Podcasts about free expression

Today we're talking about the growing controversy surrounding America's relationship with Israel, and the disturbing pattern of censorship that follows anyone who dares to even question it. Why are discussions about foreign influence and government transparency being shut down? Why are prominent voices silenced the moment they speak against powerful interests? We're asking the uncomfortable questions no one in the mainstream media wants to touch, from the suppression of speech to the "alliances" shaping U.S. policy, and praising those few, like Candace Owens, who refuse to back down in the pursuit of real justice and truth.This episode isn't about taking sides, it's about demanding honesty, accountability, and the freedom to ask hard questions without fear.

American society has been transformed in the last half century by the entry into the workforce of large numbers of women. Equal gender opportunity has commanded a large consensus for most of that time, but there are some dissenters. Gerry Baker's guest this week on Free Expression is author and commentator Helen Andrews. She's made waves in this month with an article decrying the "Feminization of America" saying the explosion of woke ideas and cancel culture can be directly attributed to the large numbers of women who now work in the law, academia, and the media. Together they discuss the rise of women, its benefits and perils for society and whether it really means the rule of law in America is in peril. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Online platforms have created unprecedented opportunities for individuals to share ideas and reach wider audiences. Supporters of these platforms point to how they have reduced barriers to participation, providing new and creative opportunities for discourse and connection. Critics, however, raise concerns that these platforms can allow the spread of misinformation, the amplification of offensive speech, or the power of private companies to shape which voices are heard and which are silenced. The internet has become a central arena in debates about the scope and limits of free expression.The United States has long valued the First Amendment's broad protections, but public support is waning. A 2024 Freedom Forum poll found that only 58 percent of Americans would ratify it today—down five points in four years. Critics argue that certain types of speech, while legal, can cause harm or suppress the voices of vulnerable groups. Free speech advocates warn that narrowing protections will risk government censorship and shrink the space for open debate.This tension raises an important question: Are current interpretations of the First Amendment sufficient to safeguard free expression in the digital age? To mark Free Speech Week, we are hosting two prominent scholars to debate this issue. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For most of the last few centuries, advances in scientific understanding have seemed to undermine arguments for the existence of God. Physical phenomena ascribed to a deity have been discovered to have natural explanations. But some think that recent scientific discoveries have actually strengthened the case for the existence of at least some supernatural original creator. A new book, by Michel-Yves Bolloré and Olivier Bonnassies, two French authors, argues for a science-based belief in God. On this episode of Free Expression, Gerry Baker speaks with Bolloré, one of the authors of “God, the Science, the Evidence”. They discuss how the Big Bang and the creation of the universe could be the first sign of a creator, how a belief in God is different from having faith, and whether reason can make the case that Jesus Christ was the Son of God.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

There's more going on in that infamous Republicans groupchat than most realize but the real issue isn't the gossip, it's how easily people trade conviction for comfort. In this episode, we talk about the growing weakness on the Right, the danger of valuing offense over free speech, and why all of our rights must be protected at all costs. We'll also cover more updates on the Charlie Kirk case and how Trump's failures in his second term (including his refusal to release the Epstein list and his submission to Israel) prove that no man should ever be placed where only God belongs.--https://policecoffee.com/collections/coffee

The Mayday USA organizers requested access to a traditional public forum home to frequent constitutionally protected expressive activity. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

We may be seeing peace break out in the Middle East, but it's still trade war elsewhere - especially with China. Donald Trump has threatened a 100% tariff on the rival superpower if Beijing goes through with its plan to impose tough restrictions on exports of the rare earth minerals critical to the U.S. economy. These could well be mere negotiating tactics but they're a reminder of the wider friction that now dominates global economic relations.   On this episode of Free Expression, Gerry Baker speaks with Neil Shearing, Group Chief Economist of Capital Economics and author of “The Fractured Age: How the Return of Geopolitics Will Splinter the Global Economy.” They discuss Shearing's argument that the world is dividing into two giant economic blocs and what that might mean for stability and peace. They also talk about some unusual developments in global markets of late, especially a weakening dollar and a soaring gold price - the last of which Shearing believes is driven by Chinese official policy.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What if online harassment isn't random at all—but part of a strategy? In this explosive episode of The Healthier Tech Podcast, host R Blank talks with Viktorya Vilk, Director of Digital Safety and Free Expression at PEN America, about how governments, corporations, and tech platforms are turning the internet into a weapon against free speech. Viktorya reveals how political power, economic pressure, and digital surveillance now intersect to create an ecosystem where journalists, writers, and even librarians are targeted for speaking out. She breaks down how authoritarian tactics, media consolidation, and platform indifference have combined to make the online world hostile to truth—and what each of us can do to push back.   In This Episode: How the U.S. dropped to 57th in global press freedom rankings—and why that's not an accident The chilling new playbook: online harassment as a censorship tool Why Big Tech's business model thrives on surveillance, fear, and silence How Facebook and Google siphoned 70% of online ad revenue, collapsing local journalism Real-life examples of reporters attacked, arrested, and digitally terrorized for telling the truth The practical digital safety steps every person can take—starting today Why Viktorya refuses to give in to “tech nihilism” and insists users have power   Why You Should Listen This isn't just a podcast about harassment or privacy—it's about democracy, power, and your voice. Viktorya explains how the same digital forces that endanger journalists are eroding safety and free expression for everyone. But she also shares concrete tools to rebuild your sense of control online: from password hygiene and privacy audits to collective advocacy that pressures tech platforms to act responsibly. She makes one thing clear: silence is the goal of harassment—and awareness is the antidote.   Connect With Viktorya Vilk: Website: https://pen.org Social Handles: LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/viktorya-v-a65b9235/ X: @VilkViktorya   Resources Mentioned in the Episode: Field Manual Against Online Harrassment: https://onlineharassmentfieldmanual.pen.org/  Online abuse & Digital Safety Programs: https://pen.org/online-abuse-digital-safety/  Treating online abuse like Spam: https://pen.org/report/treating-online-abuse-like-spam/ Shouting into the void: https://pen.org/report/shouting-into-the-void/  No Excuse for abuse: https://pen.org/report/no-excuse-for-abuse/    Connect with R Blank: For more Healthier Tech Podcast episodes, and to download our Healthier Tech Quick Start Guide, visit https://HealthierTech.co and follow https://instagram.com/healthiertech    Additional Links: EMF Superstore: https://ShieldYourBody.com (save 15% with code “pod”) Digital Wellbeing with a Human Soul: https://Bagby.co (save 15% with code “pod”) Youtube: https://youtube.com/shieldyourbody Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bagbybrand/  Tiktok: https://www.tiktok.com/@bagby.co Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/shieldyourbody  This episode is brought to you by Shield Your Body—a global leader in EMF protection and digital wellness. Because real wellness means protecting your body, not just optimizing it. If you found this episode eye-opening, leave a review, share it with someone tech-curious, and don't forget to subscribe to Shield Your Body on YouTube for more insights on living healthier with technology.

