Attempts to harass and intimidate pro-Palestine voices through fabricated and politically-motivated legal cases have intensified in the West, further revealing the dangerous tactics and mechanisms adopted by the organized Zionist network.
Numerous such cases have emerged recently, including in recent weeks, involving prominent journalists and activists such as Ali Abunimah in Switzerland, Richard Medhurst in Austria, David Miller in England, and Yves Engler in Canada.
What is common between these cases is a pattern of prolonged detentions, often lasting hours or even days, on false charges or vague suspicions. Those targeted are treated as criminals, subjected to incoherent interrogations, and in many instances, thrown in jails.
Press TV recently published firsthand accounts from Medhurst and Miller, both longtime contributors to Iran’s leading international news network, detailing their experiences.
Miller emphasized that activists and journalists are prime targets of the Zionist lobby, which exerts pressure to harass or detain pro-Palestine voices across Western countries.
This was further corroborated by the recent case of Yves Engler in Canada, where the prominent author and activist was detained for five days.
Engler, who occasionally appears on Press TV as a commentator, in a statement posted on his website outlined the methods employed by Zionist lobbyists to intimidate people like him.
Based in Montreal, Engler has been an outspoken critic of the Israeli regime and its lobbyists. He has authored 13 books on Canadian history and foreign policy, including Canada and Israel: Building Apartheid, which exposes Canada’s longstanding support for the Israeli regime.
Legal harassment of Yves Engler
On February 18, Engler received a call from a Montreal police officer named Crivello, who instructed him to appear at the downtown police station two days later, where he would be charged with harassment and indecent communication.
The officer explained that a complaint had been filed against him months earlier by a legal firm representing Dahlia Kurtz, a well-known Zionist rabble-rouser and outspoken supporter of the 16-month-long genocide in Gaza.
Engler had previously criticized Kurtz’s racist and violent anti-Palestinian posts on X in a polite and measured manner. He recalled her first – and only – reaction.
“Tomorrow the Montreal police will arrest me for posting to social media against Israel’s genocide in Gaza,” Engler wrote in an article police reached out to him over Kurtz’s complaint.
Pointing out that he had “responded to Kurtz’s racist, violent, anti-Palestinian posts on X”, Engler said he had not harassed the influencer, who “supports killing Palestinian children” and “openly calls for state violence against those challenging Canadian complicity in genocide.”
“I’ve never met Kurtz. Nor have I messaged or emailed her. Nor have I threatened her. I don’t even follow her on X (Twitter’s algorithm puts her posts in my feed).”
In early July 2024, Kurtz quoted one of his posts and wrote: “Hello, Engler Yves. I’m advising you in this one message only that you are harassing me. You’re threatening and you’re making me afraid for my safety. You must stop this harassment – and communication with me. Stop now.”
His statements that she referenced, posted a few days earlier, read: “Racist Dahlia supports killing Palestinian children. 20,000 is not enough, she wants even more Palestinian blood spilled.”
Her response was a blatant lie. Engler had never threatened, harassed, or contacted her—neither publicly nor privately via messages or emails—nor was he following her on X.
Despite this, her exaggerated claims of victimhood escalated beyond false public accusations to the extent of hiring a law firm to pursue criminal charges against him.
On the morning of February 20, Engler was taken into custody at the police station, where an officer informed him that he would be detained overnight or until he was brought before a judge.
Citing the alleged risk of recidivism, authorities held him in custody for a total of five days.
Public support for Engler
Engler’s imprisonment drew widespread anger and outrage among pro-Palestinian and human rights activists, who staged protests outside the police station and courthouse for several days.
A day before his arrest, an article on his website in which he detailed the situation, prompted the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute to launch an email campaign.
In response to his initial call, over 4,000 people emailed Montreal police inspector Crivello, demanding the charges be dropped. Soon after, more than 6,000 others sent emails to the Montreal police chief and mayor, echoing the same demand.
Organizations such as PEN Canada and PEN America, Canadian Senator Yuen Pau Woo, and journalists Ali Abunimah, Glenn Greenwald, Caitlin Johnstone, and Aaron Maté all spoke out about the case, either through statements or articles, expressing deep concern over the charges.
Singer David Rovics composed the song “What’s Going On Here, Montreal?” in response to Engler’s imprisonment and Kurtz’s violent anti-Palestinian rhetoric.
Musician Roger Waters created a short social media clip on Engler’s arrest over pro-Palestine advocacy, which garnered hundreds of thousands of views.
According to Engler, the presence of protesters during the final hours of his detention may have influenced the judicial decision to acquit him and order his release.
He also suggested that their activism contributed to more respectful treatment from the guards.
Yves Engler celebrates his release
Key Zionist rabble-rousers
After his release, Engler expressed gratitude to his supporters for their consistent backing and shared further details about the legal manipulations he encountered during his five-day detention.
He emphasized that his brief imprisonment was insignificant compared to the suffering of thousands of Palestinian abductees languishing in Israeli jails, some of whom endure incarceration for decades.
When questioned by police investigator Crivello, Engler did not deny that he had referred to Kurtz on the X platform as a “genocide supporter” and a “fascist”, labels he asserted were accurate based on their relevant definitions.
He further clarified that he had never met Kurtz nor communicated directly with her via text or email, suggesting that her claims of receiving “threats” and fearing for her safety were outright fabrications.
As a condition of his release, the investigator required him to agree to cease all interaction with Kurtz, a condition Engler stated he was willing to accept to regain his freedom.
In other words, he would no longer reference her content on social media, critique her chauvinistic outbursts and insults toward individuals or groups, or expose her attempts to play the victim.
