A Totalitarian Wind: Not A Matter of When And If

Highly concerning what’s coming out of Europe right now—a continent Canada is determined to emulate in the name of “being a good global citizen.”
I’ll keep this short, but a couple of recent examples stood out.
Beyond the steady erosion of privacy laws (Canada has already opened that door, and the US isn’t far behind), we’re now seeing:
In the UK, a woman was assaulted, then arrested herself after a “friend” reported a private message in which she called her violent attacker a f****t. The actual physical assailant walked free.
This is the same country where police have told citizens to “watch what they say” online, and where people have faced investigation for calling officers “muppets.”

Non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs) are still logged by some police forces even when no crime has occurred. Thousands of these are recorded yearly, sometimes based on hurt feelings rather than threats or violence. People have been visited by police, questioned, or even arrested for social-media posts or private messages that were reported as “offensive.” The UK’s Online Safety Act (now in force) requires platforms to proactively remove “harmful” content, with the threat of massive fines or jail time for executives. Ofcom’s definition of harm is extremely broad and includes legal-but-offensive speech. Critics (including some left-leaning civil liberties groups) warn it will lead to mass preemptive censorship.

No good can come of this and many people merely expressing an opinion will have their lives ruined because of it. The unintended consequences are limitless - and foreseeable. 

Meanwhile, in Germany, early-morning police raids over social-media posts are now routine. One citizen had his door kicked in simply for calling politicians “parasites.” God help you if you post a meme.
Britain and Germany have reached roughly the same place: physical assault is often treated more leniently than the “crime” of hurting someone’s feelings with words.
Disclaimer from the authorities: this is all for your protection. For the children.

Luckily, the U.S. has resisted this totalitarian tide thanks to strong free speech protections found in the First Amendment. States have been echoing to enact similar laws in Europe but so far none has taken place.

The pattern across these countries is the same: authorities increasingly treat certain kinds of speech as equivalent to physical violence, and the response is often state force (arrests, raids, criminal records) rather than debate or social consequences. Whether that’s justified “protection” or creeping authoritarianism depends on where you draw the line, but the trend line is unmistakable—and it’s moving fast.

These are not the marks of an enlightened, progressive civilization. They are symptoms of a totalitarian retrenchment sliding into a deeply regressive state.

Canada: The Performative Arts

If you believe a pipeline from Alberta to B.C is going to be built, I have the Brooklyn Bridge to sell at at a discount. No money down," The Commentator 

*******

Since Justin Trudeau took office in 2015, through the COVID years, and now into the Mark Carney era in 2025, one thing keeps coming into focus: too much of Canadian politics feels like theatre.
We have all the institutions of a mature democracy—Parliament, an independent judiciary, regular elections—but somehow the country still struggles to act with cohesion or long-term conviction. Instead, we lurch from one global “current thing” to the next, often clinging to it long after the rest of the world has quietly moved on. We tell ourselves we’re showing moral leadership; more often we just look late to the party that’s already over.The latest production is the pipeline saga.
On paper, Ottawa has decided that new energy corridors are suddenly a great national project—never mind that Canada has been building pipelines for a hundred years. The same government that spent a decade preaching urgent climate action now insists this infrastructure is essential. Alberta, predictably, wants it yesterday. British Columbia, equally predictably, wants nothing to do with it.
So the solution is an MOU—big announcement, lots of handshakes, plenty of talk about “one economy” and “corridor projects.” What wasn’t announced quite so loudly is that British Columbia retains an effective veto, and everyone in the room knows how Premier Eby will use it. When the project inevitably stalls, Ottawa will have a ready excuse and a province to blame. Meanwhile, Donald Trump can still be rolled out as the all-purpose external villain for any economic turbulence.
It’s not exactly subtle.
The ethics testimony didn’t help. Senior officials, including the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff, insisted everything is above board and that Canada’s rules are world-leading. When someone casually invents an OECD endorsement that doesn’t exist, it’s hard to keep a straight face.
Mark Carney is many things—smart, experienced, globally connected—but his deep past (and in some cases continuing) ties to Brookfield and to U.S. energy infrastructure raise legitimate questions. When policy conveniently aligns with personal financial interests, people notice. Even if everything is technically within the rules, the optics are brutal, and the rules themselves feel written for a different era.
There were supposed to be firm timelines and committed investors. So far we’ve seen mostly photo ops.
Danielle Smith is playing the hand she was dealt; she knows an open fight right now would only hand Ottawa the villain it wants. Better to smile, sign the MOU, and wait.
In the end, the pipeline probably doesn’t get built. The announcement will still be counted as a win in some quarters because it bought time and spread the blame around.
That’s the part that stings: we’re a G7 country that can’t seem to lay steel in the ground without descending into the same provincial ritual dance. Meanwhile, parliamentary committees are still trying to figure out basic contract oversight in 2025 (see: Stellantis), as if competent administration is some bold new policy frontier.
Canada isn’t a colony, but sometimes it acts like a country that forgot it doesn’t have to audition for relevance anymore. We have the resources, the geography, the institutions, and the neighbourly backstop most nations can only dream of. What we keep missing is the will to use any of it decisively.
That’s not grift. It’s just drift. And drift at this scale starts to look a lot like decline.

