Canadian media refuses to attend Press Freedom scrum after Liberal minister denies access to two conservative journalists
In a rare moment of media solidarity, Canadian news outlets threatened to boycott a press conference with Minister of Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland at the Global Conference for Media Freedom: London 2019 after the only two conservative journalists present were denied access to the scrum.
According to several accounts, reporters Andrew Lawton from True North, and Sheila Gunn Reid from The Rebel, were the only two Canadians barred from a media availability event with Minister Freeland.
The conference which was co-hosted by Canada and the U.K. was advertised as an event seeking to promote press freedom around the world.
“The Global Conference for Media Freedom is part of an international campaign to shine a global spotlight on media freedom and increase the cost to those who are attempting to restrict it,” wrote a press release by Global Affairs Canada.
Before the press conference, journalists who were interested in attending to ask questions were told to report to Freeland’s press secretary and assemble in the foyer ahead of the event. Both Lawton and Gunn Reid were present among a number of other Canadian outlets including, CBC, CTV News, The Globe and Mail and Global News.
According to accounts, Freelands’s press secretary told the crowd that space was limited and some people might be excluded from attending.
“After her leaving and returning a few times, she finally came back and asked reporters and camera operators from CBC, CTV, Al Jazeera, Global and the Globe and Mail to follow her,” said Lawton.
“One of them asked her what about the rest. She replied by saying anyone else would have to stay behind. It was only Sheila Gunn Reid from the Rebel and I from True North who were excluded.”
The Post Millennial reached out to Global Affairs Canada for comment on the incident and the reasoning behind the decision to exclude the only two conservative reporters there but had not heard back by the time this article was published.
After it was discovered that the only conservative journalists present would be excluded from a press freedom conference with Freeland, the reporters present “unanimously” agreed to boycott the event until everybody could be allowed.
“The mainstream media, in particular CTV, lead the charge to boycott the press conference if any of us were cut from the press conference with the minister,” said Gunn Reid.
“We all watched Freeland talk about how it is a journalists right to ask hard questions to politicians in people in power in several plenary sessions this week, and yet when given the chance to put her own promises into practice, she failed.”
Currently, Canada is ranked 18th on the 2019 World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders only one space ahead of Urugay.
“The Liberal’s understanding of press freedom is that it only applies to those who will give favourable coverage to them; the sorts of coverage and “helpful op-eds” that Katie Telford knew she could elicit from a compliant media,” said Gunn Reid.
The Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF) is no stranger to controversy, but it was still a bit of a surprise to have their New York event on Cancelled Women cancelled by the New York Public Library (NYPL). The event is going ahead, and if you’re in New York tonight you should come check it out, but you’ll have to reserve a ticket to find out where.
Women always find a way to get around barriers put in place to keep them out, and women who have been locked out in one way or another are more than capable of picking themselves up, dusting themselves off, and starting again.
In this case, the event, An Evening with Cancelled Women, was booked into a room at the New York Public Library. All was moving along as planned, until the night before the deposit was due, WoLF Board Chair Natasha Chart received an email from the NYPL saying that the booking was cancelled. No reason was given. And the irony, of course, is plain: an event about cancelled women was cancelled.
It will never cease to amaze me how threatened people are by women, getting together in libraries, to talk. Drag queens in full costume reading to and occasionally flashing children is fine, but women talking about their experiences? Absolutely not.
Libraries in Vancouver, Seattle, and Toronto have been protested for hosting talks by gender critical feminists, but those libraries have not caved to pressure the way the NYPL has. As a long-time lover of the NYPL, its beautiful research and reading rooms, its exhibits, history, massive archive, and dedication to scholarship, this was both hugely disappointing and surprising.
The root of all this is the continued divide in feminism over whether or not biological sex is a fantastical concept, or simply an unalterable aspect of reality. Transgender ideology has taken hold of our culture and it refuses to let go. But the truly crazy thing is that most people don’t actually believe that surgeries, hormone treatments, and wishing really hard can change your sex. Instead, people just say that they do in order to not hurt trans people’s feelings.
