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.
2025 Federal Election
2025 Election Interference – CCP Bounty on Conservative Candidate – Carney Says Nothing

Dan Knight
Liberal MP Paul Chiang echoes Beijing’s hit list, suggesting Joe Tay be delivered to Chinese consulate for cash—yet Mark Carney stays silent, proving the Liberal swamp is deeper than ever.
So let’s just recap, because this is almost too surreal to believe.
A sitting Liberal Member of Parliament—Paul Chiang—stood in front of a Chinese-language media outlet in January 2025 and said that if someone were to kidnap Joe Tay, a Conservative candidate and Canadian citizen, and deliver him to the Chinese Consulate in Toronto, they could “claim the one-million-dollar bounty.” That wasn’t some fringe YouTuber or anonymous social media post. That was a sitting MP, elected to represent Markham—Unionville, who also happens to serve as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion.
Let me be crystal clear here: that’s not just inappropriate. That’s not just “deplorable.” That’s language lifted directly from the Chinese Communist Party’s playbook. Joe Tay is on a real bounty list. Not fantasy. Not fiction. A real HK$1 million bounty placed on his head by the Hong Kong police for supporting democracy and speaking out against tyranny.
And what happens when a Canadian MP echoes that threat—on Canadian soil?
Nothing.
As of right now—this minute—Paul Chiang is still an MP in good standing in with the Liberals. Not suspended. Not removed from caucus. No RCMP probe. No parliamentary discipline. Nothing.
And the Carney campaign? The Liberal Party’s new face? Crickets. Absolute silence. Carbon Tax Carney, Trudeau’s old money-man turned globalist messiah, who’s spent the last month talking about “foreign interference” and demanding Pierre Poilievre get a security clearance? Not a word. Apparently, if a Conservative doesn’t submit to Ottawa’s surveillance state, it’s a national crisis. But if a Liberal MP plays mouthpiece for Beijing and jokes about abducting a political opponent? It’s just… Tuesday.
Imagine for a second that a Conservative MP had said anything remotely close to this—maybe even joked about placing a bounty on a Liberal politician funded by a foreign regime. Every major newsroom in the country would have declared martial law. CBC would be live for 72 hours straight. The RCMP would have launched a task force. But because it’s a Liberal, they issue a press release. A shrug. A “deplorable” comment, followed by a half-hearted apology and—get this—no consequences.
Now, contrast that with how they treated Ruby Dhalla. A former MP who dared to challenge the coronation of Carney. The party booted her from the leadership race, citing “financial irregularities.” That’s rich. They kicked her out—then kept the entrance fee. So her money’s good, just not her name on the ballot.
That’s the Liberal Party of Canada in 2025. A party so thoroughly compromised, so ideologically bankrupt, that they treat foreign bounties on Canadian citizens as a punchline—as long as the target is a Conservative. As long as the regime writing the check has the “right politics.”
And here’s the silver lining—because yes, even in this mess, there is one: we’re lucky this is all happening weeks out from the election. Because now, finally, Canadians get a front-row seat to the Liberal swamp in all its grotesque glory.
Paul Chiang joking about handing over a Canadian citizen to a foreign dictatorship? That’s not some isolated gaffe—it’s the mask slipping. And the silence from Mark “Bank of China” Carney? That’s the sound of a globalist technocrat who’s just as deep in the muck as the rest of them.
This is the Liberals unfiltered. Not the polished press conference CBC version—the real one. The one that looks the other way on foreign interference, cashes the CCP’s checks, and protects their own no matter how depraved the behavior.
So yes, it’s revolting. But it’s also revealing. And thankfully, it’s happening before Canadians head to the polls—because now there’s no excuse, no spin, no pretending. The Liberal Party isn’t just corrupt. It’s compromised. And the country can’t afford another minute of it.
Time to clean house. Time to drain the swamp—Chiang, Carney, and the whole rotten cartel.
2025 Federal Election
2025 Federal Election Interference from China! Carney Pressed to Remove Liberal MP Over CCP Bounty Remark

Sam Cooper
“This is shocking. Mr. Chiang openly encouraged people to assist in China interference and transnational repression,”
… the bounty on (his Conservative opponent) Tay was issued by the Hong Kong Police Force under its new national security laws, because Tay runs a YouTube channel in Canada that is critical of governance imposed from Beijing.
Conservative Party leaders have ramped up demands for Prime Minister Mark Carney to remove incumbent Liberal candidate Paul Chiang in a Toronto-area riding—alleging his predecessor Justin Trudeau ignored Chinese interference in 2021—after a shocking report revealed that Chiang, in an interview with Chinese media, encouraged Canadians to help deliver a political opponent to the Chinese consulate to collect a bounty.