Timothy K. Minella, Senior Fellow at the Goldwater Institute's Van Sittert Center for Constitutional Advocacy, joins the show to discuss the urgent debate over free speech following the Charlie Kirk tragedy. He also talks about the Goldwater Institute's hit new podcast, Dismantling DEI, which dives deep into how Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs continue to shape college campuses and threaten open dialogue across America.

In America and much of the West, it's become axiomatic to regard colonialism as a stain on human history. The story told in classrooms and popular culture is one of unrelenting exploitation of hapless people of color by white imperialists. And the narrative has contemporary relevance: demands for reparations for the victims of oppression - But is the modern West's history really a litany of crimes against humanity? Should we pay reparations to the victims? On this episode of Free Expression, Gerry Baker explores these themes with Nigel Biggar, author of “Reparations: Slavery and the Tyranny of Imaginary Guilt.” They discuss Lord Biggar's experiences in the “culture wars,” the attempts to silence him, and take a critical look at the belief that a debt needs to be paid to the descendants of slaves.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Morocco's theocratic monarchy claims to protect free expression, yet an activist faces jail time and denial of cancer treatment because she wore a t-shirt that said, "Allah is lesbian". This glaring contradiction exposes how religious authority uses caveats in the law to maintain control, proving that freedom of expression means nothing if the "right to offend" is stripped away. Her heroism in pointing out the system's flaws shows that where laws are unjust, speaking out is a duty, regardless of the staggering personal cost.  News Source: Moroccan woman on trial for blasphemy after wearing a shirt to that challenged religious authority By Akram Ubashir for Religious News Service August 28th, 2025

Drawn from the biblical story in the book of Genesis, “Babel” has come to stand for the challenge of communication across linguistic, cultural, and ideological divides—the confusion and fragmentation that arise when we no longer share a common tongue or understanding. Today's guest John Wihbey,  an associate professor of media Innovation at Northeastern University and the author of a new book titled Governing Babel: The Debate Over Social Media Platforms and Free Speech—And What Comes Next that tries to find an answer to how we can create the space to imagine a different information environment that promotes democracy and consensus rather than division and violence. The book is out October 7 from MIT Press.

Last week at the United Nations, Donald Trump derided the climate change movement, calling it a ‘con job,' a view that the Republican party signed onto as the president won his second term last year. While it may not be a hoax, there's growing evidence that the supposed catastrophe climate change represents has been way overblown. One person whose views have undergone a radical change in recent years is Ted Nordhaus, co-founder and director of the Breakthrough Institute. On this episode of the Free Expression podcast, Gerry Baker speaks to Nordhaus, who explains how he has stopped worrying and learned, if not to love, then at least to accept the limited cost of climate change. He argues that government incentives have created a ‘climate industrial complex' that continues to promote an alarmist message, but says the U.S. is actually on the right track in tackling climate change Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

** There are less than 10 tickets remaining for the live recording of Uncommons with Catherine McKenna on Thursday Oct 2nd. Register for free here. **On this two-part episode of Uncommons, Nate digs into Bill C-2 and potential impacts on privacy, data surveillance and sharing with US authorities, and asylum claims and refugee protections.In the first half, Nate is joined by Kate Robertson, senior researcher at the University of Toronto's Citizen Lab. Kate's career has spanned criminal prosecutions, regulatory investigations, and international human rights work with the United Nations in Cambodia. She has advocated at every level of court in Canada, clerked at the Supreme Court, and has provided pro bono services through organizations like Human Rights Watch Canada. Her current research at Citizen Lab examines the intersection of technology, privacy, and the law.In part two, Nate is joined by Adam Sadinsky, a Toronto-based immigration and refugee lawyer and co-chair of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers' Advocacy Committee. Adam has represented clients at every level of court in Canada, including the Supreme Court, and was co-counsel in M.A.A. v. D.E.M.E. (2020 ONCA 486) and Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (2023 SCC 17).Further Reading:Unspoken Implications A Preliminary Analysis of Bill C-2 and Canada's Potential Data-Sharing Obligations Towards the United States and Other Countries - Kate Robertson, Citizen LabKate Robertson Chapters:00:00 Introduction & Citizen Lab03:00 Bill C-2 and the Strong Borders Act08:00 Data Sharing and Human Rights Concerns15:00 The Cloud Act & International Agreements22:00 Real-World Examples & Privacy Risks28:00 Parliamentary Process & Fixing the BillAdam Sadinsky Chapters:33:33 Concerns Over Asylum Eligibility in Canada36:30 Government Goals and Fairness for Refugee Claimants39:00 Changing Country Conditions and New Risks41:30 The Niagara Falls Example & Other Unfair Exclusions44:00 Frivolous vs. Legitimate Claims in the Refugee System47:00 Clearing the Backlog with Fair Pathways50:00 Broad Powers Granted to the Government52:00 Privacy Concerns and Closing ReflectionsPart 1: Kate RobertsonNate Erskine-Smith00:00-00:01Kate, thanks for joining me.Kate Robertson00:01-00:01Thanks for having me.Nate Erskine-Smith00:02-00:15So I have had Ron Debert on the podcast before. So for people who really want to go back into the archive, they can learn a little bit about what the Citizen Lab is. But for those who are not that interested, you're a senior researcher there. What is the Citizen Lab?Kate Robertson00:16-01:00Well, it's an interdisciplinary research lab based at University of Toronto. It brings together researchers from a technology standpoint, political science, lawyers like myself and other disciplines to examine the intersection between information and communication technologies, law, human rights, and global security. And over time, it's published human rights reports about some of the controversial and emerging surveillance technologies of our time, including spyware or AI-driven technologies. And it's also really attempted to produce a thoughtful research that helps policymakers navigate some of these challenges and threats.Nate Erskine-Smith01:01-02:50That's a very good lead into this conversation because here we have Bill C-2 coming before Parliament for debate this fall, introduced in June, at the beginning of June. And it's called the Strong Borders Act in short, but it touches, I started counting, it's 15 different acts that are touched by this omnibus legislation. The government has laid out a rationale around strengthening our borders, keeping our borders secure, combating transnational organized crime, stopping the flow of illegal fentanyl, cracking down on money laundering, a litany of things that I think most people would look at and say broadly supportive of stopping these things from happening and making sure we're enhancing our security and the integrity of our immigration system and on. You, though, have provided some pretty thoughtful and detailed rational legal advice around some of the challenges you see in the bill. You're not the only one. There are other challenges on the asylum