Tag: police state

Tracey Wilson: Liberal ‘fear porn’ about a U.S. invasion is a fantasy while Ottawa disarms its own gun owners

On Tuesday’s episode of The Ezra Levant Show, Tracey Wilson of the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights (CCFR) joined Ezra via Zoom to react to a Globe and Mail opinion piece urging Canadians to “think about nonviolent resistance” in the event of a hypothetical American invasion.

Ezra said the piece, written by Richard Sandbrook, an emeritus professor of political science at the University of Toronto and vice president of Science for Peace, treats an invasion as a real possibility. He called it “fantasy on top of fantasy on top of fantasy.” He also pointed out that Prime Minister Mark Carney was the one who started talking about the Canadian Armed Forces making plans for such an eventuality, and that Carney told the New York Times before he told Canadians.

Tracey did not mince words. “It’s pure liberal boomer fear porn. That’s what it is. And it’s actually embarrassing,” she said.

Tracey pointed to a National Post piece in which retired Vice Admiral Mark Norman said the Canadian Armed Forces have basically been left to rot. “And he’s not overstating that,” she said, adding that suggesting Canada could defend itself against an American invasion “is ridiculous. Thankfully, that is not going to happen.”

She said Carney began his campaign with “a lot of fear porn about the Americans and an invasion,” encouraging Canadians to hate their neighbours to the south despite a long friendship and partnership. “It’s unhelpful. It’s unhealthy. Trump won’t be there forever,” she said. “And at some point, he’s going to have to stand on his own two legs and tell us why he’s created this kind of division in this country.”

Ezra also read the Globe and Mail’s own description of nonviolent defence as “a strategy of deterrence and resistance in which unarmed civilians play a major role, either alone or in coordination with the armed forces.” He noted that the article never actually explains what that would look like in practice.

For Tracey, the contradiction is the point. “This is the same government that is spending billions of your tax dollars confiscating legally acquired firearms from licensed, vetted, RCMP-tested and trained gun owners and not investing that money in our military,” she said. “You can’t disarm your population. And at the same time, you use fear porn about an American invasion that is literally a fantasy in the minds of the liberal talking heads in Ottawa.”

Ezra and Tracey also discussed the state of the military. Ezra said Canada’s forces are underfunded, under-equipped, demoralized and underpaid, and that the aging CF-18s would be like “a Datsun driving alongside a Ferrari” next to an F-35. He said Canada’s participation in the Maple Flag exercise in northern Alberta has been cancelled.

The conversation then turned to the attempted attack on a synagogue in Belleville, Ontario, on Yom Kippur. Ezra said the gunman, Sean Ward, turned out to be a Canadian military veteran who arrived with enough guns and ammunition to kill everyone inside, and that a police officer outside was wounded in a shootout but stopped what could have been a massacre. Ezra cited a Globe and Mail headline reporting that the shooter did not have a gun licence.

Tracey said that detail proves the Liberal approach is aimed at the wrong people. “He completely evaded any detection because he just simply didn’t go get a firearms license. He acquired his guns illegally, like many other madmen in our country,” she said. She added that none of the measures brought in since 2015 would have stopped that crime, and gave credit to law enforcement for saving lives that day. “It just goes to show we are 100% focusing on the wrong people.”

She said the Liberals’ 11-year record on public safety has been “a tragic and bloody failure,” and that it will continue until Carney changes course. She also tied the issue to the 2020 Nova Scotia mass shooting, which she said was the catalyst for the Trudeau-era gun bans even though the killer worked completely outside the licensing system.

Ezra brought up U.S. scholar Dr. John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime, who argues from a purely pragmatic standpoint that mass shooters are generally only stopped when someone with a firearm arrives. Ezra said that is why he sees an argument for private firearms ownership, noting that in Israel and the United States armed bystanders have stopped attackers before police arrived.

Tracey agreed, pointing to chat records that came out last week involving the Tumbler Ridge shooter. She said the killer indicated that the only things he worried might stop him were law enforcement or someone else with a firearm. “You can live in a unicorn and rainbow world where you say, no guns, never,” she said. “You can’t put that genie back in the bottle.”

