Opinion
Don’t give campus censors more power — they’ll double down on woke agenda
From the MacDonald Laurier Institute
By Bruce Pardy
Expression on campus is already subject to the laws of the land, which prohibit assault, defamation, harassment, and more. The university has no need for a policy to adopt these laws and no power to avoid them.
Last Saturday, Liz Magill resigned as president of the University of Pennsylvania. Four days earlier she had testified before Congress about campus antisemitism. Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s code of conduct? “It is a context-dependent decision,” Magill equivocated. Billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman launched a campaign calling for Magill to step down, along with the presidents of Harvard and MIT, who testified alongside her. Their reluctance to condemn revealed a double standard. That double standard, like the titillation of a scandal, has distracted from the bigger mistake. Universities should not police the content of expression on their campuses.
In 2019, I invited a member of Penn’s law school to give a lecture at Queen’s University, where I teach. Some students at my law school launched a petition to prevent the talk. To their credit, administrators at Queen’s did not heed the call, even though the professor I invited, Amy Wax, had become a controversial academic figure. In 2017, she championed “bourgeois culture” in an opinion essay in the Philadelphia Inquirer (with Larry Alexander of the University of San Diego). The piece suggested that the breakdown of post-Second World War norms was producing social decay. Some cultures are less able than others, it argued, to prepare people to be productive citizens. Students and professors condemned the column as hate speech. It was racist, white supremacist, xenophobic and “heteropatriarchal,” they said.
Wax was not deterred. She continued to comment about laws and policies on social welfare, affirmative action, immigration, and race. When she was critical of Penn Law’s affirmative action program, the dean barred her from teaching first-year law students. In June 2023, he filed a disciplinary complaint against her, seeking to strip her of tenure and fire her. It accused Wax of “intentional and incessant racist, sexist, xenophobic and homophobic actions and statements.” The complaint alleged that she had violated the university’s non-discrimination policies and Principles of Responsible Conduct. But unlike others, allegedly, on Penn’s campus, Wax had not called for, nor was she accused of calling for, violence or genocide. She continues to wait for a decision in her case.
For years, North American universities have embraced certain political causes and blacklisted others. To stay out of trouble, choose carefully what you say. You can accuse men of toxic masculinity, but don’t declare that transgender women are men. You can say that black lives matter, but not that white lives matter too. Don’t suggest that men on average are better at some things and women at others, even if that is what the data says. Don’t attribute differential achievement between races to anything but racism, even if the evidence says otherwise. Don’t eschew the ideology of equity, diversity, and inclusion if you want funding for your research project. You can blame white people for anything. And if the context is right, maybe you can call for the genocide of Jews. Double standards on speech have become embedded in university culture.
Universities should not supervise speech. Expression on campus is already subject to the laws of the land, which prohibit assault, defamation, harassment, and more. The university has no need for a policy to adopt these laws and no power to avoid them. If during class I accuse two colleagues of cheating on their taxes, they can sue me for defamation. If I advocate genocide, the police can charge me under the Criminal Code.
In principle, universities should be empty shells. Professors and students have opinions, but universities should not. But instead, they have become political institutions. They disapprove of expression that conflicts with their social justice mission. Speech on campus is more restricted than in the town square.
The principle that universities should not supervise speech has a legitimate exception. Expression should be free but should not interfere with the rights of others to speak and to listen. On campus, rules that limit how, when, and where you may shout from the rooftops preserve the rights of your peers. Any student or professor can opine about the Ukrainian war, but not during math class. Protesters can disagree with visiting speakers but have no right to shout them down. Such rules do not regulate the content of speech, but its time and place. If you write a column in the student newspaper or argue your case in a debate, you interfere with no one. The university should have no interest in what you say.
Penn donors helped push Magill out the door. In the face of rising antisemitism, more donors and alumni in the U.S. and Canada are urging their alma maters to punish hateful expression. They have good intentions but are making a mistake. They want universities to use an even larger stick to censure speech. Having witnessed universities exercise their powers poorly, they seek to give them more. Universities will not use that larger stick in the way these alumni intend. Instead, in the long run, they will double down on their double standards. They are more likely to wield the stick against the next Amy Wax than against woke anti-Semites.