changes we're making. There are other challenges on lawful access and privacy. You've, though, highlighted, in keeping with the work of the Citizen Lab, the cross-border data sharing, the challenges with those data sharing provisions in the bill. It is a bit of a deep dive and a little wonky, but you've written a preliminary analysis of C2 and Canada's potential data sharing obligations towards the U.S. and other countries, unspoken implications, and you published it mid-June. It is incredibly relevant given the conversation we're having this fall. So if you were to at a high level, and we'll go ahead and some of the weeds, but at a high level articulate the main challenges you see in the legislation from the standpoint that you wrote in unspoken implications. Walk us through them.Kate Robertson02:51-06:15Well, before C2 was tabled for a number of years now, myself and other colleagues at the lab have been studying new and evolving ways that we're seeing law enforcement data sharing and cross-border cooperation mechanisms being put to use in new ways. We have seen within this realm some controversial data sharing frameworks under treaty protocols or bilateral agreement mechanisms with the United States and others, which reshape how information is shared with law enforcement in foreign jurisdictions and what kinds of safeguards and mechanisms are applied to that framework to protect human rights. And I think as a really broad trend, what is probably most, the simplest way to put it is that what we're really seeing is a growing number of ways that borders are actually being exploited to the detriment of human rights standards. Rights are essentially falling through the cracks. This can happen either through cross-border joint investigations between agencies in multiple states in ways that essentially go forum shopping for the laws and the most locks, that's right. You can also see foreign states that seek to leverage cooperation tools in democratic states in order to track, surveil, or potentially even extradite human rights activists and dissidents, journalists that are living in exile outside their borders. And what this has really come out of is a discussion point that has been made really around the world that if crime is going to become more transient across borders, that law enforcement also needs to have a greater freedom to move more seamlessly across borders. But what often is left out of that framing is that human rights standards that are really deeply entrenched in our domestic law systems, they would also need to be concurrently meaningful across borders. And unfortunately, that's not what we're seeing. Canada is going to be facing decisions around this, both within the context of C2 and around it in the coming months and beyond, as we know that it has been considering and in negotiation around a couple of very controversial agreements. One of those, the sort of elephant in the room, so to speak, is that the legislation has been tabled at a time where we know that Canada and the United States have been in negotiations for actually a couple of years around a potential agreement called the CLOUD Act, which would quite literally cede Canada's sovereignty to the United States and law enforcement authorities and give them really a blanket opportunity to directly apply surveillance orders onto entities, both public and private in Canada?Nate Erskine-Smith06:16-07:46Well, so years in the making negotiations, but we are in a very different world with the United States today than we were two years ago. And I was just in, I was in Mexico City for a conference with parliamentarians across the Americas, and there were six Democratic congressmen and women there. One, Chuy Garcia represents Chicago district. He was telling me that he went up to ICE officials and they're masked and he is saying, identify yourself. And he's a congressman. He's saying, identify yourself. What's your ID? What's your badge number? They're hiding their ID and maintaining masks and they're refusing to identify who they are as law enforcement officials, ostensibly refusing to identify who they are to an American congressman. And if they're willing to refuse to identify themselves in that manner to a congressman. I can only imagine what is happening to people who don't have that kind of authority and standing in American life. And that's the context that I see this in now. I would have probably still been troubled to a degree with open data sharing and laxer standards on the human rights side, but all the more troubling, you talk about less democratic jurisdictions and authoritarian regimes. Well, isn't the U.S. itself a challenge today more than ever has been? And then shouldn't we maybe slam the pause button on negotiations like this? Well, you raise a number of really important points. And I think thatKate Robertson07:47-09:54there have been warning signs and worse that have long preceded the current administration and the backsliding that you're commenting upon since the beginning of 2025. Certainly, I spoke about the increasing trend of the exploitation of borders. I mean, I think we're seeing signs that really borders are actually, in essence, being used as a form of punishment, even in some respects, which I would say it is when you say to someone who would potentially exercise due process rights against deportation and say if you exercise those rights, you'll be deported to a different continent from your home country where your rights are perhaps less. And that's something that UN human rights authorities have been raising alarm bells about around the deportation of persons to third countries, potentially where they'll face risks of torture even. But these patterns are all too reminiscent of what we saw in the wake of 9-11 and the creation of black sites where individuals, including Canadian persons, were detained or even tortured. And really, this stems from a number of issues. But what we have identified in analyzing potential cloud agreement is really just the momentous decision that the Canadian government would have to make to concede sovereignty to a country which is in many ways a pariah for refusing to acknowledge extraterritorial international human rights obligations to persons outside of its borders. And so to invite that type of direct surveillance and exercise of authority within Canada's borders was a country who has refused for a very long time, unlike Canada and many other countries around the world, has refused to recognize through its courts and through its government any obligation to protect the international human rights of people in Canada.Nate Erskine-Smith09:56-10:21And yet, you wrote, some of the data and surveillance powers in Bill C-2 read like they could have been drafted by U.S. officials. So you take the frame that you're just articulating around with what the U.S. worldview is on this and has been and exacerbated by obviously the current administration. But I don't love the sound of it reading like it was drafted by AmericanKate Robertson10:22-12:43officials. Well, you know, it's always struck me as a really remarkable story, to be frank. You know, to borrow Dickens' tale of two countries, which is that since the 1990s, Canada's Supreme Court has been charting a fundamentally different course from the constitutional approach that's taken the United States around privacy and surveillance. And it really started with persons looking at what's happening and the way that technology evolves and how much insecurity people feel when they believe that surveillance is happening without any judicial oversight. And looking ahead and saying, you know what, if we take this approach, it's not going to go anywhere good. And that's a really remarkable decision that was made and has continued to be made by the court time and time again, even as recently as last year, the court has said