Root, Root, Root For The Dodgers

My timing for this post is off—given that the Los Angeles Dodgers are likely to fall to the Toronto Blue Jays in the World Series—but it's one that points to something beyond baseball.In Canada, we live in a time when everyone's a "traitor" or "disloyal" to the collective tribe. COVID was illustrative of just how disconnected and disengaged we've become from taking our basic civil rights seriously.
You're a "traitor" for having taken part in the truckers' protest. An episode that spawned the noxious term "freedumbers" from dullards. If you question "climate change" or residential schools, you're engaging in "denialism" (of course, they'd never consider abortion a form of denialism, since they're prepared to fully ignore its harmful psychological and physical side-effects, which are detrimental to a healthy and strong community, culture, and society). And during the World Series, a new form of faux-patriotic fervor has emerged. Specifically, if you don't support "Canada's team," you're "disloyal."
A thin-skinned, passive-aggressive demand to "support the team" and "wear the damn ribbon" isn't my cup of tea.
Predictably unsurprising, the reliably tedious Canadian sports fan is out on social media complaining about how the Jays are disrespected—as if they're entitled to it—and that MLB wants them to lose, while talking smack all over the place.
Big-deal analysts chose the Dodgers to win. Vegas had them as favorites since spring training. It's not an example of "disrespecting" Toronto but just a sober (maybe lazy) reflection of going with the probabilities. And if there's a sport where probabilities reign, it's baseball.Not that I need to explain myself to the faux Canadian patriot, but here's why I root, root, root for the Dodgers.
When the Montreal Expos disappeared from the diamond forever, I figured rooting for another team would keep my interest in baseball going. So I stared up at the sky and asked myself: who is worthy? I spent many a rainy morning looking creepily out my window, deciding.Finally, I chose the Dodgers. Here's why. First off, they were a National League team, and I liked NL ball. I never considered the Blue Jays. Just because they were based in Canada wasn't a good enough reason for me. No offense.
However, there was a more historical and personal reason to settle on the Dodgers. The Montreal Royals were the farm team of the Brooklyn Dodgers from 1939–1960, if memory serves me right. My grandfather—who was a catcher—used to go watch the Royals and saw 42 play many times. By natural extension, he was a Dodgers fan, I think, too.
Many years later, I read a book on the Royals and loved the rich, albeit somewhat short, history and the legendary and colorful players and characters who wore its uniform: Don Drysdale, Tommy Lasorda, Roy Campanella, Roberto Clemente, Duke Snider (later teaming with the great Dave Van Horne calling Expos games), Gil Hodges, Carl Furillo, Sal Maglie, and others who helped turn Montreal into a big-league city.

And they were winners. The Royals are still considered among the greatest farm teams ever, having won seven league titles (Governor's Cup) and three Junior World Series in 1946, '48, and '53.
It was a golden age for both the Royals and Dodgers, with the big team heading to the World Series in '47, '49, '52, and '53, losing each time to the Yankees before finally defeating their mortal arch-rival bums in 1955. Not longer after they were off to Los Angeles, and the Royals folded in 1960. But those successful 20 years led to the arrival of Nos Amours—the fabulously eccentric Montreal Expos. To this day, the Expos are beloved in Montreal.
The only other potential teams a Montrealer could root for were the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox, given the popularity of those two teams.
So, it was logical to naturally migrate to the LA Dodgers.
What about Blue Monday? Crushing, yes, but water under the bridge. Ironically, it was like losing to family, given the two franchises were linked. You do what you can to cope, I reckon.To add a propeller to my beanie, I watched the Expos lose to the Dodgers 4-0 at Chavez Ravine in 1990.
And that's why I support the Dodgers.
Go Dodgers.