Additionally, the investigator asked Engler’s lawyer, John Philpot, to agree that Engler would refrain from discussing the case – a request he believed was intended to shield the police, Kurtz, and her legal team from public scrutiny and embarrassment.
However, it appeared that the primary objective of the Zionist network was to completely silence Engler and apply similar tactics to other uninformed pro-Palestinian activists.
Engler had already rejected this condition before his detention, calling it “a flagrant violation of his freedom of expression” and stating he was willing to remain incarcerated until a judge ruled on whether such a restriction was legally permissible.
After spending five days in detention, he was released on February 24 without any restrictions on his ability to discuss the charges against him for his anti-Zionist activism.
He described this as “a small win for free expression and Palestine campaigning.”
“In court, the judge effectively forced the Crown to drop its bid to prevent me from mentioning arch anti-Palestinian Dahlia Kurtz. The Crown [government] sought to restrict my ability to name the Jewish supremacist who instigated a police complaint against me,” he said.
Rather than granting them anonymity, he publicly exposed those suing him, the legal firm they hired, their methods, and all related details – boldly refusing to be silenced.
Dahlia Kurtz proudly poses in the occupied territories as columns of smoke from Israeli bombing rise over Gaza Strip
Who is Dahlia Kurtz?
Dahlia Kurtz is a Canadian Jewish Zionist hate-monger who positioned herself as the leading advocate for the Israeli regime in Canada during the West-backed Israeli genocidal war against Gaza.
She unconditionally defends all Israeli military actions and has never condemned their crimes against Palestinians, instead dismissing their suffering as if it does not exist.
Yet, she has been seen proudly posing in the occupied Palestinian territories with plumes of smoke rising from an Israeli bombing on the Gaza Strip in the background.
On her website, Kurtz openly flaunts these images and reveals that she was on a “media mission” to the occupied territories, where she met with Israeli officials, implying direct ties to the regime’s vast propaganda apparatus.
She has organized events where she trained Zionist settlers and other lobbyists to operate according to a specific six-point plan she obtained during these visits.
Her social media rhetoric is saturated with Israeli disinformation, fact distortion, manipulative techniques, and the dehumanization and demonization of Palestinians. Yet she has never faced legal consequences for her actions.
Among the countless examples, she has claimed that Palestinians “know only terror,” suggested that there are no innocent Palestinians even in images of thousands of gathered Gazans, and mocked Palestinian children suffering from hunger and freezing temperatures – calling their parents “genocidal” and “obese,” among other remarks.
Following the ceasefire, she declared, “Gaza is still standing. The world has never witnessed such restraint” – a statement completely at odds with UN reports documenting destruction of civilian infrastructure on an unprecedented scale.
Regarding Jewish anti-Zionist protesters outside the Canadian Parliament, she claimed they “love Gaza too much,” using quotation marks to suggest they were fake Jews, and added that she would personally fund their deportation to Gaza.
Kurtz aggressively cultivates a victimhood narrative, frequently emphasizing that she is a short, weak woman, allegedly the granddaughter of Holocaust survivors, and an independent actor. She presents herself as the ultimate symbol of the “victim” while branding critics and dissenters as “threateners.”
As Engler highlights, her image-building and propaganda efforts are bolstered by certain Canadian media outlets and politicians who seek to persuade the public that Canadian Jews are the real victims, with Kurtz positioned as a heroic figure pushing back against Canada’s so-called Jew-hate problem.
She also receives direct legal support from the Montreal-based law firm Spiegel Sohmer, particularly from litigation lawyer Neil Oberman, who is involved in Engler’s case.
Despite her claims of acting independently and financing her efforts on her own, all evidence suggests that she is merely the visible face of a well-organized Zionist network.
Neil Oberman (right) gives a political speech
Who is Neil Oberman?
Neil G. Oberman is not just a randomly selected lawyer to sue Engler. He is a key figure in the Zionist network, with deep ties to the Israeli regime and its lobby groups in Canada.
A Canadian Jewish Zionist like Kurtz, Oberman is a founding member of the Quebec Jewish Legal Alliance (QJLA), an organization that has recently made headlines for its desperate attempts to suppress local pro-Palestinian protests.
The QJLA works closely with Federation CJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), and other Zionist advocacy groups, engaging in numerous pro-Israeli initiatives and programs.
Oberman has personally delivered pro-Israeli lectures, instructing audiences on strategic positioning, activism tactics, and the politicians and universities to target.
He is also a board member of Technion Canada, the Canadian branch of the Haifa-based university long criticized by international Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) activists for its collaboration with the Israeli military and leading arms manufacturers.
Since last year, Oberman has been the Conservative Party of Canada’s candidate for the Mount Royal riding in the upcoming federal election.
His campaign is backed by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Hampstead Mayor Jeremy Levi, two of Canada’s most fervent Zionists, who reportedly helped raise $200,000 for his campaign late last year.
Engler notes that he is merely Oberman’s latest target, as the lawyer has already launched a series of lawsuits in recent months against various institutions and individuals who oppose Israel’s genocidal policies against Palestinians in the occupied territories.
Oberman’s legal targets
Among his first individual targets in late 2023 was journalist Max Blumenthal, whom he threatened with a frivolous lawsuit on behalf of Lauren Wise – a Zionist author who notoriously wished for a woman to be “raped and dragged in the streets in front of her kids” for flying a Palestinian flag.
In the first six months of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, Oberman and the QJLA actively worked to suppress pro-Palestinian protests in Montreal, sending legal threats to Mayor Valérie Plante and denouncing her for allowing what he called “hate festivals.”