we take a distinct approach from the United States. And it had a lot of foresight given, you know, in the 1990s, technology is nowhere near what it is today. Of course. And yet in the text of C2, we see provisions that, you know, I struggle when I hear proponents of the legislation describe it as balanced and in keeping with the Charter, when actually they're proposing to essentially flip the table on principles that have been enshrined for decades to protect Canadians, including, for example, the notion that third parties like private companies have the authority to voluntarily share our own. information with the police without any warrant. And that's actually the crux of what has become a fundamentally different approach that I think has really led Canada to be a more resilient country when it comes to technological change. And I sometimes describe us as a country that is showing the world that, you know, it's possible to do both. You can judicially supervise investigations that are effective and protect the public. And the sky does not fall if you do so. And right now we're literally seeing and see to something that I think is really unique and important made in Canada approach being potentially put on the chopping block.Nate Erskine-Smith12:44-13:29And for those listening who might think, okay, well, at a high level, I don't love expansive data sharing and reduced human rights protections, but practically, are there examples? And you pointed to in your writing right from the hop, the Arar case, and you mentioned the Supreme Court, but they, you know, they noted that it's a chilling example of the dangers of unconditional information sharing. And the commission noted to the potentially risky exercise of open ended, unconditional data sharing as well. But that's a real life example, a real life Canadian example of what can go wrong in a really horrible, tragic way when you don't have guardrails that focus and protect human rights.Kate Robertson13:31-14:56You're right to raise that example. I raise it. It's a really important one. It's one that is, I think, part of, you know, Canada has many commendable and important features to its framework, but it's not a perfect country by any means. That was an example of just information sharing with the United States itself that led to a Canadian citizen being rendered and tortured in a foreign country. Even a more recent example, we are not the only country that's received requests for cooperation from a foreign state in circumstances where a person's life is quite literally in jeopardy. We have known from public reporting that in the case of Hardeep Najjar, before he was ultimately assassinated on Canadian soil, an Interpol Red Notice had been issued about him at the request of the government of India. And the government had also requested his extradition. And we know that there's a number of important circumstances that have been commented upon by the federal government in the wake of those revelations. And it's provoked a really important discussion around the risks of foreign interference. But it is certainly an example where we know that cooperation requests have been made in respect of someone who's quite literally and tragically at risk of loss of life.Nate Erskine-Smith14:57-16:07And when it comes to the, what we're really talking about is, you mentioned the Cloud Act. There's also, I got to go to the notes because it's so arcane, but the second additional protocol to the Budapest Convention. These are, in that case, it's a treaty that Canada would ratify. And then this piece of legislation would in some way create implementing authorities for. I didn't fully appreciate this until going through that. And I'd be interested in your thoughts just in terms of the details of these. And we can make it as wonky as you like in terms of the challenges that these treaties offer. I think you've already articulated the watering down of traditional human rights protections and privacy protections we would understand in Canadian law. But the transparency piece, I didn't fully appreciate either. And as a parliamentarian, I probably should have because there's... Until reading your paper, I didn't know that there was a policy on tabling of treaties That really directs a process for introducing treaty implementing legislation. And this process also gets that entirely backwards.Kate Robertson16:09-17:01That's right. And, you know, in researching and studying what to do with, you know, what I foresee is potentially quite a mess if we were to enter into a treaty that binds us to standards that are unconstitutional. You know, that is a diplomatic nightmare of sorts, but it's also one that would create, you know, a constitutional entanglement of that's really, I think, unprecedented in Canada. But nevertheless, that problem is foreseen if one or both of these were to go ahead. And I refer to that in the cloud agreement or the 2AP. But this policy, as I understand it, I believe it was tabled by then Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier, as he was at the time, by Prime Minister Harper's government.Nate Erskine-Smith17:02-17:04He's come a long way.Kate Robertson17:07-18:12I believe that the rationale for the policy was quite self-evident at the time. I mean, if you think about the discussions that are happening right now, for example, in Quebec around digital sovereignty and the types of entanglements that U.S. legal process might impact around Quebec privacy legislation. Other issues around the AI space in Ontario or our health sector in terms of technology companies in Ontario. These treaties really have profound implications at a much broader scale than the federal government and law enforcement. And that's not even getting to Indigenous sovereignty issues. And so the policy is really trying to give a greater voice to the range of perspectives that a federal government would consider before binding Canada internationally on behalf of all of these layers of decision making without perhaps even consulting with Parliament First.Nate Erskine-Smith18:12-19:15So this is, I guess, one struggle. There's the specific concerns around watering down protections, but just on process. This just bothered me in particular because we're going to undergo this process in the fall. And so I printed out the Strong Borders Act, Government of Canada Strengthens Border Security and the backgrounder to the law. And going through it, it's six pages when I print it out. And it doesn't make mention of the Budapest Convention. It doesn't make mention of the Cloud Act. It doesn't make mention of any number of rationales for this legislation. But it doesn't make mention that this is in part, at least, to help implement treaties that are under active negotiation. not only gets backwards the policy, but one would have thought, especially I took from your paper, that the Department has subsequently, the Justice Department has subsequently acknowledged that this would in fact help the government implement these treaties. So surely it shouldKate Robertson19:15-19:57be in the background. I would have thought so. As someone that has been studying these treaty frameworks very carefully, it was immediately apparent to me that they're at least relevant. It was put in the briefing as a question as to whether or not the actual intent of some of these new proposed powers is to put Canada in a position to ratify this treaty. And the answer at that time was yes, that that is the intent of them. And it was also stated that other cooperation frameworks were foreseeable.Nate Erskine-Smith19:59-20:57What next? So here I am, one member of parliament, and oftentimes through these processes, we're going to, there's the objective of the bill, and then there's the details of the bill, and we're going to get this bill to a committee process. I understand the intention is for it to