Tuesday, September 16, 2025

Professional regulators threaten free speech

Some professional regulatory bodies in Canada have begun the chilling practice of regulating the online and public speech of their members,  

Professional bodies have become a major threat to free speech | Free Speech Union of Canada | Lisa Bildy:

August 25, 2025 - "Fresh off his byelection win in Alberta, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre came out of the gates with a bold and definitive statement on social media: a professional body using its powers to regulate its members’ speech is 'authoritarian censorship.' As a lawyer who focuses on defending free speech cases, I couldn’t agree more. In recent weeks, developments in two of my cases demonstrated this problem and prompted Poilievre’s statement. 

"Nurse Amy Hamm in British Columbia received her penalty decision from the B.C. College of Nurses and Midwives’ disciplinary panel, which had found her guilty of unprofessional conduct in March for her gender-critical advocacy for the rights of women and children.  

"In the lengthy written decision of the panel, she was told that ... statements prioritizing biology over gender 'are discriminatory towards transgender people as (they exclude) them from the possibility of being women and girls.' In other words: it is not possible to advocate for sex-based rights — respectfully or not — because males self-identifying as women must always be included in the category of women, whether in prisons, rape shelters or sporting competitions.

"In another case, Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill, a specialist physician in Ontario, received a 'caution-in-person' by a committee of her regulator, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), for some of her online comments during the summer of 2020, when she criticized what she viewed as harmful, unethical and unscientific government-imposed responses to COVID, including lockdowns. The CPSO had issued an edict to all Ontario physicians, first published in April 2020, that they should not express views that did not 'align with information coming from public health or government' But physicians are also subject to other 'edicts,' such as their oath to 'first, do no harm,' which dictates that they speak out against harmful government policies.... Despite slow and grudging recognition over the last five years that lockdowns were indeed a panic and control-driven blunt instrument that caused irreparable harm and had little value, the caution proceeded.

"Many important discoveries and insights throughout history have come from dissident voices who were often censored or vilified for going against the perceived consensus. We are in such a time again, in which dissenting opinions are suppressed to protect preferred narratives that are often so steeped in misinformation and dogma that allowing a bit of evidence or common sense through the cracks would cause the whole edifice to fall.... [A]ll it can take is a complaint from a disgruntled member of the public to jump-start the process to 'correct' those opinions. In the cases of both Gill and Hamm, the complainants were not patients — they were strangers on the internet who saw an opportunity to weaponize the regulatory complaints process.....

"In Hamm’s case, she lost a job she held for 13 years at a Vancouver hospital after a group of her co-workers, most of whom express radical left-wing views, often while representing themselves as employees of the hospital, ganged up online and called for her termination. She endured a year-long workplace investigation, including aggressive questioning by the investigator, and was ultimately fired without severance. Nothing appears to have happened to her accusers, who were also regulated professionals. This double standard is not lost on the public, who can see it plain as day.

"Regulators have the power to punish professionals to such an oppressive degree that many simply sign undertakings not to speak on certain issues, make their social media accounts private or attend educational courses on 'professionalism.' The alternative — defending yourself against an accusation of unprofessional conduct — can mean paying exorbitant costs for your own prosecution. In Hamm’s case, she was ordered to pay over $93,600 to the college for its legal costs. Somehow, our society has decided that all of this is just fine.... And the courts defer to the 'expertise' of this managerial class, rendering it nearly impossible to successfully judicially review such decisions. In Gill’s case, she tried to appeal the cautions all the way to the Supreme Court, but was denied leave....

"I reject the premise that regulators, or any government or administrative body, should get to control anyone’s speech. For one thing, the people working in these institutions are fallible and have their biases like anyone else. Many are activists who are intent on forcing their views on anyone they can. Too much is left to the managerial class to decide when speech crosses some imaginary and entirely subjective line of ‘harm,' or is 'against the public interest.'

