chemicals or access to body mutilating surgeries does not make that change.

Hundreds rallied, in an event organized by ARPA Canada, against the agenda.

“Speakers at the rally made the stakes unmistakably clear: this debate is not about ‘balancing rights.’ It is about whether Canada will remain a country where citizens can speak biological and theological truths without fear of state punishment—or descend into a regime where government authorities determine which scriptures, facts, and moral convictions are deemed ‘hateful,'” the report said.

The damage already has started, the report said, with a recent case involving former Chilliwack school trustee Barry Neufeld who was ordered to pay $750,000 for publicly affirming that there are only two biological sexes.

The bill has been debated by the House of Commons and sent to committee. From there it will return for a final vote before going to the Senate.

The foundation report warned there would develop a “state-narrative enforcement—a system where dissent from ideological orthodoxy is punished while genuine threats or acts of hatred are ignored.”

Keep reading