be a pretty fulsome committee hearing, and it's an omnibus bill. So what should happen is the asylum components should get kicked to the immigration committee. The pieces around national security should obviously get kicked to public safety committee, and there should be different committees that deal with their different constituent elements that are relevant to those committees. I don't know if it will work that way, but that would be a more rational way of engaging with a really broad ranging bill. Is there a fix for this though? So are there amendments that could cure it or is it foundationally a problem that is incurable?Kate Robertson20:58-21:59Well, I mean, I think that for myself as someone studying this area, it's obvious to me that what agreements may be struck would profoundly alter the implications of pretty much every aspect of this legislation. And that stems in part from just how fundamental it would be if Canada were to cede its sovereignty to US law enforcement agencies and potentially even national security agencies as well. But obviously, the provisions themselves are quite relevant to these frameworks. And so it's clear that Parliament needs to have the opportunity to study how these provisions would actually be used. And I am still left on knowing how that would be possible without transparencyNate Erskine-Smith22:00-22:05about what is at stake in terms of potential agreements. Right. What have we agreed to? If thisKate Robertson22:05-24:57is implementing legislation what are we implementing certainly it's a significantly different proposition now even parking the international data sharing context the constitutional issues that are raised in the parts of the bill that i'm able to study within my realm of expertise which is in the context of omnibus legislation not the entire bill of course yeah um but it's hard to even know where to begin um the the the powers that are being put forward you know i kind of have to set the table a bit to understand to explain why the table is being flipped yeah yeah we're at a time where um you know a number of years ago i published about the growing use of algorithms and AI and surveillance systems in Canada and gaps in the law and the need to bring Canada's oversight into the 21st century. Those gaps now, even five years later, are growing into chasms. And we've also had multiple investigative reports by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada being sent to Parliament about difficulties it's had reviewing the activities of law enforcement agencies, difficulties it's had with private sector companies who've been non-compliant with privacy legislation, and cooperating at all with the regulator. And we now have powers being put forward that would essentially say, for greater certainty, it's finders keepers rules. Anything in the public domain can be obtained and used by police without warrant. And while this has been put forward as a balancing of constitutional norms, the Supreme Court has said the opposite. It's not an all or nothing field. And in the context of commercial data brokers that are harvesting and selling our data, including mental health care that we might seek online, AI-fueled surveillance tools that are otherwise unchecked in the Canadian domain. I think this is a frankly stunning response to the context of the threats that we face. And I really think it sends and creates really problematic questions around what law enforcement and other government agencies are expected to do in the context of future privacy reviews when essentially everything that's been happening is supposedly being green lit with this new completely un-nuanced power. I should note you are certainly not alone in theseNate Erskine-Smith24:57-27:07concerns. I mean, in addition to the paper that I was talking about at the outset that you've written as an analyst that alongside Ron Deaver in the Citizen Lab. But there's another open letter you've signed that's called for the withdrawal of C2, but it's led by open media. I mean, BCCLA, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Council for Refugees, QP, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, Penn Canada, the Center for Free Expression, privacy experts like Colin Bennett, who I used be on the Privacy Committee and that were pretty regular witnesses. You mentioned the Privacy Commissioner has not signed the open letter, but the Privacy Commissioner of both Canada and the Information Commissioner of Ontario, who's also responsible for privacy. In the context of the treaties that you were mentioning, the Budapest Convention in particular, they had highlighted concerns absent updated, modernized legislation. And at the federal level, we have had in fits and starts attempts to modernize our private sector privacy legislation. But apart from a consultation paper at one point around the Privacy Act, which would apply to public sector organizations, there's really been no serious effort to table legislation or otherwise modernize that. So am I right to say, you know, we are creating a myriad number of problems with respect to watering down privacy and human rights protections domestically and especially in relation to foreign governments with relation to data of our citizens here. And we could potentially cure those problems, at least in part, if we modernize our privacy legislation and our privacy protections and human rights protections here at home. But we are, as you say, a gap to chasm. We are so woefully behind in that conversation. It's a bit of an odd thing to pass the open-ended data sharing and surveillance piece before you even have a conversation around updating your privacy protections.Kate Robertson27:07-28:13Yeah, I mean, frankly, odd, I would use the word irresponsible. We know that these tools, it's becoming increasingly well documented how impactful they are for communities and individuals, whether it's wrongful arrests, whether it's discriminatory algorithms. really fraught tools to say the least. And it's not as if Parliament does not have a critical role here. You know, in decades past, to use the example of surveillance within Quebec, which was ultimately found to have involved, you know, years of illegal activity and surveillance activities focused on political organizing in Quebec. And that led to Parliament striking an inquiry and ultimately overhauling the mandate of the RCMP. There were recommendations made that the RCMP needs to follow the law. That was an actual recommendation.Nate Erskine-Smith28:14-28:16I'm sorry that it needs to be said, but yeah.Kate Robertson28:16-29:05The safeguards around surveillance are about ensuring that when we use these powers, they're being used appropriately. And, you know, there isn't even, frankly, a guarantee that judicial oversight will enable this to happen. And it certainly provides comfort to many Canadians. But we know, for example, that there were phones being watched of journalists in Montreal with, unfortunately, judicial oversight not even that many years ago. So this is something that certainly is capable of leading to more abuses in Canada around political speech and online activity. And it's something that we need to be protective against and forward thinking about.Nate Erskine-Smith29:05-29:58Yeah, and the conversation has to hold at the same time considerations of public safety, of course, but also considerations for due process and privacy and human rights protections. These things, we have to do both. If we don't do both, then we're not the democratic society we hold ourselves out as. I said odd, you said irresponsible. You were forceful in your commentary, but the open letter that had a number of civil society organizations, I mentioned a few, was pretty clear to say the proposed legislation reflects little more than shameful appeasement of the dangerous rhetoric and false claims about