“It’s my opinion that the best thing we can do is give people the means, the opportunity and the training to protect themselves and those that they care about,” Tracey concluded.

Keep reading

Christian concert cancelled due to 100 signatures in a city of 100,000

Thanksgiving is about giving thanks to God. So Ezra Levant marked the holiday by taking part in one of his favourite pastimes, reading a court document. This time, it was the City of Moncton’s statement of defence, filed Sept. 22, explaining why it cancelled a Christian worship concert in a public park.

American worship leader Sean Feucht was booked for a free Canadian tour called Let Us Worship. Moncton approved Feucht’s event at Riverfront Park on April 30 and spent three months working out details. The application described “a free, public, live Christian music event” bringing churches together “to pray for the city and the region,” with baptisms.

Two days before the show, a feminist group, a Pride group and others published an open letter with about 100 signatures. The next day, the city cancelled, citing its code of conduct and “evolving safety and security considerations.”

Ezra noted the three-page code says nothing about events, permits or protests, but does ban discrimination based on religion. The concert moved to a camp more than two hours away. Of 1,000 expected, 200 made it. Organizers sued for $50,000 in Charter damages.

The city’s defence says its safety concerns “arose from the potential interaction between attendees and individuals opposed to the event.” The danger, by the city’s own account, was the protesters, so its solution was to cancel the Christians. The filing also says the cancellation was meant “to prevent anticipated hate speech.”

“Nobody had said anything. Nobody was charged with anything,” Ezra said. “That is like a pre-crime arrest for a hymn.” The city even admits it limited freedom of expression, then argues the Christians should pay its legal bills. “That’s a heckler’s veto,” Ezra said.

But the cancellation of Feucht’s events wasn’t limited to just one city — Halifax, Charlottetown, Quebec City, Gatineau and Vaughan all blocked Feucht’s events. Only Alberta let the show go ahead in public.

In Montreal, a church that opened its doors to him was fined $2,500, and someone threw smoke bombs during the service while Rebel News’ Alexa Lavoie was there. A suspect was charged with mischief only after more than a year of her reporting. Rebel News and The Democracy Fund are now funding the church’s court fight.

“Once the government accepts it, the hecklers learn. Every time they threaten, they win,” Ezra said. “Sing if you like. Just not in a park in Moncton. They might cancel you.”

Keep reading

OUTRAGEOUS: City Allegedly Barred Man From Becoming a Firefighter – Because He Was Homeschooled

A city in the state of Nebraska is under legal fire right now for allegedly barring a man from becoming a firefighter because he was homeschooled.

It’s so ridiculous, like, who cares how the man was educated? He is fit for the job or he isn’t.

At some point in recent years, the job of firefighter became politicized. People on the left decided that the profession had too many men in it, despite the fact that body strength is one of the most important aspects of the job.

In this particular case, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) has gotten involved and they are fighting for this man’s rights.

Jordan Sekulow, who is a lawyer and part of the ACLJ, writes at Townhall:

City Banned a Homeschooled Firefighter. Now It’s Displaying Disdain for Homeschooling.

Andrew Coates wants to be a firefighter. He’s a licensed EMT, has earned recognition as “Rookie Firefighter of the Year,” and has dedicated himself to pursuing a career serving and protecting his community.

But when Andrew applied to become a firefighter in Fremont, Nebraska, the city refused to let him compete for the position.

Why? Because Andrew was homeschooled.

Despite Nebraska law expressly protecting the right of families to homeschool their children, Fremont maintained a discriminatory hiring policy that excluded Andrew from consideration simply because of how he received his education.

It didn’t matter that Andrew was qualified. It didn’t matter that he had already demonstrated his dedication to emergency services. The city shut him out of the hiring process because he was homeschooled.

When the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) learned what had happened, we stepped in to represent and defend Andrew’s rights.