"Professionals, like everyone, should be allowed to speak freely. There will be concerns about this — we won’t always like what we hear — but we should get to hear them if we choose. In rare instances where speech rises to the level of criminality, police can deal with that. We must demand that our governments remove the powers of these bodies to regulate speech and opinions — they simply cannot be trusted with the job."

Lisa Bildy is a lawyer at Libertas Law and executive director of the Free Speech Union of Canada.

Read more: https://fsucanada.ca/lisa-bildy-professional-bodies-have-become-a-major-threat-to-free-speech/

Thursday, September 11, 2025

Trump endorses corporatism

President Trump has recently endorsed a policy that is arguably as socialist as anything proposed by New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani or Sen. Bernie Sanders — partial government ownership of private corporations.

Making Corporatism Great Again | Ron Paul Institute | Ron Paul:

Sep 8, 2025 - "President Trump has recently endorsed a policy that is arguably as socialist as anything proposed by New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani or Sen. Bernie Sanders — partial government ownership of private corporations.

"Earlier this year, as a condition of approving Nippon Steel’s purchase of US Steel, President Trump demanded Nippon give the US government a 'golden share' in US Steel. This golden share allows the US government to overrule Nippon’s management if the government determines Nippon is acting against US 'national security,' which means the government can overrule many decisions made by Nippon‘s management.

"Unfortunately, Nippon was not a 'one-and-done' excursion into corporatism. President Trump recently struck a deal with computer chip manufacturer Intel to give the company 8.9 billion dollars in government subsidies in exchange for ten percent of Intel’s stock. This deal makes the US government Intel’s largest stockholder!

"The Trump administration has promised that it will not use its position to undermine Intel’s board. However, the administration is reserving the right to counter Intel’s board if the administration determines the board is taking an action that would adversely impact the relationship of the company or its subsidiaries with the US government. So, the Trump administration is yet again giving itself power to manage a nominally private company.

"Enabling the government to control a private company (even if the government does not actually exercise its power) means the company’s management will base its decisions on what will please those currently in power, rather than on the desires of consumers.

"Government investment in corporations will cause politicians to make decisions based on what will profit the companies the government has 'invested' in while those companies’ competitors will seek to attract government investment in order to win special privileges for themselves.

"A corporation partially owned by government will be considered 'too big to fail' since its failure would cause the government to lose the money 'invested' in the businesses. So, the argument will be that a bailout will save the taxpayers money.

"According to a 2024 analysis by the World Bank — an organization not known as a supporter of free-market economics, companies of which government owns ten percent or more are six percent less profitable and have workforces that are 32 percent less productive.

"Some members of the Trump administration have suggested that the federal government take a partial ownership interest in defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has pointed out that big defense contractor Lockheed Martin, for example, is “basically an arm of the US government” since almost all its revenue comes from the US government. Secretary Lutnick has a point, but the closeness between the Pentagon and big corporations is an argument for restoring a noninterventionist foreign policy. Giving the government an ownership interest in defense contractors would allow the war party to argue that militarism is good for the taxpayer because it boosts the value of the government’s “investments”!

"Government 'investment' in private businesses will only worsen the twin plagues of corporatism and cronyism that afflict our political and economic systems. Instead of further entangling government and business, those seeking to make America great again should work to end the welfare-warfare-regulatory state and the fiat money system that makes it possible. The only path to prosperity is through a true free market, limited government, and a foreign policy of peace and free trade."

Copyright © 2025 The Ron Paul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
https://ronpaulinstitute.org/making-corporatism-great-again/

Tuesday, September 9, 2025

66,000 more jobs lost in Canada in August

Another 66,000 jobs disappeared in Canada in August, coming on top of a loss of 41,000 jobs in July.

Canadian economy bled 66,000 jobs in August as unemployment rate at its highest since 'pandemic days' | CBC News - Abby Hughes:

September 5, 2025 - "Canada's unemployment rate reached nearly its highest point since 2016 as the economy shed 66,000 jobs in August, according to new data from Statistics Canada. The unemployment rate rose 0.2 percentage points in August to 7.1 per cent, a level last seen in May 2016 if the COVID-19 years of 2020 and 2021 were excluded....