our country emanating from the United States. It's a multi-pronged assault on the basic human rights and freedoms Canada holds dear. Got anything else to add?Kate Robertson30:00-30:56I mean, the elephant in the room is the context in which the legislation has been tabled within. And I do think that we're at a time where we are seeing democratic backsliding around the world, of course, and rising digital authoritarianism. And these standards really don't come out of the air. They're ones that need to be protected. And I do find myself, when I look at some of the really un-nuanced powers that are being put forward, I do find myself asking whether or not those risks are really front and center when we're proposing to move forward in this way. And I can only defer to experts from, as you said, hundreds of organizations that have called attention towards pretty much every aspect of this legislation.Nate Erskine-Smith30:57-31:44And I will have the benefit of engaging folks on the privacy side around lawful access and around concerns around changes to the asylum claim and due process from the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. But as we do see this move its way through Parliament, if we see it move its way through Parliament in the fall, if they're recognizing that the call was for withdrawal, but also recognizing a political reality where if it is to pass, we want to make sure we are improving it as much as possible. If there are amendments along the way, if there are other people you think that I should engage with, please do let me know because this is before us. It's an important piece of legislation. And if it's not to be withdrawn, we better improve it as much as possible.Kate Robertson31:46-32:02I appreciate that offer and really commend you for covering the issue carefully. And I really look forward to more engagement from yourself and other colleagues in parliament as legislation is considered further. I expect you will be a witness at committee,Nate Erskine-Smith32:02-32:06but thanks very much for the time. I really appreciate it. Thanks for having me.Part 2: Adam SadinskyChapters:33:33 Concerns Over Asylum Eligibility in Canada36:30 Government Goals and Fairness for Refugee Claimants39:00 Changing Country Conditions and New Risks41:30 The Niagara Falls Example & Other Unfair Exclusions44:00 Frivolous vs. Legitimate Claims in the Refugee System47:00 Clearing the Backlog with Fair Pathways50:00 Broad Powers Granted to the Government52:00 Privacy Concerns and Closing ReflectionsNate Erskine-Smith33:33-33:35Adam, thanks for joining me.Adam Sadinsky33:35-33:36Thanks for having me, Nate.Nate Erskine-Smith33:36-33:57We've had a brief discussion about this, by way of my role as an MP, but, for those who are listening in, they'll have just heard a rundown of all the concerns that the Citizen Lab has with data surveillance and data sharing with law enforcement around the world. You've got different concerns about C2 and you represent the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. What are your concerns here?Adam Sadinsky33:57-35:31I mean, our biggest concern with this bill is new provisions that create additional categories of folks ineligible to claim asylum in Canada. And specifically to have their hearings heard at the Immigration and Refugee Board. The biggest one of those categories is definitely, a bar on individuals making refugee claims in Canada one year after they have arrived in Canada, and that's one year, whether they have been in Canada for that whole year or they left at some point and came back. Those folks who have been here, who came more than a year ago, if they now fear persecution and want to make a claim for refugee protection, this bill would shunt them into an inferior system where rather than having a full hearing in their day in court.Their application will be decided by an officer of immigration, alone, sitting in the cubicle, probably, with some papers in front of them. That person is going to make an enormous decision about whether to send that person back home where they feared persecution, torture, death. Our position is that this new form of ineligibility. Is unfair. it doesn't meet the government's goals, as we understand them, and we share, we share the views of organizations like, Citizen Lab, that the bill should be withdrawn. There are other ways to do this, but this bill is fundamentally flawed.Nate Erskine-Smith35:31-35:57Let's talk about government goals. Those looking at the influx of temporary residents in Canada specifically, and I don't, and I don't wanna pick on international students, but we've seen a huge influx of international students just as one category example. And they've said, well, if someone's been here for a year and they didn't claim right away, they didn't come here to claim asylum. Because they would've claimed within that first year, presumably, you know, what's the problem with, uh, with a rule that is really trying to tackle this problem.Adam Sadinsky35:57-38:33The issue is, I mean, Nate, you had mentioned, you know, people who had come to Canada, they didn't initially claim and it didn't initially claim asylum, temporary residents. What do we do about it? I wanna give a couple of examples of people who would be caught by this provision, who fall into that category. But there's legitimate reasons why they might claim more than a year after arriving in Canada. The first is someone who came to Canada, student worker, whatever. At the time they came to Canada, they would've been safe going back home they didn't have a fear of returning back home. But country conditions change and they can change quickly. The Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in 2021, was a stark example there may have been people who came to Canada as students planning to go back to Afghanistan and rebuild their country. As the bill is currently written. If there were to be a situation like that, and there will be some other Afghanistan, there will be some other situation down the line. Those people who weren't afraid when they originally came to Canada and now have a legitimate claim, will have an inferior, process that they go through, one that is riddled with issues, examples of unfairness compared to the refugee, the regular refugee system, and a lack of protection from deportation, pending any appeal.So that's one category. A second category is people who were afraid of going back home when they came to Canada but didn't need to claim asylum because they had another avenue to remain in Canada. So the government advertised, Minister Frazier was saying this often come to Canada, come as a student and there's a well-established pathway. You'll have a study permit, you'll get a post-graduation work permit. This is what the government wanted. The rug has been pulled out from under many of those people. Towards the end of last year when Canada said, okay, it's enough, too many temporary residents. But what about the temporary residents who had a fear of returning home when they came? They went through the system the “right way,” quote unquote. They didn't go to the asylum system. they went through another path. And now they're looking at it. They say, well, you know, I came to Canada to study, but also I'm gay and I'm from a country where, if people know about that, you know, I'll be tortured. Maybe since they've been in Canada, that person in that example, they've been in a relationship, they've been posting on social media with their partner. It is very dangerous so why, why shouldn't that person claim refugee protection through regular means?Nate Erskine-Smith38:33-39:06Is this right on your read of the law as it is written right now, if someone were to come with their family when they're a kid and they were to be in Canada for over a year and then their family were to move back to either the home country