Keep reading

US judge blocks Trump threat to jail Gaza justice advocates

A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from imposing fines and prison sentences on US human rights advocates for sharing evidence with the International Criminal Court (ICC) or working with Palestinian human rights groups targeted by US sanctions.

In a 30-page ruling on 13 October, Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District of New York granted a preliminary injunction protecting Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), the Taxpayer Alliance Against Genocide (TAAG) and two TAAG members from penalties for their human rights advocacy.

The decision comes three months after the organizations sued the Trump administration, arguing that sanctions aimed at shielding US and Israeli officials from prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity violate Americans’ constitutional rights.

Under the sanctions, individuals could face up to 20 years in prison and $1 million in fines for providing prohibited services to sanctioned individuals or organizations.

Furman found that the sanctions likely violate the First Amendment because they restrict speech based on its content and cannot survive the demanding constitutional test applied to such restrictions.

DAWN called the ruling “a landmark victory for free speech.”

Omar Shakir, the Washington-based human rights group’s executive director, said the ruling had “put the brakes in a major way” on the administration’s “efforts to shield from justice the Israeli officials who have perpetrated a genocide and their US backers.”

Keep reading

Washington to Charge Residents $126 Just to Shop for a Gun

Beginning May 1, 2027, Washington state residents will have to pay $126 to acquire a state-issued permit-to-purchase that allows them to buy a gun.

Radio host Jason Rantz noted that the permit-to-purchase will be issued by the Washington State Patrol (WSP).

Ammoland received confirmation from WSP that the overall fee will be $126. That fee consists of “$90 for the permit and $36 for the fingerprint background check.”

Rantz pointed out that there are other costs involved, too. Namely, the cost for training and ammunition for a “state-certified safety course” that permit-to-purchase applicants must pass in order to receive their permit.

He said, “Course fees, ammunition, range time and travel all come out of the buyer’s pocket on top of the $126.”

Mike Bloomberg-affiliated Everytown for Gun Safety ranks Washington the No. 9 state in the Union for gun control stringency.

Washington has universal background checks for handgun purchases, a ten-day waiting period on gun sales, a concealed carry permit requirement, a red flag law, gun storage laws, an “assault weapons” ban, a “high-capacity” magazine ban, a bump stock ban, a registry of all handgun sales, “ghost gun” regulations, a ban on K-12 teachers being armed for classroom defense, and so much more.

Keep reading

Every Bad Idea Australia Ever Had About the Internet, Now in One Bill

A “safety net upstream” – that’s how Australia’s Communications Minister Anika Wells described the intent behind the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026, introduced to the country’s Parliament on Thursday.

Wells was making the announcement hours before she was to address the National Press Club. The bill, which is 90 pages long, carries a civil penalty of up to 60,000 penalty units, or $109.2 million, for failing the duty.

In Parliament, Wells said, “It moves the safety net upstream to the people who design the product to stop the harm before it ever reaches an Australian.”

At the Press Club, she put it this way: setting “basic safety standards for the online services we use every day” will see the platforms regulated “just like we have in every other industry.”

Wells said that the goal is to “shift the burden from the shoulders of victims to the companies that are creating the environments where harms occur.”

She added: “To make this abundantly clear, we have removed the ministerial rule-making power to define new harms in the final bill.”

Instead, she said, “New harms can be added by parliament through legislative amendment.”

The takedown changes in Schedule 1 kick in the day after Royal Assent, while the duty of care itself comes into force 12 months later.

In September, the exposure draft gave the minister the power to add, by instrument, any material “that the Minister is satisfied may cause serious harm.” That power is now gone.

The bill does not at any point ask platforms to balance their “duty of care” with the need to protect freedom of expression and privacy of users.

Section 26 sets the duty: a platform “must take appropriate action to ensure a safe online environment, including by taking effective measures to mitigate risks.”

Section 26A spells out what counts as “appropriate” and “effective.” The matters to be taken into account “include” how far the measures achieve “a safe online environment,” how much they reduce the risk of harmful material, “the impact on the security of the online service,” and “whether the action or measures are or would be proportionate to the level of risk.”