The women who will be featured at the event include Dominique Christina, Posie Parker, Meghan Murphy, Linda Bellos, Natasha Chart, and myself. All of these women are outspoken about their unwillingness to accept trans women as women, balk at the term cis, refuse to allow women’s spaces to be overrun with men, and reveal the truth about the butchering being done to children in the name of transgender lies.
They have been harassed and derided for these views before, and for the most part would rather not have to talk about it all the time. But so much of women’s experience is being erased under the guise of trans acceptance. Language about women and women’s bodies is being altered to include male-bodied persons—pregnant woman is now pregnant person, the word mother is now an identity and not a verb, even menstrual products are being rebranded to eliminate references to women. Women’s sports are inclusive of men who say they are women, leading to men winning women’s championship titles in cycling, track & field, and that’s just the beginning, as the IOC has opened the doors for trans women to compete in the 2020 Tokyo Olympics.
Women are expected to sit back and quietly take it, whatever is thrown at them, to acquiesce, to give in, and they are threatened when they don’t. These women have proven that they will not be silenced, and the more people that want them to shut up, the louder they will speak. Erasing and cancelling women may be the going trend, but we’re not going to accept it just because trans activists want us to.
Watchdog organization Freedom House released a new report this week warning that several of the nation’s largest news publications—the Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Wall Street Journal, to name a few—are serving as propaganda outlets for the Chinese government.
The report, titled “Beijing’s Global Megaphone” states that the Chinese Communist Party has employed the use of state-owned news organizations like China Daily to promote the country’s policies through U.S.-based publications through the periodic inclusion of a “paid news-like advertising supplement” from Chinese state proxy, China Daily, called China Watch. It’s called native advertising, and the content is designed to give the reader the false impression that the articles they’re reading local content from these newspapers.
Freedom House reports that similar advertorials have also been published in newspapers elsewhere in the world, including the United Kingdom, Australia, Spain, and India. It’s a global effort to make China look good, curtailing perhaps the negative press over its treatment of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang Province and pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong.
While some of the content is paid for, others are provided free of charge to their media partners from Chinese state news agencies like Xinhua and China News Service, operating with a model similar to Reuters and the Associated Press—but with news biased in favour of the Chinese regime. According to the report, which borrows from a November 2018 investigation by the Financial Times, the news provided by these agencies is nominally reprinted for the Chinese diaspora in at least 200 supposedly independent Chinese-language publications. Readers are given the impression that the content is native to nominally independent publications but is repackaged propaganda by the Chinese government.
The nation has, for a long time, “sought to influence public debate and media coverage about China outside the country, particularly among Chinese-speaking communities.” Freedom House states that the complexity of the tactics used by the Chinese are new, and combines the country’s official diplomatic efforts with subversive activities that undermine not only the sovereignty of the nations they target, but severely affect independent media. After all, no one wants to buy fake news.
Curiously, the report found that “Russian-style social media disinformation campaigns,” which were blown out of proportion by the Democrats following the 2016 election, have been attributed to China-based perpetrators. The perpetrators of these campaigns are referred to as the “50 Cent Army” by Hong Kong protesters and pro-democracy activists who deal with fake pro-China social media accounts.
The impact of China’s attempt to manipulate the narrative through social media and news publications cannot be understated. Beijing’s control of the free press effectively cedes the information infrastructure of targeted countries to the Chinese with little to no pushback. Other arms of the Chinese government—notably their tech giants like Huawei—are working in tandem with their propagandists to acquire contracts to build 5G networks and other telecoms infrastructure in countries as far as the Faroe Islands.
Furthermore, China’s propaganda extends well beyond promoting China as a tourist destination or simply downplaying the horrors in Xinjiang. According to Freedom House’s findings, the propaganda also presents China as a model for other countries. “[T]hey are taking concrete steps to encourage emulation through trainings for foreign personnel and technology transfers to foreign state-owned media outlets.”