or to a different country, and, they wake up as a teenager many years later, they wake up as an adult many years later and their country's falling apart, and they were to flee and come to Canada. By virtue of the fact they've been here for a year as a kid, would that preclude them from making a claim?Adam Sadinsky39:06-39:10It's even worse than that, Nate.Nate Erskine-Smith39:09-39:10Oh, great.Adam Sadinsky39:10-39:47In your example, the family stayed in Canada for more than a year. Yes, absolutely. That person is caught by this provision. But here's who else would be someone comes when they're five years old with their family, on a trip to the United States. during that trip, they decide we want to see the Canadian side of Niagara Falls. They either have a visa or get whatever visa they need, or don't need one. They visit the falls, and at that point that they enter Canada, a clock starts ticking. That never stops ticking. So maybe they came to Canada for two hours.Nate Erskine-Smith39:44-39:45Two hours and you're outta luck.Adam Sadinsky39:45-39:47They go back to the USNate Erskine-Smith39:47-39:47Oh man.Adam Sadinsky39:47-40:09They never come back to Canada again. The way that the bill is written, that clock never stops ticking, right? Their country falls apart. They come back 15 years later. That person is going to have a very different kind of process that they go through, to get protection in Canada, than someone who wouldn't be caught by this bill.Nate Erskine-Smith40:09-40:34Say those are the facts as they are, that's one category. There's another category where I've come as a student, I thought there would be a pathway. I don't really fear persecution in my home country, but I want to stay in Canada we see in this constituency office, as other constituency offices do people come with immigration help or they've got legitimate claims. We see some people come with help with illegitimate claimsAdam Sadinsky40:34-42:46We have to be very careful when we talk about categorizing claims as frivolous. There is no question people make refugee claims in Canada that have no merit. You'll not hear from me, you'll not hear from our organization saying that every 100% of refugee claims made in Canada, are with merit. The issue is how we determine. At that initial stage that you're saying, oh, let's, let's deal quickly with frivolous claims. How do you determine if a claim is frivolous? What if someone, you know, I do a lot of appeal work, we get appeals of claims prepared by immigration consultants, or not even immigration consultants. And, you know, there's a core of a very strong refugee claim there that wasn't prepared properly.Nate Erskine-Smith42:46-42:46Yeah, we see it too. That's a good point.Adam Sadinsky42:46-42:46How that claim was prepared has nothing to do with what the person actually faces back home. We have to be very careful in terms of, quick negative claims, and clearing the decks of what some might think are frivolous claims. But there may be some legitimate and very strong core there. What could be done, and you alluded to this, is there are significant claims in the refugee board's backlog that are very, very strong just based on the countries they come from or the profiles of the individuals who have made those claims, where there are countries that have 99% success rate. And that's not because the board is super generous. It's because the conditions in those countries are very, very bad. And so the government could implement policies and this would be done without legislation to grant pathways for folks from, for example, Eritrea 99ish percent success rate. However, the government wants to deal with that in terms of numbers, but there's no need for the board to spend time determining whether this claim is in the 1%, that doesn't deserve to be accepted. Our view is that 1% being accepted is, a trade off for, a more efficient system.Nate Erskine-Smith42:46-43:30Similarly though, individuals who come into my office and they've been here for more than five years. They have been strong contributors to the community. They have jobs. They're oftentimes connected to a faith organization. They're certainly connected to a community based organization that is going to bat for them. There's, you know, obviously no criminal record in many cases they have other family here. And they've gone through so many appeals at different times. I look at that and I go, throughout Canadian history, there have been different regularization programs. Couldn't you kick a ton of people not a country specific basis, but a category specific basis of over five years, economic contributions, community contributions, no criminal record, you're approved.Adam Sadinsky43:30-44:20Yeah, I'd add to your list of categories, folks who are working in, professions, that Canada needs workers in. give the example of construction. We are facing a housing crisis. So many construction workers are not Canadian. Many of my clients who are refugee claimants waiting for their hearings are working in the construction industry. And the government did that, back in the COVID pandemic, creating what was, what became known as the Guardian Angels Program, where folks who were working in the healthcare sector, on the front lines, combating the pandemic, supporting, folks who needed it, that they were allowed to be taken again out of the refugee queue with a designated, pathway to permanent residents on the basis of the work and the contribution they were doing. All of these could be done.Adam Sadinsky44:20-45:05The refugee system is built on Canada's international obligations under the refugee convention, to claim refugee protection, to claim asylum is a human right. Every person in the world has the right to claim asylum. Individuals who are claiming asylum in Canada are exercising that right. Each individual has their own claim, and that's the real value that the refugee board brings to bear and why Canada has had a gold standard. The refugee system, replicated, around the world, every individual has their day in court, to explain to an expert tribunal why they face persecution. This bill would take that away.Nate Erskine-Smith45:05-46:18Yeah, I can't put my finger on what the other rationale would be though, because why the, why this change now? Well, we have right now, a huge number over a million people who are going to eventually be without status because they're not gonna have a pathway that was originally, that they originally thought would be there. The one frustration I have sometimes in the system is there are people who have come into my office with, the original claim, being unfounded. But then I look at it, and they've been here partly because the process took so long, they've been here for over five years. If you've been here for over five years and you're contributing and you're a member of the community, and now we're gonna kick you out. Like your original claim might have been unfounded, but this is insane. Now you're contributing to this country, and what a broken system. So I guess I'm sympathetic to the need for speed at the front end to ensure that unfounded claims are deemed unfounded and people are deported and legitimate claims are deemed founded, and they can be welcomed. So cases don't continue to come into my office that are over five or over six years long where I go, I don't even care if it was originally unfounded or not. Welcome to Canada. You've been contributing here for six years anyway.Adam Sadinsky46:18-46:33But if I can interject? Even if the bill passes as written, each of these individuals is still going to have what's called a pre-removal risk assessment.Nate Erskine-Smith46:31-46:33They're still gonna have a process. Yeah, exactly.Adam Sadinsky46:33-46:55They're still gonna have a process, and they're still going to wait time. All these people are still in the system. The bill