"The unemployment rate, or the number of people unemployed out of the total labour force, has been rising consistently this year, up from a 6.6 per cent rate in January.... 

"Reduced hiring and layoffs largely fuelled those numbers, Statistics Canada said, with the layoff rate rising to one per cent in August, compared to 0.9 per cent at the same time last year. 

"This comes after the economy lost a total of 41,000 jobs last month.....

"Statistics Canada says most of the jobs lost — some 60,000 — were part-time ones, while there was little change in the number of full-time jobs. Most of the losses were also among workers between 25 to 54 years old, with little change in youth employment.... 

"Pedro Antunes, Chief Economist at The Conference Board of Canada, says the report overall is bad news. He points out that while youth unemployment also remained high in August, that age group had previously made up more of the drag on jobs. But now, the losses in August were among the core age group in the workforce....

"A critical metric, called the participation rate, that shows how many people were economically active — either in jobs or actively looking for them — was at 65.1 per cent, also at its lowest since the pandemic.

"The transportation and warehousing sector lost 23,000 jobs and manufacturing bled 19,000. The scientific and technical services sector also dropped 26,000 jobs... Geographically, Canada's manufacturing hubs were also hit harder, with Windsor, Ont., reporting an unemployment rate of 11.1 per cent and Oshawa, Ont., reporting a nine per cent rate. Persistent uncertainty around U.S. trade policy has kept Canadian businesses on tenterhooks, leading to minimal hiring and investment.... 

"Chief economist at BMO Capital Markets Douglas Porter said ... the weak report could open the door to rate cuts by the Bank of Canada later this month though with inflation remaining high, that factor hasn't given them the 'all clear'.... Porter expects a rate cut when the central bank announces its next interest rate decision on Sept. 17."

Read more: cbc.ca/news/business/canadian-economy-bled-66-000-jobs-in-august-as-unemployment-rate-at-its-highest-since-pandemic-days-1.7625918

Thursday, September 4, 2025

Should U.S. Department of Defense rebrand?

U.S. president Trump wants to rebrand the Department of Defense as the "Department of War," its name before 1947. Ron Paul sees potential risks to the rebrand, but also some potential benefits if it's done right. 

Department of War? | Ron Paul Institute | Ron Paul: 

Sep 2, 2025 - "Last week President Trump took steps to re-name the Department of Defense the 'Department of War.' The President explained his rationale for the name change: 'It used to be called the Department of War and it had a stronger sound. We want defense, but we want offense too … As Department of War we won everything…and I think we…have to go back to that.'

"At first it sounds like a terrible idea. A 'Department of War' may well make war more likely – the 'stronger sound' may embolden the US government to take us into even more wars. There would no longer be any need for the pretext that we take the nation to war to defend this country and its interests – and only as a last resort. As Clinton Administration official Madeleine Albright famously asked of Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell when she was pushing for US war in the Balkans, 'What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?'

"So yes, that is a real danger. But at the same time, the US has been at war nearly constantly since the end of World War II, so it’s not like the 'Defense Department' has been in any way a defensive department. With that in mind, returning the Department of Defense to the Department of War, which is how it started, may not be such a bad idea after all – as long as we can be honest about the rest of the terms around our warmaking.

"If we return to a 'War Department,' then we should also return to the Constitutional requirement that any military activity engaged in by that department short of defending against an imminent attack on the US requires a Congressional declaration of war. That was the practice followed when it was called the War Department and we should return to it.

"Dropping the notion that we have a 'Defense Department' would free us from the charade that our massive military spending budget was anything but a war budget. No more 'defense appropriations' bills in Congress. Let’s call them 'war appropriations' bills. Let the American people understand what so much of their hard-earned money is being taken to support. It’s not 'defense.' It’s 'war.' And none of it has benefitted the American people.