He also attempted to dismantle a pro-Palestinian encampment at McGill University through various legal maneuvers, but a Quebec Superior Court judge rejected an injunction request filed by two Zionist students represented by Oberman.
However, he did secure an injunction banning protests at a Jewish community building and synagogue and later expanded the ruling to include two dozen institutions for six months.
Oberman also issued legal warnings to Concordia University regarding pro-Palestinian rallies, but after being rebuffed, he lashed out at the institution, declaring: “You don’t know Neil Oberman, you don’t know the Alliance [QJLA], and you don’t know what’s coming next. This is a war!”
Frustrated by his failure to impose a 100-meter protest ban around 154 university buildings, he and other Zionists went so far as to accuse Iran of orchestrating the demonstrations at a Canadian university.
In November 2024, he collaborated with pro-Israeli pressure groups to block a visit by UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese at McGill Law School. Despite their efforts, she delivered a speech commending pro-Palestinian students.
On this occasion, Oberman openly acknowledged his cooperation with several Zionist organizations, including the Jewish Law Students Association (JLSA), Israel on Campus, Students Supporting Israel (SSI), and UN Watch.
Neil Oberman (right), UN Watch’s head Hillel Neuer (center) and Hamstead Mayor Jeremy Levi (left) campaigning against Francesca Albanese’s speech at McGill University
Engler confronts Oberman
Engler personally confronted Oberman in order to question him about Israeli genocidal crimes against Palestinians in Gaza – a moment he documented on the X platform.
Oberman initially tried to evade the exchange by falsely claiming that Engler was addressing the “wrong person.” However, when Engler pressed him about the 15,000 Palestinian children killed by the Canada-backed regime, Oberman snapped aggressively, ordering him to back off and threatening to sue.
According to Engler’s lawyer, John Philpot, Oberman played a crucial role in Engler’s five-day detention. Kurtz’s original complaint from last summer had been dismissed by police, and charges were only pursued after Oberman intervened.
Philpot noted that in a minor case like Engler’s, the standard police response would typically be to instruct the accused to avoid contacting the complainant.
However, the authorities imposed additional conditions on Engler, including an unusual demand that he refrain from revealing the identity of those suing him.
The latest victim of false accusations from Kurtz and Oberman is Canadian Senator Yuen Pau Woo, known for his vocal criticism of the Tel Aviv regime and advocacy for Palestinian rights.
As in Engler’s case – where Woo had publicly expressed support during his detention – Kurtz now alleges that Woo “incited hate, aggression, and violence” against her through a series of X posts.
The Zionist modus operandi
The duo’s actions, legal maneuvers, and overall conduct illustrate the broader strategy used by the Zionist network to suppress pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist voices.
In an April 2023 lecture to pro-Israeli agents, Oberman urged them to rethink their approach to advocacy, warning: “If you act like sheep, you’re going to get treated like a sheep. If you don’t want to be a sheep, be a wolf. Stand up and be heard. You have to be heard, and to be heard, you have to take action.”
Oberman exemplified this doctrine when confronted by Engler about the mass murder of Palestinian children, refusing to address the issue and instead resorting to intimidation and legal threats.
Kurtz follows a similar pattern. Despite being publicly called out hundreds of times for glorifying Israeli crimes, she consistently ignores the criticism, sticking to her narrative.
Justifying the killing of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians is both demanding and time-consuming. Instead, Zionist advocates and their allies in Western media often opt to ignore these atrocities altogether, pretending they do not exist.
When a dissenter gains too much visibility and disrupts their propaganda efforts, they shift tactics –playing the victim, issuing veiled threats, and ultimately resorting to baseless legal action.
Both Kurtz, online, and Oberman, in person, portrayed themselves as victims – falsely implying that Engler had privately threatened them, when in reality, they were the ones harassing him.
The charges they file have no real legal merit and serve purely as intimidation tactics. However, they still drain their targets’ time, resources, and mental energy.
These lawsuits are also leveraged in parallel smear campaigns, with media headlines falsely implying that Engler was arrested for harassment.
For activists, filing counter-charges for false accusations, a lesser offense legally, requires hiring a lawyer and securing financial resources. Meanwhile, well-funded Zionist legal groups face no such obstacles.
The attempt to condition Engler’s release on refraining from criticizing Zionist activists or discussing the lawsuit, according to observers, is a clear indication that the Zionist network in Canada has a premeditated strategy to silence other pro-Palestinian activists in the same manner.
UK media have reported that senior Trump advisor Peter Navarro lobbied his boss to cut Canada out of the Five Eyes intel-sharing network. Navarro rejected the report. But given the harm the intel coalition has done to Trump, Americans and relations with allies, removing members or dismantling the organization wouldn’t be a bad idea. Here’s why.
In 2024, journalists Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger revealed that Barack Obama’s CIA chief had worked with Five Eyes partners to circumvent restrictions on domestic spying to illegally tap Trump’s 2016 campaign, targeting Trump himself and over two dozen of his associates.
In 2013, NSA contractor-turned whistleblower Edward Snowden exposed his former employer’s work with the Five Eyes using tools like PRISM and XKeyscore to engage in a global, unfathomably massive warrantless spying program targeting foreigners and Americans alike.
Besides ordinary people, the Snowden leaks revealed Five Eyes spying on non-Anglosphere allied countries’ leaders, including Chancellor Merkel of Germany and President Hollande of France.
The Five Eyes have also been linked to diplomatic crises between Western nations and the developing world, with the 2023-present spat between Canada and India over the extraterritorial killings of Sikh separatists accompanied by allegations of a Five Eyes plot to destabilize India.