Section 26A(3) states: “The cost of the action or measures must not be taken into account.”

Nowhere in this is freedom of expression or privacy mentioned. The word “encryption” does not appear at all in the 90 pages, nor do the phrases “freedom of expression” or “free speech.”

In the UK Online Safety Act – which is no friend of free speech, either – there is at least a section (22) that imposes on platforms, when deciding on safety measures, “a duty to have particular regard to the importance of protecting users’ right to freedom of expression within the law,” and a matching duty on privacy.

The Australian bill has no such provision.

Keep reading

Prepping for a Cashless Control Grid: How Digital Currency Becomes Digital Control

Something fundamental is vanishing, and most people will not notice until it is already gone. Not with a declaration. Not with a law passed in the dead of night. Simply, gradually, the option to buy something without creating a permanent record will disappear. The ability to save purchasing power outside of a system that can freeze it, monitor it, or program it will become a memory that seems almost fictional to those who never experienced it.

I have watched this unfold over years of observing payment systems, reading central bank white papers that few citizens bother to examine, and noticing how my own transactions leave increasingly detailed trails. The pattern is consistent across nations: convenience precedes surveillance, and surveillance precedes control.

We are not approaching a cashless society. We are sleepwalking into it. And for anyone who values independence, privacy, or the basic human right to conduct commerce without surveillance, this represents not progress but regression toward a form of control that previous generations would have recognized immediately and resisted forcefully.

Keep reading

Dirty Jack Smith Had a Spreadsheet on Americans and Their Address Who Bought a Trump Hat Between 2021-2025

On Wednesday we learned that former Special Counsel Jack Smith collected information on 639,000 Republican voters and donors during his sprawling Arctic Frost investigation, according to documents released by Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley.

The information collected included the donors’ physical home addresses, credit card information, occupations and donation amount.

Later today we learned Jack Smith’s illegal spying investigation included Trump supporters who bought MAGA hats!

If you bought a red MAGA hat you likely ended up on Jack Smith’s spreadsheet along with your address.

Keep reading

The Politics of Denial: When Americans Stop Seeing the Warning Signs

“You see them on the street. You watch them on TV. You might even vote for one this fall. You think they’re people just like you. You’re wrong. Dead wrong.” — They Live

The spectacle of public executions. Deadly military strikes on foreign countries. Innocent civilian lives lost to war. Aggressive ICE raids. Government officials accused of using their powers to intimidate political opponents. Public office increasingly entangled with private financial interests. Government leaders who glorify violence, spew hatred, stir up racial prejudice, provoke civil unrest, and stoke discontent.

This is what it looks like when a nation loses its way.

When cruelty is mistaken for courage, vengeance for justice, and the taking of human life for a demonstration of strength.

When government officials tell you not to believe your own eyes and ears about the state of the world around you, when they insist that the truth is a lie and the lie is truth, you’ve stumbled into a dystopian reality in which, as John Lennon rightly concluded, the government is “being run by maniacs for maniacal ends.”

When so-called Christians and self-professed defenders of morality insist that we must accept the lesser of two evils based on exaggerated fears of what might happen if their political opponents gain power, rather than confront the abuses unfolding before our eyes, remember this: the lesser of two evils is still evil.

This is not simply about Donald Trump.

The machinery of the American police state has been assembled over decades, under Republican and Democratic administrations alike. Presidents have expanded executive authority, waged undeclared wars, authorized drone killings, built surveillance networks, militarized domestic policing, and invoked national security to justify extraordinary powers.

What makes the present moment so troubling is the extent to which the public is encouraged to accept increasingly aggressive exercises of government power as necessary demonstrations of strength and resolve.

The Constitution was never intended to protect only the innocent, the popular, the patriotic, or the politically acceptable. Its restraints on government power matter most when the government is dealing with people whom society has already condemned.

Yet what happens when the public becomes so accustomed to government overreach, corruption and brutality that it no longer recognizes them as warning signs? What becomes of a constitutional republic when its leaders and citizens stop asking whether government actions are lawful, justified or necessary, and concern themselves only with whether those actions punish their enemies, advance their political interests or preserve their sense of security?