The way to defeat double standards on speech is to demand no standards at all. Less, not more, oversight from universities on speech is the answer. If a campus mob advocates genocide, call the police. The police, not the universities, enforce the laws of the land.
Bruce Pardy is executive director of Rights Probe and professor of law at Queen’s University.
This article supplied by Troy Media.
The supply management system is cracking. With imports climbing, strict quotas in place and Bill C202 on the table, we’re struggling to feed ourselves
Canada’s supply management system, once seen as a pillar of food security and agricultural self-sufficiency, is failing at its most basic function:
ensuring a reliable domestic supply.
According to the Canadian Association of Regulated Importers, Canada imported more than 66.9 million kilograms of chicken as of June 14, a 54.6 per cent increase from the same period last year. That’s enough to feed 3.4 million Canadians for a full year based on average poultry consumption—roughly 446 million meals. Under a tightly managed quota system, those meals were supposed to be produced domestically. Instead imports now account for more than 12 per cent of this year’s domestic chicken production, revealing a growing dependence on foreign supply.
Supply management is Canada’s system for regulating dairy, poultry and egg production. It uses quotas and fixed prices to match domestic supply with demand while limiting imports, intended to protect farmers from global price swings and ensure stable supply.
To be fair, the avian influenza outbreak has disrupted poultry production and partially explains the shortfall. But even with that disruption, the numbers are staggering. Imports under trade quotas set by the World Trade Organization, the Canada-United States Mexico Agreement and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership are running at or near their allowable monthly share—known as pro-rata
levels—signalling not just opportunity, but urgency. Supplementary import permits, meant to be used only in emergencies, have already surpassed 48 million kilograms, exceeding total annual import volumes in some previous years. This isn’t a seasonal hiccup. It’s a systemic failure.
The system, designed to buffer domestic markets from global volatility, is cracking under internal strain. When emergency imports become routine, we have to ask: what exactly is being managed?
Canada’s most recent regulated chicken production cycle, which ended May 31, saw one of the worst shortfalls in over 50 years. Strict quota limits stopped farmers from producing more to meet demand, leaving consumers with higher grocery bills and more imported food, shaking public confidence in the system.
Some defenders insist this is an isolated event. It’s not. For the second straight week, Canada has hit pro-rata import levels across all chicken categories. Bone-in and processed poultry, once minor players in emergency import programs, are now essential just to keep shelves stocked.
And the dysfunction doesn’t stop at chicken. Egg imports under the shortage allocation program have already topped 14 million dozen, a 104 per cent jump from last year. Not long ago, Canadians were mocking high U.S. egg prices. Now theirs have fallen. Ours haven’t.
All this in a country with $30 billion in quota value, supposedly designed to protect domestic production and reduce reliance on imports. Instead, we’re importing more and paying more.
Rather than addressing these failures, Ottawa is looking to entrench them. Bill C202, now before the Senate, seeks to shield supply management from future trade talks, making reform even harder. So we must ask: is this really what we’re protecting?
Meanwhile, our trading partners are taking full advantage. Chile, for instance, has increased chicken exports to Canada by more than 63 per cent, now accounting for nearly 96 per cent of CPTPP-origin imports. While Canada doubles down on protectionism, others are gaining long-term footholds in our market.
It’s time to face the facts. Supply management no longer guarantees supply. When a system meant to ensure resilience becomes a source of fragility, it’s no longer an asset—it’s an economic liability.
Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.
Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.
This article supplied by Troy Media.
U.S. President Donald Trump’s chaotic foreign policy is unravelling years of pressure on Iran and fuelling a surge of Iranian oil into global markets. His recent pivot to allow China to buy Iranian crude, despite previously trying to crush those exports, marks a sharp shift from strategic pressure to transactional diplomacy.
This unpredictability isn’t just confusing allies—it’s transforming global oil flows. One day, Trump vetoes an Israeli plan to assassinate Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. Days later, he calls for Iran’s unconditional surrender. After announcing a ceasefire between Iran, Israel and the United States, Trump praises both sides then lashes out at them the next day.