In 2013, a scandal erupted in Australian-Indonesian relations after it was revealed that Canberra and its Five Eyes partners sought to tap the phones of Indonesia’s sitting president, his wife and other senior officials.
And the Five Eyes’ shady activity goes back much further than that, with the ECHELON surveillance program, launched in the early 1970s, ostensibly to monitor Eastern Bloc countries and the Soviet Union, actually engaging in the interception of communications worldwide.
In the late 1990s, it was revealed that ECHELON had been used by US corporations to spy on their European competitors.
Similar activity was uncovered by WikiLeaks in 2015, with Japanese officials and companies revealed to have been monitored by the NSA using Five Eyes during negotiations on the TPP trade pact.
The non-profit news website The Maple published a list of 85 Canadians with Israeli citizenship who have served in the Israeli occupation army.
The website announced that this is the initial list and that it intends to publish additional lists of additional Canadians that have joined the Israeli military.
The article, entitled “Meet 85 Canadians That Have Fought For Israel,” featured in online publication The Maple provides a link to the list.
According to the article, its purpose is to provide a database of “mini-profiles for as many Canadians that have fought in the Israeli military at any point as I could find,” said its author, because “there is little existing research in Canada beyond one-off news articles about who these soldiers are and how they came to make the life choices that they did.”
The list has sparked anger by Israeli circles, with Israeli Channel 14 describing the move a “scandal”.
“I don’t think it’s an acceptable thing to happen in Canada,” Rebecca Garner, who served in the IDF from 2011 to 2014, and whose name was enrolled in the list, told the National Post, a Canadian English-language broadsheet newspaper.
The Canada Files spoke to Canadian lawyer and journalist Dimitri Lascaris, about the Montreal police’s persecution of author Yves Engler, in retaliation for Engler repeatedly criticizing Canadian Zionist fanatic Dahlia Kurtz.
Police in Canada have arrested a Canadian activist and author for criticizing Israel and its genocidal war against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
Yves Engler, a vocal critic of Israel and the Canadian military complex, was arrested on Thursday after Dahlia Kurtz, a Zionist influencer, accused him of harassment.
“Tomorrow the Montreal police will arrest me for posting to social media against Israel’s genocide in Gaza,” Engler said in an article on Wednesday after Montreal Police reached out to him about their plans to arrest him because of Kurtz’s complaint.
Pointing out that he had “responded to Kurtz’s racist, violent, anti-Palestinian posts on X”, Engler said he had not harassed the influencer, who “supports killing Palestinian children” and “openly calls for state violence against those challenging Canadian complicity in genocide.”
“I’ve never met Kurtz. Nor have I messaged or emailed her. Nor have I threatened her. I don’t even follow her on X (Twitter’s algorithm puts her posts in my feed).”
The father of two was taken into custody on Thursday morning and appeared before a judge later in the day. He spent the night in jail, and a bail hearing has been set for Friday.
After he publicized his scheduled arrest, police pledged new charges of “harassing” police and “obstructing” their work against Engler… Full article
You can’t make this up. Initially the Montreal police accused me of harassing an anti-Palestinian media personality because I posted about Israel’s genocide. Now they are charging me for harassing the police for writing about the charges levelled against me.
At 9:30 AM tomorrow the Montreal police are set to arrest me. Today an officer told me they will detain me overnight or until I’m brought before a judge.
On Tuesday police investigator Crivello said they were charging me at the behest of anti-Palestinian activist Dahlia Kurtz. The police officer said I had described Kurtz as a “genocide” supporter and “fascist” on Twitter, which is true.
I promptly wrote about the charges and the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute organized an email letter campaign, which saw 2,500 outraged people call on the cops to drop the Kurtz-sponsored charges. Angry at receiving emails and my article — the police were seeking release conditions barring me from discussing the charges levelled against me — the police are now claiming I’m victimizing them. Today a new investigator called to say investigator Crivello feels threatened by my writing about the charges levelled against me. The Montreal police will be charging me with intimidation, harassment, harassing communication and “entrave” (interference) towards Crivello.
The police investigator also announced that they will be holding me overnight out of fear that I may “recidive” (relapse). In other words, I might once again write about the absurd charges levelled against me. Guilty as charged.
Over the past 24 hours I’ve received multiple messages about frivolous cases brought against others for opposing genocide. The abuse of police and legal system to target opponents of genocide is a greater problem than I realized.
I’m trying to make sense of Kurtz’s bizarre bid not to block me on X but claim I am harassing her. Perhaps she is trying to monetize her status as a victim of hate. On her site Kurtz writes: “If you want to help save Canada from hate and extremism please donate by e-transfer to: [email]. After years of working for media outlets, I am now independent, so I can say the truth. This also means my personal security is under constant threat. You can make a difference. My work is funded solely by your support.”
A lawyer is looking into pursuing legal action against Kurtz. But it’s the police that really need to be held accountable. The initial charges were an abuse of state authority and adding new charges for criticizing them is beyond absurd.
The Montreal police apparently have no qualms about acting in service of Israel’s slaughter in Gaza. More than 100,000 have been killed and almost everyone has been displaced. About 70% of buildings are destroyed and most agricultural land damaged.
The police targeting opposition to Israel’s crimes is an embarrassment. The particular charges are ridiculous. The notion that someone can publicly attack Palestinians, repeatedly call Canada’s prime minister an antisemite and a supporter of terror, engage a Conservative Party candidate as a lawyer to convince police to lay charges and authorities go along with it — simply incredible. Then for the police to claim they are being victimized by emails critical of the ridiculous charges — I’m at a loss for words. What parallel universe have we slipped into?