All these efforts allow China to heavily influence local politics to its benefit, earning both government contracts and control over the local infrastructure as well as allowing Beijing to meddle directly in internal political debates and even elections.
Should democracy hope to survive the 21st century, much needs to be done to curtail China’s influence not just in North America, but worldwide, where other sovereign nations remain vulnerable to the Chinese hegemony. If left unchecked, China will—sooner or later—take over the world, and the next time you’ll hear from us is through a letter written on toilet paper in a Chinese prison cell.
The Democratic debates took that place in Iowa saw a heavy moderator bias against Bernie Sanders, prompting many Democrat voters to trend #CNNisTrash and #NeverWarren.
A few days ago, “sources” told CNN that Bernie expressed doubt to Elizabeth Warren on whether a woman can win the Presidency.
Bernie Sanders called the allegations “ludicrous,” saying “it’s sad that, three weeks before the Iowa caucus and a year after that private conversation, staff who weren’t in the room are lying about what happened.”
He added, “Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016.”
But Warren’s campaign refused to respond.
Elizabeth Warren later said confirmed that Bernie had told her this, but refused to go into details.
This spar between a socialist and a seemingly-progressive candidate was weaponized by CNN when during the debates on January 14th.
Moderators asked Bernie whether he said a woman couldn’t win. He, again, denied it and added that, in fact, he had asked Elizabeth Warren to run against Hillary Clinton and he only ran because Warren refused.
The moderators, then, asked him the same question again. He denied these allegations again.
However, then the moderators went on to asked Elizabeth Warren if she “agrees with Bernie’s claim that a woman can’t win”, to which Bernie and the audience laughed.
Elizabeth Warren responded with, “I disagree” and changed the topic.
But that wasn’t all. CNN also spent a major portion of the debate on whether US troops should stay in the Middle-East. Bernie Sanders was the only one who said they should be pulled out.
However, when it came to the question of healthcare, the moderators kept asking Bernie “how he was going to pay for it.”
If the bias against Bernie Sanders couldn’t be more clear, CNN framed questions and headlines with an explicit anti-Bernie tone.
Many on the left and right were furious at the utter lack of objectivity from CNN, causing a spike in the hashtag #CNNisTrash.
At the end of the debate, Bernie reached out to Elizabeth Warren for a handshake, which she explicitly refused. Hence, Bernie supporters also began trending the #NeverWarren hashtag.
On Google, CNN promoted explicitly promoted Warren to undermine Bernie.
Many in other mainstream media outlets such as MSNBC and the Hill, were also confused by this explicit anti-Bernie bias by CNN.
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is going ahead with legal proceedings against the University of British Columbia after the Canadian university refused to reinstate Andy Ngo’s speaking engagement on antifa violence.
The JCCF issued a press release that stated: “The Free Speech Club and UBC entered into a contract on November 25, 2019 to hold the event, and the club paid the required booking deposit. The UBC Executive unilaterally cancelled the event in December 2019, stating in an email shortly before Christmas that this was necessary due to concerns ‘about the safety and security of our campus community.’ No specific concerns were stated. If UBC had safety concerns, it did not communicate any specific concerns to The Free Speech Club, or make efforts to address such concerns.”
The JCCF previously sent UBC a letter demanding that the event be reinstated. Lawyer Marty Moore stated that “UBC’s decision effectively punishes a victim of violence by banning him from speaking at UBC, in what appears to be an attempt to appease the violent group antifa.”
Ngo, who is the Editor-at-large for The Post Millennial, said, “The appropriate response to violent extremists who threaten access to information in the academy is not to give in to their demands by cancelling the event. As is demonstrated over-and-over elsewhere, appeasing Antifa ideologues only emboldens them to make more demands. Their goal is to silence opposition through intimidation and violence.”