The explosive story broke Friday after Chiang acknowledged his comments, made in January to Ming Pao, a Chinese-language outlet, and issued an apology in a post on X. However, Carney’s ongoing silence has fueled a wave of condemnation from Conservative leaders and democracy advocates in the Chinese-Canadian community, with influential Ottawa commentators warning this could become the first serious test of Carney’s leadership—and his party’s campaign.
According to The Bureau’s analysis of prior CSIS reporting, comments by Chiang—a former police officer in the Markham area—reflect a longstanding pattern of election interference by the People’s Republic of China in Canada, including the use of Chinese-language media in Toronto, operating under consular influence, to amplify pro-Beijing narratives and promote candidates perceived as sympathetic to the Chinese Communist Party.
Former Conservative leader Erin O’Toole suggested Saturday that the riding of Markham–Unionville, where Paul Chiang unseated incumbent Conservative Bob Saroya in 2021, was among several successfully targeted by Beijing’s interference operations—part of what he says weakened key Conservative campaigns and ultimately contributed to his resignation as party leader.
“This riding was one of the worst for Foreign Interference (FI) in 2021,” O’Toole wrote on X. “Comments from the MP/Candidate confirm longstanding concerns about the result. PM Trudeau ignored FI concerns. I hope PM Carney is more serious. He cannot allow this candidate to stand.”
Chiang, the sitting Member of Parliament and a candidate for re-election, was quoted in Ming Pao suggesting individuals could “claim the one-million-dollar bounty” placed by Hong Kong authorities on Conservative candidate Joe Tay—by bringing Tay to the Chinese consulate in Toronto. According to reporting, Chiang also remarked that Tay’s criminal charge under Hong Kong’s national security law would cause a “great controversy” if Tay were elected to Parliament, before issuing his bounty comment to laughter among the gathered Chinese journalists.
Chiang issued a brief apology after the remarks surfaced on Thursday. But the backlash has only intensified, with Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre accusing Chiang of echoing Chinese Communist Party repression—and Mark Carney of turning a blind eye.
“Liberal MP and candidate Paul Chiang’s heinous call to turn over a Canadian citizen to the authoritarian regime in Beijing in return for a Chinese Communist Party bounty is no accident—it reflects the Liberals’ long-standing mockery and neglect of national security for their own partisan gain,” Poilievre said Saturday.
“Carney is weak and compromised by money his company owes Beijing. His silence on these deplorable comments says it all. Carney must fire Paul Chiang as a candidate.”

Paul Chiang campaigns with chairman of the Federation of Chinese Canadians in Markham (FCCM), which has been noted for organizing and participating in events with Han Tao, the PRC Consul General in Toronto in 2021.
Veteran democracy activist Cheuk Kwan, co-chair of the Toronto Association for Democracy in China, surfaced Chiang’s remarks Friday and called for the MP to resign.
“This is shocking. Mr. Chiang openly encouraged people to assist in China interference and transnational repression,” Kwan said. “Rather than protecting Canadians, he betrayed them and jeopardized their safety.”
Kwan noted that the bounty on Tay was issued by the Hong Kong Police Force under its new national security laws, because Tay runs a YouTube channel in Canada that is critical of governance imposed from Beijing.
On Saturday, Michael Chong—who was himself targeted by Chinese diplomats according to Canadian intelligence—added his voice to the growing chorus of condemnation.
“Paul Chiang’s support for the CCP’s illegal and unjust bounty on a Canadian citizen is shocking,” Chong said. “The CCP is a hostile regime that has interfered in our elections, kidnapped and executed Canadian citizens and remains a grave threat to Canada’s national security.”
“Carney’s silence on his candidate creates the dangerous impression that he condones this despicable suggestion,” Chong added. “If he won’t remove a candidate for calling for the involuntary return of a political opponent in the service of another country, when will he stand up against foreign interference?”
Community leaders have long alleged that Beijing has delivered voters in key Canadian ridings to support candidates seen as aligned with its interests. As Cheuk Kwan put it Friday: “China has been mobilizing voters, especially those in ridings with a high concentration of Chinese Canadians, to vote for China-friendly candidates.”
“It purportedly assisted in the campaign of Chiang to defeat a highly popular Conservative incumbent in the 2021 election,” he said.
It remains unclear exactly how O’Toole and others, including Cheuk Kwan, believe China boosted Chiang’s candidacy—but alleged interference by the Chinese consulate targeting then-Conservative MP Bob Saroya came under scrutiny during a 2023 parliamentary committee hearing.