Please email the Montreal police chief and mayor to demand they drop the charges against Yves Engler.
Now, after years of relentless attacks, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia has dropped all charges against Dr. Charles Hoffe. It is a victory for truth—but a bitter one. His career, his practice, and years of his life were taken from him. The damage cannot be undone.
We are incredibly honored that Dr. Hoffe contributed Chapter 6 to Canary in a (Post) Covid World: Money, Fear, and Power (Volume 2). From the beginning, we knew he was telling the truth. His courage to speak out, despite the overwhelming pressure to remain silent, embodies exactly what the Canaries stand for—integrity, resilience, and the relentless pursuit of truth.
Dr. Hoffe, a small-town doctor in British Columbia, was one of the first physicians to sound the alarm on COVID-19 vaccine injuries—only to be silenced and persecuted for doing so. A true Canary, he saw firsthand the harm unfolding in his own patients, yet governments and health officials denied the dangers, doubling down on their “safe and effective”narrative. For his honesty, he was censored, stripped of his ability to practice medicine, and relentlessly attacked.
But he was never alone. Behind the scenes, many courageous individuals—including fellow Canaries Dr. Jessica Rose, Dr. Peter McCullough, and Dr. Pierre Kory—worked tirelessly to expose the truth and defend his integrity. Their collective efforts helped bring undeniable evidence to light, making it impossible for the authorities to justify their case against him.
In Integrity Under Fire (Chapter 6), Hoffe takes readers on a gripping journey through the harrowing events that led to his downfall—and his unwavering resolve to stand by his patients. He details the suppression of early treatment, the real-world vaccine injury patterns he documented, and the brutal pushback he faced for daring to ask questions. His work paints a picture of a global medical establishment determined to ignore harm and punish dissenters.
Dr. Charles Hoffe is not just an honest doctor—he is a hero of the people and a key figure in the global narrative that is now crumbling. He stood firm when so many others stayed silent.
But this battle is no longer just about truth—it is a battle to wake people up in the face of relentless propaganda. The forces that sought to silence him have not gone away. The same institutions that crushed his career still refuse to acknowledge the harm they have caused. If we do not stand up, if we do not speak out, this will happen again.
This chapter is more than just a story—it’s a warning. A wake-up call. A testament to the courage of one man who refused to betray his conscience.
America’s Five Eyes partners – Canada, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand – fear that US President Donald Trump’s deep state crackdown and spy apparatus overhaul could destabilize their intelligence network, reports The Wall Street Journal.
What’s driving their concerns?
Free Riders
Trump may see Five Eyes as a bloated racket exploiting US resources, per the WSJ. The US spends nearly $100 billion on intelligence – 10 times more than the other four combined.
Russia Collusion Hoax
Five Eyes were entangled in the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, largely pushed by US intelligence.
The FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane probe, later debunked, was triggered by an Australian tip in 2016.
Britain’s GCHQ may have wiretapped Trump during his 2016 campaign, as the White House suggested in 2017.
Trump hasn’t directly targeted Five Eyes lately, but their unease suggests they have plenty to hide.
What Triggered the Panic?
The “world’s most powerful spy alliance” sounded the alarm as Trump’s intelligence picks, Kash Patel and Tulsi Gabbard, near confirmation in Congress.
Gabbard, nominated for director of National Intelligence, vowed to fight weaponized intelligence, citing Iraq War lies and the Russia collusion hoax.
Patel, set to lead the FBI, pledged to curb overseas operations and increase transparency.
After nearly a decade in office, after attempts at photogenic diplomacy and tearful apologies, Justin Trudeau is stepping down as Canada’s Prime Minister, leaving behind a legacy as divisive as it is dramatic. To some, he was the poster child for progressive leadership, a leader who championed climate action and diversity while bringing Canada into the global spotlight. To others, he was an over-polished politician whose tenure was defined by censorship, economic mismanagement, and the weaponization of state power against his own citizens. His resignation marks the end of an era—one defined as much by lofty rhetoric as by policies that left a deep mark on civil liberties and public trust.
So, what’s Trudeau’s Canada after nearly ten years? A land of progressive aspirations or a dystopian Pinterest board?
Censorship: The Friendly Autocrat Edition
Few things capture Trudeau’s tenure better than his government’s legislative war on free speech. Let’s start with the dynamic duo of digital overreach:
Bill C-10: “Regulating the Unregulatable”
The saga of Bill C-10 began innocently enough. Trudeau’s government framed the bill as a noble effort to modernize the Broadcasting Act. After all, the law hadn’t been updated since 1991, back when Blockbuster was thriving and the internet was just a nerd’s dream. The goal, they said, was to “level the playing field” between traditional broadcasters and streaming giants like Netflix and YouTube.
Sounds fair, right? Not so fast.
The devil was in the details—or the lack thereof. The bill gave Canada’s broadcast regulator, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), sweeping authority to police online content. Originally, user-generated content like vlogs, TikTok dances, or indie films were supposed to be exempt. However, midway through the legislative process, Trudeau’s government quietly removed those exemptions. Suddenly, your cat video could be classified as “broadcast content,” giving bureaucrats the power to decide whether it met Canadian cultural standards.
Critics, including legal scholars and digital rights groups, raised the alarm. They argued that the bill’s language was so vague it could allow the government to dictate what Canadians saw, shared, or created online. The specter of state-controlled algorithms choosing what gets promoted on platforms was too close to censorship for comfort.