"Trump misunderstands one very important thing in his stated desire to return to a 'War Department,' however. A tougher sounding name did not win the wars. Before the name change, which happened after the infamous National Security Act of 1947 that created the CIA and the permanent national security state, we won wars because for the most part we followed the Constitution and had a Congressional declaration of war. That way the war had a beginning and end and a clear set of goals. Since World War II the United States has not declared war even though it has been in a continuous state of war. It is no coincidence that none of these 'wars' have been won. From 1950 Korea to 2025 Yemen and everything in between.

"So go ahead and change it back to the 'Department of War.' But let’s also stop pretending that maintaining the global US military empire is 'defense.” It’s not."

Copyright © 2025 The Ron Paul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
https://ronpaulinstitute.org/department-of-war/

Friday, August 29, 2025

New Brunswick lifts ban on walking in the woods

The New Brunswick government has lifted its two-week ban on walking in the woods, but the Nova Scotia government continues to fine people for violating its ban.

25 people charged with violating Nova Scotia's woods and fire bans | Saltwire | Francis Campbell, Halifax Chronicle-Herald:

August 27, 2025 - "The Nova Scotia government’s commitment to crack down on people who ignore proclamations to stay out of the woods is not an empty promise. A spokesperson for the Natural Resources Department says there have been 15 charges laid for violations of the provincewide ban on open fires that started on July 30 and 10 charges for violating the woods restrictions that were implemented on Aug. 5.... 

"'To date, the people charged have not yet paid the fine but they have two months to voluntarily do that,' Adele Poirier, communications director with Natural Resources, said in an emailed response.... Those charged are required either to plead guilty and pay the amount payable within two months or to notify the court of an intention to appear in provincial court and plead not guilty and have a trial. A person charged can also plead guilty and make a penalty submission in court.

"The restrictions that came into effect Aug. 5 do not permit hiking, camping, fishing and the use of vehicles in the woods. The trail systems through the woods are off limits and camping is allowed only in campgrounds. The measures are in place on provincial Crown and private land until Oct. 15 or until the exceedingly dry conditions change enough to allow them to be lifted.... Private landowners are free to use their own properties but cannot host others to use wooded areas of their properties.

"On Monday, the New Brunswick government announced that after a two-week closure due to the high risk of wildfires in that province, Crown land would reopen to the public as of 12:01 a.m. Tuesday. New Brunswick Premier Susan Holt announced that restrictions remain on timber harvesting, which will only be allowed from 6 p.m. to noon and will be reassessed on a daily basis. The New Brunswick government reaffirmed that a provincewide ban on campfires and burning of any kind is still in place. 

"No such lifting of restrictions has been announced in Nova Scotia, where six active wildfires were burning Tuesday.... While the Nova Scotia government has signaled that the woods ban is a very serious measure not to be taken lightly, many residents have voiced their displeasure about the restrictions."
Read more: https://www.saltwire.com/nova-scotia/35-people-charged-nova-scotias-woods-fire-ban-25-thousand-dollar-fine

Jeffrey Evely challenges sweeping travel ban in Supreme Court of Nova Scotia | Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (news release):

August 20, 2025 - "The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that lawyers for Canadian war veteran Jeffrey Evely have filed a Notice for Judicial Review to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, challenging the province’s sweeping travel ban and Mr. Evely’s $28,872.50 fine for walking in the woods. An emergency hearing will be requested.

"Announced by Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston on August 5, the ban prohibits people from entering wooded areas for any purpose. Approximately 75 percent of the province is classified as 'woods.' The ban even applies to activities such as hiking, fishing, and walking, even though these carry no risk of starting fires. Mr. Evely is arguing that the travel ban is unreasonable and unconstitutional and violates his right to liberty and security of the person – protected by section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“'Nova Scotia’s travel ban doesn’t target risky activities, but rather treats people as the problem, and bans them from the woods for any purpose. Nova Scotia’s limit on people’s liberties under a blanket claim of ‘safety’ is not rational and has no logical limit,' said constitutional lawyer Marty Moore.