On April 14, 2023, the Procedure and House Affairs Committee examined allegations of foreign interference in the 2021 federal election, focusing on China’s activities in the Greater Toronto Area. Conservative MP Michael Cooper testified that Saroya received a threatening message from China’s Consul General Han Tao in Toronto roughly ten weeks before the vote.
The message, Cooper said, cryptically warned Saroya that he would “no longer be a Member of Parliament after the 2021 election.” Cooper characterized it as an attempt to intimidate or interfere with a sitting Canadian parliamentarian.
The hearing also saw testimony from Katie Telford, Chief of Staff to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who was asked about the government’s knowledge of the incident. Telford, citing security constraints, said she could neither confirm nor deny awareness of the message, referring the committee to prior testimony from Canadian security officials.
Telford is among the former Trudeau aides who backed Carney’s leadership.
Meanwhile, an October 2022 intelligence assessment from Canadian Security Intelligence Service provides critical context that helps illuminate Chiang’s remarks to an exclusive gathering of Chinese-language journalists in Toronto.
The leaked document, analyzed exclusively by The Bureau, warns that the PRC has carried out sophisticated political interference operations across Canada, including efforts to control election narratives in Chinese-language media and promote candidates favorable to Beijing’s agenda.
The classified document is labeled “Canadian Eyes Only” and describes how “traditional and online media outlets play an important role during election periods, offering a curated communications channel between political campaigns and the general public.”
Beijing, the report says, actively targets this election coverage, seeking “to manipulate and influence key media entities, control narratives, and disseminate disinformation.”
CSIS analysts trace the PRC’s growing influence over Canada-based Chinese-language media to demographic shifts and heavily resourced state efforts to infiltrate diaspora institutions.
In the Greater Toronto Area, the report says, “30 to 40 people in Chinese media circles meet regularly to come to a consensus regarding what or how an item will be published.” These individuals “act as gatekeepers to ensure whatever is reported in Chinese-language media adheres to pro-PRC narratives.”
“In Canada, a PRC ‘takeover’ of Chinese-language media has transpired over decades, derivative of the proportion of PRC-origin individuals increasing in Canada’s Chinese communities,” the CSIS document states.
This long-term effort has enabled Chinese consulates in Toronto and Vancouver to assert control over media associations, effectively dictating editorial lines. According to intelligence cited in the document, “almost all Chinese media outlets are controlled by local media associations and essentially say the same thing.”
On Saturday night, former Alberta Premier and senior Conservative MP Jason Kenney added his voice to the growing calls for Chiang’s removal, warning that his remarks sent a chilling signal to Canadians who already live in fear of transnational repression.
“This guy simply must be fired as a candidate by his party,” Kenney wrote on X. “This is not a partisan point.”
“I have spent decades working with Canadians who support democratic reforms and human rights in China: Tibetans, Uyghurs, Falun Gong practitioners, Hong Kong democracy activists, Tiananmen Square refugees, and others,” he continued. “Almost all of them live in fear, here in Canada, that their actions will result in dangerous consequences for them and their loved ones.”
“For an MP to encourage, or even ‘joke about,’ those consequences is well beyond the pale,” Kenney added. “It is odious, a fundamental and obvious violation of Canadian values.”
Mark Carney, who assumed leadership of the Liberal Party earlier this year, now faces the first serious Chinese interference scandal of his campaign—and of his nascent political leadership. Questions are also swirling about Carney’s own financial dealings with China, including meetings in Beijing while serving as a global investment executive and dealings with Bank of China as former Bank of England governor. Weeks after one such meeting in 2024, Brookfield Asset Management—where Carney was Vice Chair—received a quarter-billion-dollar loan from Bank of China.
Despite the growing chorus of criticism against Chiang, Carney has yet to comment publicly.
Carney, who has never been elected, has also yet to be seriously examined by an aggressive news media in Ottawa, according to some critics in the Conservative Party. In its report Friday, the National Post noted that when asked for further comment, Chiang’s campaign directed the Post to the candidate’s statement on X.
-
Alberta2 days ago
Province announces plans for nine new ‘urgent care centres’ – redirecting 200,000 hospital visits
-
Health2 days ago
Arkansas approves ivermectin for purchase without prescription
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Donald Trump suggests Mark Carney will win Canadian election, touts ‘productive call’ with leader
-
Business2 days ago
Elon Musk, DOGE officials reveal ‘astonishing’ government waste, fraud in viral interview
-
Health1 day ago
RFK Jr. says ‘everything is going to change’ with CDC vaccine policy in Michael Knowles interview
-
Business1 day ago
Labor Department cancels “America Last” spending spree spanning five continents
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Next federal government should recognize Alberta’s important role in the federation
-
Automotive1 day ago
Trump warns U.S. automakers: Do not raise prices in response to tariffs