But the government dismissed the concerns, painting critics as alarmists. In Trudeau’s Canada, wanting clear limits on government power apparently made you a conspiracy theorist.
Bill C-36: Hate Speech or Debate Killer?
Not content to merely oversee what Canadians could create, Trudeau’s administration went a step further with Bill C-36, a supposed weapon against online hate speech. If Bill C-10 was about controlling the medium, this bill was about controlling the message.
What Did It Do?
Reintroduced a controversial section of Canada’s Human Rights Act, allowing people to file complaints over online hate speech.
Allowed courts to impose hefty fines and even jail time for offenders.
Gave the government the power to preemptively penalize individuals suspected of potentially committing hate speech—a sort of Minority Report approach to thought crime.
The problem? The bill’s definition of “hate” was so expansive that it could potentially criminalize unpopular or offensive opinions. The bill didn’t just target clear-cut incitements to violence; it targeted anything deemed likely to expose individuals to “hatred or contempt.” Critics feared that “hatred or contempt” could mean anything from political dissent to sharp critiques of government policies.
Even more alarming was the prospect of a “snitch culture.” The bill encouraged private citizens to report each other for suspected hate speech, potentially turning disagreements into legal battles.
David Lametti, Trudeau’s Justice Minister, defended the bill, claiming it struck the right balance between free expression and protection from harm. But when legal experts and civil liberties groups united in opposition, it became clear that balance was not the government’s strong suit.
The Financial Freeze Heard ‘Round the World
The Freedom Convoy protest of 2022
The Freedom Convoy—the moment when Canada went from polite protests and Tim Hortons to frozen bank accounts and police crackdowns.
In 2022, when truckers and their supporters descended on Ottawa to protest COVID-19 mandates, Trudeau didn’t meet them with dialogue or even his trademark smile-and-wave. Instead, he dusted off the Emergencies Act, something no prime minister had dared touch before. Overnight, financial institutions became Trudeau’s personal enforcers, freezing accounts of protesters and anyone who dared to support them.
Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, Trudeau’s second-in-command at the time and a walking, talking LinkedIn connection to global elites, eagerly played bad cop. Under her direction, the financial clampdown turned Canada’s banking system into a political weapon. It wasn’t lost on critics that Freeland’s cozy ties to global financiers made the whole thing look like an international crackdown on dissent.
And what of the precedent? Trudeau’s message was clear: disagree with the government, and you might lose access to your life savings. It was a masterclass in how to turn financial systems into handcuffs, leaving civil liberties in tatters.
The Media Muzzle: Subsidizing Obedience
Also on the chopping block was journalistic independence. Trudeau’s government rolled out legislation forcing media outlets to register with a government body to qualify for funding. On the surface, this was marketed as a lifeline for struggling journalism. Because nothing says “press freedom” like reporters dependent on government handouts, right? It’s a classic move: offer financial aid with one hand and hold the leash with the other.
Critics were quick to point out the slippery slope. When the same entity paying the bills also sets the rules, the line between journalism and government PR gets blurry fast. Trudeau, of course, framed this as support for democracy, but the result was a media landscape nervously eyeing its next paycheck while tiptoeing around criticism of its benefactor.
Big Brother Gets a Twitter Account
Then came the surveillance. Under Trudeau’s watch, Canadian intelligence agencies dramatically expanded their social media monitoring. Initially, this was framed as a necessary tool against extremism. But “extremism,” much like “disinformation,” is a flexible term in the hands of those in power. Activists and protest groups—voices traditionally central to democratic discourse—suddenly found themselves under the microscope.
Imagine logging onto X to vent about a new housing policy, only to realize your tweet has been flagged by a government algorithm. The message was clear: dissent might not be illegal, but it was certainly inconvenient.
Disinformation: The Government’s New Buzzword
Trudeau’s pièce de résistance was his crusade against “disinformation.” This word became the Swiss Army knife of excuses, used to delegitimize critics and corral public opinion. Do you have a bone to pick with government policies? Disinformation. Questioning pandemic mandates? Disinformation. Unimpressed with Trudeau’s latest photo op? You guessed it—disinformation.
To hammer the point home, his administration launched a series of public awareness campaigns, ostensibly to educate Canadians about the perils of online misinformation. These campaigns, dripping with paternalistic condescension, often blurred the line between fact-checking and outright propaganda. The subtext was unmistakable: dissent, even if rooted in genuine concerns, was a threat to national cohesion.
Canada’s New Normal: The Fear of Speaking Freely
The cumulative effect of these policies wasn’t subtle. Everyday Canadians began censoring themselves, not out of respect for others but out of fear of stepping on the wrong bureaucratic toes. Content creators hesitated to tackle divisive topics. Activists wondered whether their next rally would land them on a government watchlist. What was once a robust marketplace of ideas began to resemble a sparsely stocked shelf.
And yet, Trudeau’s defenders remain loyal, arguing that his policies were noble attempts to safeguard society. However, as history has repeatedly shown, the road to censorship is paved with the promise of safety, but its destination is a society too scared to speak.
The Legacy of Controlled Speech
So what’s the verdict? Is Trudeau a misunderstood guardian of democracy, or is he the wolf who prowled under the guise of a shepherd? It’s hard to champion inclusivity and diversity when fewer voices are allowed to join the conversation. Canada may someday reckon with the full implications of these policies, but the damage is already visible.
And as Canadians tiptoe around their digital platforms, one question remains: how free is a democracy where everyone whispers?