"Mr. Evely, who served in Afghanistan and Iraq, connects his past service to the country to the need to resist unreasonable and unconstitutional government edicts. 'I believe that it is important to have the woods ban proclamation reviewed in light of our Charter rights because I served in Afghanistan and Iraq, so I know how hard won these freedoms really are, especially once they are lost,' he said. 'I find the cavalier attitude with which these freedoms have been impaired to be a gross indignity to our fallen soldiers, and a moral injury to those of us still here.'"
Read more: https://www.jccf.ca/jeffrey-evely-challenges-sweeping-nature-ban-in-supreme-court-of-nova-scotia/

Why he purposely entered the woods — getting a $28K fine | CBC News Nova Scotia | August 13, 2025:

Wednesday, August 27, 2025

America needs an 'America First' foreign policy

"Americans elected Donald Trump in part for his promise to put America first at home and overseas. He promised a war-weary America that he would start no new wars and would get us out of the existing ones. Eight months into his second Administration it appears his promise remains to be fulfilled," 
 

August 25, 2025 - "After four years of unnecessarily confrontational foreign policy under President Biden, Americans elected Donald Trump in part for his promise to put America first at home and overseas. He promised a war-weary America that he would start no new wars and would get us out of the existing ones. Eight months into his second Administration it appears his promise remains to be fulfilled, as his approval rating continues to slip.

"On Ukraine, President Trump wisely observed coming into office that the conflict is 'Joe Biden’s war' not his own. Unfortunately he could not resist the temptation to get involved in the conflict, even under the guise of 'peacemaker.' I’ve often said that getting out of conflicts overseas is not that complicated: we should just come home. Even when there are no troops involved, 'just come home' means disengage from the conflict. But President Trump wants to play referee in the war while arming and supporting one side. Is it any wonder he is making no progress in ending the war?

"Likewise with Israel and Gaza, Trump’s promise to put America first has faltered. President Biden put Americans on the hook for additional billions of dollars to support Israel’s actions in Gaza without even a word about the slaughter and destruction. As more Americans become disgusted by Israel’s obliteration of the property and population of that tiny strip of land, Trump shows no signs of shifting from Biden’s approach. More money and more weapons are sent as starvation claims more and more children each day. Trump has reportedly remarked to a donor that his own base is turning against him because of his Israel policy. Yet he refuses to alter course and 'just come home.'

"Trump has even returned to the failed Latin America policy of his first Administration, in last week’s move toward a military confrontation with oil-rich Venezuela. Trump sent two warships and 4,000 US troops to the waters near Venezuela under the highly suspect accusation that the country’s president is actually head of an international drug cartel. He should have learned from the almost comical recognition of Juan Guaido as the real president of Venezuela in his first term that meddling in that country is not in America’s interest. It seems the neocons around him, including warhawk Marco Rubio, are sucking him into another unnecessary conflict.

"Add in Trump’s military attacks on Yemen and Iran and the balance sheet thus far does not point to an 'America first' foreign policy.

"There is still time for President Trump to change course and fulfill his promises to the American people. 
  • Put Ukraine and Russia on notice that from this point the US is withdrawing from any role in the conflict. Let the Europeans work it out if they feel it is in their interest. Getting us out of NATO is also a good idea.
  • End US financial and military support for an Israel that cannot seem to get along with its neighbors. Perhaps without the US backstopping Israel’s warmongering, the country and its leadership would start to reflect on the wisdom of starting wars with multiple countries in its neighborhood.
  • Stop trying to overthrow Venezuela’s Maduro and everyone else the neocons have placed on the 'hit list.' End all sanctions and open up trade instead. Maduro’s failed socialist economic policies will be his undoing, not American sanctions or saber-rattling.
"America first above all means 'just come home.' It’s that simple."