The biggest shock came when Trump posted on Truth Social that “China can now continue to purchase Oil from Iran. Hopefully, they will be purchasing plenty from the U.S., also.” The statement reversed the “maximum pressure” campaign he reinstated in February, which aimed to drive Iran’s oil exports to zero. The campaign reimposes sanctions on Tehran, threatening penalties on any country or company buying Iranian crude,
with the goal of crippling Iran’s economy and nuclear ambitions.
This wasn’t foreign policy—it was deal-making. Trump is brokering calm in the Middle East not for strategy, but to boost American oil sales to China. And in the process, he’s giving Iran room to move.
The effects of this shift in U.S. policy are already visible in trade data. Chinese imports of Iranian crude hit record levels in June. Ship-tracking firm Vortexa reported more than 1.8 million barrels per day imported between June 1 and 20. Kpler data, covering June 1 to 27, showed a 1.46 million bpd average, nearly 500,000 more than in May.
Much of the supply came from discounted May loadings destined for China’s independent refineries—the so-called “teapots”—stocking up ahead of peak summer demand. After hostilities broke out between Iran and Israel on June 12, Iran ramped up exports even further, increasing daily crude shipments by 44 per cent within a week.
Iran is under heavy U.S. sanctions, and its oil is typically sold at a discount, especially to China, the world’s largest oil importer. These discounted barrels undercut other exporters, including U.S. allies and global producers like Canada, reducing global prices and shifting power dynamics in the energy market.
All of this happened with full knowledge of the U.S. administration. Analysts now expect Iranian crude to continue flowing freely, as long as Trump sees strategic or economic value in it—though that position could reverse without warning.
Complicating matters is progress toward a U.S.-China trade deal. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told reporters that an agreement reached in May has now been finalized. China later confirmed the understanding. Trump’s oil concession may be part of that broader détente, but it comes at the cost of any consistent pressure on Iran.
Meanwhile, despite Trump’s claims of obliterating Iran’s nuclear program, early reports suggest U.S. strikes merely delayed Tehran’s capabilities by a few months. The public posture of strength contrasts with a quieter reality: Iranian oil is once again flooding global markets.
With OPEC+ also boosting output monthly, there is no shortage of crude on the horizon. In fact, oversupply may once again define the market—and Trump’s erratic diplomacy is helping drive it.
For Canadian producers, especially in Alberta, the return of cheap Iranian oil can mean downward pressure on global prices and stiffer competition in key markets. And with global energy supply increasingly shaped by impulsive political decisions, Canada’s energy sector remains vulnerable to forces far beyond its borders.
This is the new reality: unpredictability at the top is shaping the oil market more than any cartel or conflict. And for now, Iran is winning.
Toronto-based Rashid Husain Syed is a highly regarded analyst specializing in energy and politics, particularly in the Middle East. In addition to his contributions to local and international newspapers, Rashid frequently lends his expertise as a speaker at global conferences. Organizations such as the Department of Energy in Washington and the International Energy Agency in Paris have sought his insights on global energy matters.
Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.
Ontario man launches new challenge against province’s latest attempt to ban free expression on roadside billboards
Ottawa Funded the China Ferry Deal—Then Pretended to Oppose It
New Peer-Reviewed Study Affirms COVID Vaccines Reduce Fertility
This Canada Day, Celebrate Energy Renewal
-
Business2 days agoLatest shakedown attempt by Canada Post underscores need for privatization
-
Business2 days agoWhy it’s time to repeal the oil tanker ban on B.C.’s north coast
-
Alberta2 days agoPierre Poilievre – Per Capita, Hardisty, Alberta Is the Most Important Little Town In Canada
-
Aristotle Foundation2 days agoHow Vimy Ridge Shaped Canada
-
MxM News2 days agoUPenn strips Lia Thomas of women’s swimming titles after Title IX investigation
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta Provincial Police – New chief of Independent Agency Police Service
-
Energy2 days agoIf Canada Wants to be the World’s Energy Partner, We Need to Act Like It
-
International2 days agoCBS settles with Trump over doctored 60 Minutes Harris interview