President Trump has been very busy lately, driving leftist and Liberal Canadians utterly out of their minds by wickedly and hilariously trolling Prime Minister Justin Trudeau while simultaneously threatening a massive 25% tariff on the Canadian auto industry. With a solitary few taps of fingers on his phone, Trump cornered Canada by brewing an artisan Trumpian “threat to start some conversation” online. It went something like this: “Nice auto industry you got there. Would be a real shame if something happened to it!”
This “conversation starter,” which could also be rightly characterized as an existential death blow to the Canadian auto industry, forced Prime Minister Trudeau to hastily jet down to Mar-a-Lago. There, he unceremoniously flopped in his mission to mitigate damages, which has since been followed by the pilgrimage of several other notable Trudeau lightweights to continue the conversation. Maybe Mr. Wonderful will have better luck.
You could be forgiven if you thought the main lessons learned from this episode are that Canadians have a very fragile sense of humor, and that they bristle at being reminded how fully dependent the Canadian economy is on America. All of that is, of course, true. But if you thought that was the main event, you’d be wrong. The two main takeaways are that any industry that is being protected will, at some point, have an economic and policy moment of reckoning, along the lines of Herbert Stein: If something cannot go on forever, it will stop. And the second lesson is that it will likely play out in part, in real time on X. The Trump-Trudeau show, however, is just a shiny bauble. The real policy landmine in America is immigration, both legal and illegal.
This brings us to the H-1B visa issue in America, which is currently being “debated,” right in front of our eyes on X. On the surface, it seems to be a relatively simple philosophical debate; are you in favor of bringing in foreign workers for the jobs that Americans allegedly cannot do? Or do you favor policies that incentivize hiring Americans? Battle lines are even being drawn among conservative thought leaders and MAGA-adjacent personalities like Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, and others.
Bingo. And this is where it behooves the Trump administration to learn from the failed Canadian experience with our H-1B visa equivalent: the Temporary Resident Permit or TRP.
Officially, the TRP gives status to non-citizens or permanent residents (the last step before citizenship) to be legally in Canada for a temporary purpose. This can include international students, tourists, or foreign workers. (The TRP does not apply to visa-exempt countries.)
The final, glaring issue with both the H-1B and TRP is the undeniable fact that they are gateways to North America’s robust anchor baby (“birth tourism”) industry. In Canada, birth tourism, aided and abetted by almost nonexistent enforcement has added extra layers of stress to Canada’s already fiscally unsustainable socialized medical system.
“Temporary” programs in both Canada and America rarely benefit their existing populaces. More often than not, they habitually displace and punish the middle class. That’s a feature and not a bug. The H-1B acts in a similar fashion for skilled, white-collar workers. Moreover, as Milton Friedman famously said, “There is nothing more permanent than a temporary government program.” Here’s hoping the incoming Trump administration takes heed of Canada’s abject failure to rein in its permanent “temporary” population and reigns in the policies that more often than not, discriminate, decimate, and impoverish the native citizenry.
For a while now, emerging AI has been treated by the Biden-Harris administration, but also the EU, the UK, Canada, the UN, etc., as a scourge that powers dangerous forms of “disinformation” – and should be dealt with accordingly.
According to those governments/entities, the only “positive use” for AI as far as social media and online discourse go, would be to power more effective censorship (“moderation”).
A new report from the US House Judiciary Committee and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government puts the emphasis on the push to use this technology for censorship as the explanation for the often disproportionate alarm over its role in “disinformation.”
The interim report’s name spells out its authors’ views on this quite clearly: the document is called, “Censorship’s Next Frontier: The Federal Government’s Attempt to Control Artificial Intelligence to Suppress Free Speech.”
The report’s main premise is well-known – that AI is now being funded, developed, and used by the government and third parties to add speed and scale to their censorship, and that the outgoing administration has been putting pressure on AI developers to build censorship into their models.
What’s new are the proposed steps to remedy this situation and make sure that future federal governments are not using AI for censorship. To this end, the Committee wants to see new legislation passed in Congress, AI development that respects the First Amendment and is open, decentralized, and “pro-freedom.”
The report recommends legislation along four principles, focused on preserving American’s right to free speech. The first is that the government cannot be involved when decisions are made in private algorithms or datasets regarding “misinformation” or “bias.”
The government should also be prohibited from funding censorship-related research or collaboration with foreign entities on AI regulation that leads to censorship.
Lastly, “Avoid needless AI regulation that gives the government coercive leverage,” the document recommends.
The Committee notes the current state of affairs where the Biden-Harris administration made a number of direct moves to regulate the space to its political satisfaction via executive orders, but also by pushing its policy through by giving out grants via the National Science Foundation, once again, aimed at building AI tools that “combat misinformation.”
But – “If allowed to develop in a free and open manner, AI could dramatically expand Americans’ capacity to create knowledge and express themselves,” the report states.
A Canadian doctor who was censored for discussing Covid topics during the pandemic is taking her legal battle to the country’s Supreme Court, in a bid to have free speech restrictions imposed on her finally removed.
Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill made the decision after the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled to uphold three “cautions” she received for tweets opposing what she considered to be harmful Covid lockdowns, published in August 2020.
These cautions were issued by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) in February 2021. The state’s medical regulator in 2020 warned medical professionals that the opinions they express should be in line with whatever the government or public health institutions decide is the correct information.
That included lockdowns, which Gill openly criticized early on, and continues to believe were ineffective in dealing with the pandemic. Besides her opinion, Gill also offered what her legal counsel says is “ample evidence” to CPSO to support her stance on the ineffectiveness of lockdowns.
As for the cautions, the doctor believes CPSO used them to censor her right to free expression, guaranteed by Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Twitter, where she posted her thoughts on the situation developing in 2020, has in the meantime become X, and this social platform is now supporting her by covering the legal costs, as she continues her effort to appeal against CPSO-imposed speech restrictions.