Copyright © 2025 The Ron Paul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

Thursday, August 21, 2025

Nurse ordered to pay $93K for online comments

British Columbia nurse Amy Hamm, whose 2020 co-sponsorship of a billboard praising J.K. Rowling led to a years-long investigation of her online comments by the B.C. College of Nurses and Midwives, has been suspended and ordered to pay the College almost $100,000. 

B.C. nurse suspended by college, asked to pay $94K in costs for comments about transgender people | CBC News | Canadian Press:

August 16, 2025 - "A B.C. nurse has been suspended and asked to pay nearly $94,000 in costs for making 'discriminatory and derogatory statements' about transgender people. The B.C. College of Nurses and Midwives says a disciplinary panel has issued a decision against Amy Hamm, suspending her for one month while also ordering her to pay the college costs and disbursements within two years.

"The panel said in its verdict in March that Hamm committed professional misconduct for making statements across 'various online platforms' between July 2018 and March 2021 that were partly designed 'to elicit fear, contempt and outrage against members of the transgender community.' The college says Hamm has filed an appeal of the discipline order in B.C. Supreme Court, and the decision on penalty and costs is stayed until that appeal has been resolved.... 

"Hamm has maintained that she is not transphobic, and she takes issue with an 'infringement on women and children's rights,' and was particularly concerned with transgender women having access to women-only spaces like prisons and change rooms. She previously said she completely rejects the concept of gender identity, calling it 'anti-scientific, metaphysical nonsense,' and on social media posts has referred to transgender women as men. 

"Hamm has received supportive statements from a wave of online followers, including author J.K. Rowling, and has written several columns for a variety of media outlets on multiple issues, including politics and crime, as well as sex and gender. She helped pay for a billboard in Vancouver supporting Rowling after she shared her views on gender identity online."

Read more: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/amy-hamm-discipline-bc-nurse-1.7610933

Amy Hamm with billboard in 2020. (Photo courtesy Amy Hamm / JCCF).

BC College of Nurses and Midwives orders Amy Hamm to pay $93,639.80 and suspends her license for one month | Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (news release):

August 14, 2025 - "Ms. Hamm had worked in healthcare for over 13 years and had been promoted to be a nurse educator. In 2020, she co-sponsored a Vancouver billboard that read, 'I ♥ JK Rowling,' referencing the author’s support for women’s rights and the right of women to access female-only spaces, such as washrooms, crisis centres, sporting events, and prisons. Following complaints from activists and a Vancouver city councillor, the billboard was removed, and two formal complaints were filed with the College accusing Ms. Hamm of transphobia and hate speech.

"The College launched an investigation that led to a 332-page report examining Ms. Hamm’s public statements between 2018 and 2021, including tweets, articles, and podcasts. The College’s Inquiry Committee argued that Ms. Hamm had made discriminatory and derogatory comments about transgender people while identifying as a nurse. After 22 days of hearings spanning a year and a half, the College’s disciplinary panel ruled that four of her statements amounted to unprofessional conduct.

"Ms. Hamm has already appealed the College’s finding of unprofessional conduct to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Her lawyer, Lisa Bildy, noted, 'In our view, the panel made a number of legal and factual errors that make the decision unsound, and we look forward to arguing these points before the BC Supreme Court. We are now considering whether to appeal the penalty decision as well.... This decision effectively penalizes a nurse for expressing mainstream views aligned with science and common sense,' continued Ms. Bildy. 'The Panel’s ruling imposes a chilling effect on free expression for all regulated professionals.'

"Ms. Hamm said, 'The College has chosen to punish me for statements that are not hateful, but truthful. I’m appealing because biological reality matters, and so does freedom of expression. I want to express my thanks to the thousands of Canadians who continue to fund my legal case through donations to the Justice Centre.'"

Read more: https://www.jccf.ca/bc-college-orders-amy-hamm-to-pay-93639-80/