We are witnessing a political culture in which demanding due process for an accused criminal is treated as defending criminality, questioning a military strike is equated with sympathy for the enemy, and opposing government cruelty is portrayed as weakness.

The government doesn’t have to abolish the Constitution outright when it can persuade the public that certain people should no longer be entitled to its protections.

That is how constitutional rights cease to be rights at all and become privileges granted or withdrawn at the government’s discretion.

And that is how a population becomes conditioned to accept the unacceptable.

We’re living in two worlds.

There’s the world we see—or are made to see—and then there’s the one we sense and occasionally catch a glimpse of, which bears little resemblance to the propaganda-driven reality manufactured by those in power and amplified through an increasingly fragmented media landscape.

Keep reading

Government-Funded Group Helped Push Australia’s Digital Censorship Bill

Teach Us Consent, a group whose latest financial statements show it is nearly 90 percent funded by the Australian government, was one of those who supported the government’s Digital Duty of Care bill, and even stood beside Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese as he presented it.

The bill, that the group lobbied for privately and publicly, is a censorship law. It will force platforms to police content more stringently, and gives a minister the power to add to the list of “harms” that they must protect against. The eSafety commissioner will be able to issue removal notices, and can even create “sock puppet” accounts to patrol the internet, and fine platforms up to A$109.2 million.

Teach Us Consent wrote to the Prime Minister’s office on March 30, 2026, in a “private letter” that was co-signed by Digital Rights Watch and Reset Australia, to ask for a meeting to discuss the bill. An adviser replied the next morning, and a meeting was set for April 9. On September 8, the group was by the Prime Minister’s side as he announced the censorship bill, calling it “an example of change from the bottom-up, my Government listening and acting.”

Teach Us Consent then announced that the government “heard our calls and committed to the #FixOurFeeds campaign.” And: “We did it.” But the group did not do it on its own: in the 2024/25 financial year, it had “total revenue of $2,738,561, representing a substantial increase of approximately 975% from the previous financial year’s total of $254,807.” Of that, $2,436,156 was “government funding” – 89 percent.

This is not money the group received to lobby – the government gave it for “Consent resources” aimed at people 16 and older. But the grant guidelines, released under freedom of information, shows that the Department of Social Services approved the content strategy.

The government also gave Teach Us Consent $4.4 million for a porn literacy campaign. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet grant was approved on March 6, 2026.

The bill’s exposure draft was released on September 8, and it reveals that the duty to protect against “harm” will be imposed on social media, games, apps, and AI chatbots.

The eSafety commissioner will have the power to issue removal notices to companies, and the minister will be able to add any material “that the Minister is satisfied may cause serious harm.”

The eSafety Commissioner may assume a “false or fictitious identity” – a sock puppet – and “generate material using an online service (including by means of artificial intelligence).”

Those powers apply “despite anything to the contrary in any other law.” Penalties will reach A$109.2 million.

Opposition communications spokesperson Sarah Henderson said: “It provides the minister with unfettered powers to make any regulation into what she would describe as serious harm.” And: “The government could shut down any content or material that they deem to be harmful.”

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said: “It’s not about censorship. It’s about giving people control themselves over what they see.”

Network Affects called the feed-choice framing “a ruse,” finding the only explicit reference in the draft is “by providing control over the kind of content that is recommended for the user”: 

“Fourteen vague words in a Bill containing more than fourteen thousand.”

The group had a specific proposal for the legislation, the “Fix Our Feeds” campaign. The page for the campaign on the group’s website states that “it takes just 23 minutes for a social media account mimicking a 16-18 year old boy to be fed misogynistic content, regardless of the account’s viewing preferences.”

The claim was repeated by Minister Tanya Plibersek on ABC Insiders, and it is based on a study conducted by Dublin City University. But the study used only ten accounts, and no real teenagers were involved. Instead, the researcher “watched and liked the video” when shown problematic content.

Keep reading