Those costs amounted to $6,000 as the lower court ruled to uphold the regulator’s decisions that targeted Gill in 2021.
Gill expressed her gratitude to X and Elon Musk for the support, and provided links about the details of the case in a post, saying that to “first do no harm” as a physician meant opposing lockdowns – and that this triggered a 5-year “unjust journey” for her.
“The growing overreach of regulators into monitoring the speech of professionals on social media has become a matter of national concern to the public, which loses the benefit of hearing a variety of opinions when professionals’ speech is chilled out of fear of punishment,” Gill’s lawyer Lisa Bildy said in a statement.
According to Bildy, her client spoke against lockdowns and other harmful Covid-era mandates aligning evidence-based concerns and her conscience – rather than obeying CPSO’s “edict” to align with whatever the authorities decided were the right measures.
Goal: To document the experience and views on mandated vaccination of healthcare workers in British Columbia.
Methods: Between May and July of 2024, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of healthcare workers in British Columbia. We recruited participants through a snowball sampling approach, including professional contacts, social media, and word-of-mouth.
Results: Close to half of respondents, with 16 or more years of professional experience, were unvaccinated, and most had been terminated due to non-compliance with mandates. As well, and regardless of vaccination status, most respondents reported safety concerns with vaccination and felt unfree to make their own vaccination choices, yet did not request exemptions due to high rejection rates by employers. Most of them also reported experiencing anxiety or depression, with about one fourth considering suicide, as a result of mandates. Nevertheless, most unvaccinated workers reported satisfaction with their choices, although they also reported significant, negative impacts of the policy on their finances, their mental health, their social and personal relationships, and to a lesser degree, their physical health. In contrast, within the minority of vaccinated respondents, most reported being dissatisfied with their vaccination decisions, as well as having experienced mild to serious post vaccine adverse events, with over half within this group reporting having been coerced into taking further doses, under threat of termination, despite these events. Further, a large minority of all respondents reported having witnessed underreporting or dismissal by hospital management of adverse events post vaccination among patients, worse treatment of unvaccinated patients, and concerning changes in practice protocols. Nearly half also reported their intention to leave the healthcare industry.
Discussion: Our findings indicate that in British Columbia, mandated vaccination in the healthcare sector had an overall negative impact on the well-being of the labour force, on the sustainability of the health system, on patient care, and on ethical healthcare practice. Findings resemble those of a similar study in the province of Ontario, with perhaps the most salient difference being that in British Columbia the policy was implemented at the provincial, rather than the healthcare establishment, level, leaving no room for individual establishments to opt out.
One of the most shocking findings from this study is that employer vaccination mandates led to suicidal thoughts in 23.5% of healthcare workers and depression/anxiety in 81.4%. This is likely because 80.1% of the respondents were terminated from their job for refusing experimental injections and subsequently suffered negative impacts on their finances, mental health, social and personal relationships, and physical health. These results suggest that vaccine mandates are likely a major contributing factor to the record-high depression rates observed since 2021:
The findings of this study confirm that vaccine mandates should never be implemented again, anywhere in the world, under any circumstances. As the authors concluded, the policy of mandated vaccination “failed on several fronts – scientific, pragmatic, and ethical.” Compensation is highly warranted for all individuals who refused to comply with mandates and were unethically terminated.
Nicolas Hulscher, MPH
Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation
I no longer trust “we the people,” because of the powers influencing them. Media and government schooling form their general ideas on reality and governance. Therefore, it’s not a case of the voter choosing the politicians. Instead, the system is conditioning and conforming the voter to the authorities’ desires.
In democracies, the people are kept occupied working and paying taxes, too busy to acquire information outside the approved sources. You will find they know and care far more about the next iPhone than political philosophy. Of those who hold some interest, 95% just toe the party line, holding the same opinion as the primary media source they listen to. They lack both the desire and time to expand their horizons.
Media’s purpose is to conform people’s thought to a preferred goal, which is why Republican and Democratic voters both firmly hold their parties’ general stances, reciting the same talking points. The people do not originate ideas; their thoughts are fed to them by the media so they can consume, digest, and parrot back whatever they are served. When it comes to politics, we rarely think for ourselves. We are told what to think.
Watch PBS, MSNBC and read your local newspaper for six months, and you will receive a particular view and understanding of the world. Then listen to The Mike Church Show, The Blaze, and The Daily Wire, and you will get not just another perspective but a whole different world of facts and events. The world people believe they live in can be entirely different depending on their news sources.
We enjoy seeing the enemy humiliated, which describes why those engulfed in politics love their preferred media sources; they keep returning for more like a drug addict. Networks ensure their “experts” align with the worldview they and their audience desire. The people who watch PBS, BBC, and so forth expect a specific perspective to be presented. Fox News watchers demand the same. In doing this, we both encourage and assure we are misled.
In their book Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government, professorsChristopher H. Achen and Larry M. Bartels argue, based on substantial research, thatvoters do not decide the party platform and agenda. Instead, the parties control the “ideologies” of the voters. When the party the voter identifies with changes its position, the individuals also change theirs. They discovered the individual would quickly adopt the views of their group; they will ignore or change their own opinions over time to fit in with the collective they identify with. Achen and Bartels wrote “group memberships largely drove policy views, not vice versa.” … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
On Tuesday police investigator Crivello said they were charging me at the behest of anti-Palestinian activist Dahlia Kurtz. The police officer said I had described Kurtz as a “genocide” supporter and “fascist” on Twitter, which is true.
Aletho News 