From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Barry Cooper

Trudeau’s government suppresses dissent while selectively applying justice

Niccolò Machiavelli once wrote, “We’re going to emancipate ourselves from mental slavery because while others might free the body, none but ourselves can free the mind.” Today, Canadians are discovering just how difficult that is when government deception, media control and ideological overreach shape public discourse.

For over a decade, the Government of Canada has engaged in a campaign of misinformation, thought control and regulatory overreach, eroding public trust.

The COVID-19 response, media subsidies, regulatory censorship and suppression of dissent have created a de-factualized world where policy failures are covered up, critics are silenced and the government’s version of reality is reinforced through propaganda.

A majority of Canadians no longer believe their government. In a recent Ekos Research survey, 51 per cent of respondents said they distrust government decision-making, with that number climbing to 64 per cent in Alberta. In Quebec, 43 per cent distrust the government—a slightly lower figure but still significant.

Public faith in media is even worse. According to an Ipsos survey for the CRTC, only 32 per cent of Canadians trust that information provided by news media is accurate and impartial. In Alberta, only 24 per cent trust journalists. These numbers mirror those in the United States, where trust in legacy media is also at an all-time low. But instead of addressing why Canadians are losing faith in their institutions, the Trudeau government’s response has been to tighten control over public discourse rather than regain credibility.

Rather than correcting course, Ottawa has focused on “correcting” citizens’ thinking. Last year, Treasury Board President Anita Anand stated that government agencies must counter “misinformation and disinformation” through the Communications Community Once, a federal initiative aimed at shaping public perception rather than fixing policy failures.

At the same time, the government has entrenched its financial grip on media organizations. Bill C-18—the Online News Act—forced Big Tech to pay Canadian news organizations, making media outlets more financially dependent on Ottawa. Bill C-11—the Online Streaming Act—expanded CRTC regulatory control over digital platforms, including independent media and user-generated content. The Changing Narratives Fund, announced by the Heritage Department, provides taxpayer-funded incentives for newsrooms that push preferred narratives. As a result, the government now funds up to 50 per cent of newsroom salaries, compromising journalistic independence.

Meanwhile, alternative and dissenting voices face regulatory roadblocks that limit their reach.

This tightening of government control over information is part of a broader trend: suppressing opposition. The truckers’ convoy protests in 2022 demonstrated how far the government is willing to go. The Emergencies Act, originally designed for wartime use, was invoked against peaceful demonstrators opposing vaccine mandates. Instead of engaging with dissenting voices, the government labelled truckers as extremists, and there is circumstantial evidence that provocateurs were used to discredit the protest.

The legacy media amplified this false narrative, further reinforcing public distrust.

Since then, new laws have further expanded the government’s ability to police speech. Bill C-63—the Online Harms Act—proposes pre-emptive ones and restrictions on individuals based on potential future speech, forcing social media platforms to remove “harmful” content as defined by the government without parliamentary oversight. The bill also allows for ones of up to $50,000 for undefined “hate speech” violations. These measures fundamentally alter Canada’s legal tradition, shifting from punishing actual crimes to punishing possible future offences—a hallmark of totalitarian governance.

At the same time, the government has failed to take real action against foreign interference in Canada’s democracy. The 2024 NSICOP report revealed that some Canadian MPs actively collaborated with foreign governments to influence policy, the Chinese Communist Party manipulated nomination processes in safe electoral districts, and the Trudeau government ignored intelligence warnings and downplayed concerns.

Yet, when Trudeau was confronted at the 2024 G7 summit, he refused to confirm whether any Liberal MPs were involved, citing “national security.”

Contrast this with Trudeau’s aggressive stance toward India. While suppressing details about China’s election interference, the government publicly accused Indian diplomats of supporting violence in Canada, even leaking classified intelligence to the Washington Post. Instead of treating all foreign influence as a national security threat, the government selectively applies its policies based on political interests.

This contradiction is not an accident—it is part of a larger ideological framework. Trudeau has called Canada a “post-national state,” a phrase that explains much about his government’s priorities. National interests take a back seat to globalist policies, while ideological commitments override economic realities.

Energy policy is a prime example. Canada produces just 1.5 per cent of global CO2 emissions, yet Alberta’s energy sector is being dismantled while China and India expand fossil fuel production. Meanwhile, censorship laws are defended as “protecting democracy,” even as government-funded media become more reliant on Ottawa. These policies are not based on practical governance—they serve ideological commitments divorced from real-world consequences.

The Trudeau government is attempting to reshape Canada into an ideological state where dissent is punished, narratives are controlled and opposition is stifled under bureaucratic rule. But history has shown that such control is never absolute. No matter how much propaganda is pushed through media subsidies, censorship laws or “narrative correction” initiatives, people eventually recognize the truth.

The growing distrust in government, media and institutions is not an accident —it is a response to deception. If Canada’s political class refuses to change course, citizens will look elsewhere for leadership, truth and accountability.

And no amount of censorship or government messaging campaigns will stop them.

Read: New Essay By Barry Cooper Exposes Trudeau Government’s Web Of Deception (16 pages)

Barry Cooper is a professor of political science at the University of Calgary. Author of 35 books and 200 studies, his book on terrorism was recovered by Seal Team Six during their visit to the Osama bin Laden compound in Abbottabad in May 2011.

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

‘Dangerous’ pedophile Frederick Radcliffe, an inmate at the Grand Valley Institution for Women, has a violent criminal history that includes sexual assault charges.

A male pedophile, claiming to be a woman, is under investigation for sexually assaulting female inmates in a Canadian women’s prison.

According to information published February 25 by Reduxx, two female inmates have accused Frederick Radcliffe, who uses the name Carissa Marie, of sexual assault at the Grand Valley Institution (GVI) for Women.

“Why has the Correctional Service of Canada placed me in this housing situation with Radcliffe, knowing how vulnerable I am as a survivor of sexual abuse that already occurred here in GVI?” one victim using the pseudonym Emma asked. She had previously been sexually assaulted by another trans-identified male inmate

“Why don’t my rights matter? Why doesn’t the CSC care about the trauma I’ve gone through, and why have they put me in a situation where I could become a victim again?” she questioned.

Radcliffe has a violent criminal history dating to 1989 when he was convicted for multiple acts of indecent exposure to young female victims.

Since then, he has been charged with several counts of sexual assault against girls as young as 13 years old. He has been declared a dangerous offender and given an indefinite prison sentence.

In 2017, Radcliffe began claiming that he was a woman and asking to be placed in a female prison. In 2023, he was transferred to the GVI for women, where he was reportedly “predatory right from the start.”

While only two women have filed official reports, several more have reported being assaulted by Radcliffe. He has since been transferred to a high security unit due to his ongoing assaults against women.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time women have been attacked by gender-confused men in women’s shelters. While the shelters were designed to protect women from predators, Liberal policies have allowed male predators to enter the facilities if they claim they are a woman.

Under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the policy is to place prisoners according to their preferred gender, not according to biology. As a result, male rapists and murderers can be sent to prisons with females.

In August, a 32-year-old man using the name Desiree Anderson but also known as Cody D’Entremont was charged with sexual assault at a women’s shelter in Windsor, Ontario.

Similarly, in 2022, a convicted sex offender pretended to be a woman to gain access to a woman’s shelter. While there, he allegedly raped a female resident.

As LifeSiteNews previously reported, Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre recently condemned the policy after a “sadistic” killer claimed he is female and asked to be placed in a women’s prison.