is a bit of a shell game where folks are being just transferred from one process to another and say, oh, wow. Great. Look, we've reduced the backlog at the IRB by however many thousand claims,Nate Erskine-Smith46:53-46:55And we've increased the backlog in the process.Adam Sadinsky46:55-48:25Oh, look at the wait time at IRCC, and I'm sure you have constituents who come into your office and say, I filed a spousal sponsorship application two and a half years ago. I'm waiting for my spouse to come and it's taking so long. IRCC is not immune from processing delays. There doesn't seem to be, along with this bill, a corresponding hiring of hundreds and hundreds more pro officers. So, this backlog and this number of claims is shifting from one place to another. And another point I mentioned earlier within the refugee system within the board, when a person appeals a negative decision, right? Because, humans make decisions and humans make mistakes. And that's why we have legislative appeal processes in the system to allow for mistakes to be corrected. That appeal process happens within the board, and a person is protected from deportation while they're appealing with a pro. With this other system, it's different. The moment that an officer makes a negative decision on a pro that person is now eligible to be deported. CBSA can ask them to show up the next day and get on a plane and go home. Yes, a person can apply for judicial review in the federal court that does not stop their deportation. If they can bring a motion to the court for a stay of removal.Nate Erskine-Smith48:19-48:25You're gonna see a ton of new work for the federal court. You are gonna see double the work for the federal courtAdam Sadinsky48:25-48:39Which is already overburdened. So unless the government is also appointing many, many new judges, and probably hiring more Council Department of Justice, this backlog is going to move from one place to another.Nate Erskine-Smith48:39-48:41It's just gonna be industry whack-a-mole with the backlog.Adam Sadinsky48:41-48:52The only way to clear the backlog is to clear people out of it. There's no fair way to clear folks out of it in a negative way. So the only way to do that is positively.Nate Erskine-Smith48:52-49:37In the limited time we got left, the bill also empowers the governor and council of the cabinet to cancel documents, to suspend documents. And just so I've got this clearer in my mind, so if, for example: say one is a say, one is a student on campus, or say one is on a, on a work permit and one is involved in a protest, and that protest the government deems to be something they don't like. The government could cancel the student's permit on the basis that they were involved in the protest. Is that right? The law? Not to say that this government would do that. But this would allow the government to legally do just that. Am I reading it wrong?Adam Sadinsky49:37-50:46The bill gives broad powers to the government to cancel documents. I think you're reading it correctly. To me, when I read the bill, I don't particularly understand exactly what is envisioned. Where it would, where the government would do this, why a government would want to put this in. But you are right. I would hope this government would not do that, but this government is not going to be in power forever. When you put laws on the books, they can be used by whomever for whatever reason they can they want, that's within how that law is drafted. You know, we saw down south, you know, the secretary of State a few months ago said, okay, we're gonna cancel the permits of everyone from South Sudan, in the US because they're not taking back people being deported. It's hugely problematic. It's a complete overreach. It seems like there could be regulations that are brought in. But the power is so broad as written in this law, that it could definitely be used, for purposes most Canadians would not support.Nate Erskine-Smith50:46-51:07And, obviously that's a worst case scenario when we think about the United States in today's political climate. But, it's not clear to your point what the powers are necessary for. If we are to provide additional powers, we should only provide power as much as necessary and proportionate to the goal we want to achieve. Is there anything else you want to add?Adam Sadinsky51:07-51:43I just wanna touch, and I'm sure you got into a lot of these issues, on the privacy side but. The privacy issues in this bill bleed over into the refugee system with broad search powers, um, particularly requiring service providers to provide information, we are concerned these powers could be used by CBSA, for example, to ask a women's shelter, to hand over information about a woman claiming refugee protection or who's undocumented, living in a shelter, we have huge concerns that, you know, these powers will not just be used by police, but also by Canada Border Services and immigration enforcement. I'm not the expert on privacy issues, but we see it we see the specter of those issues as well.Nate Erskine-Smith51:43-52:22That's all the time we got, but in terms of what would help me to inform my own advocacy going forward is, this bill is gonna get to committee. I'm gonna support the bill in committee and see if we can amend it. I know, the position of CARL is withdraw. The position of a number of civil society organizations is to withdraw it. I think it's constructive to have your voice and others at committee, and to make the same arguments you made today with me. Where you have. I know your argument's gonna be withdrawn, you'll say then in the alternative, here are changes that should be made. When you've got a list of those changes in detailed, legislative amendment form, flip them to me and I'll share the ideas around the ministry and around with colleagues, and I appreciate the time. Appreciate the advocacy.Adam Sadinsky52:22-52:24Absolutely. Thank you. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.uncommons.ca

On Episode 104, we explain our concerns with Bill C-8, which would allow the government to secretly cut people off from the Internet, we discuss the constitutionality of the gun grab, and we discuss whether a University of Alberta law professor's academic freedom was violated. Stories and cases discussed in this week's episode:What Happened to the University's Commitment to Free Expression? Charlie Kirk, uAlberta, and Me (Centre for Free Expression)Crown lands bill would criminalize peaceful protests, critics say (CBC News)Bill C-8 would allow minister to secretly cut off phone, Internet service, CCF warnsBILL C-8, An Act respecting cyber securityOnly 14 of the 94 Calls to Action have been implemented. Criminalizing residential school denialism is the only way forward (Toronto Star)CTF offering free legal advice to Cape Breton gun owners targeted by federal gun grab (Canadian Taxpayers Federation)TELL YOUR MP: Fix Bills C-2 and C-8 to protect civil libertiesNot Reserving Judgment is a podcast about Canadian constitutional law hosted by Josh Dehaas, Joanna Baron, and Christine Van Geyn. The show is brought to you by the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a non-partisan legal charity dedicated to defending rights and freedoms. To support our work, visit theccf.ca/donate.

The UK has unveiled BritCard—a mandatory digital ID eerily similar to China's social credit system. By 2029, Brits will need one to work or even rent a home. At the same time, “speech police” are arresting citizens in the dead of night for social media posts—even one man who simply wrote “F Hamas” about a designated terror group. We break down how digital IDs, online surveillance, and woke enforcement collide to crush free expression, why Big Tech is backing away from UK censorship, and why this fight could soon be America's future too.

In this episode, Maggie Tokuda-Hall speaks about refusing to write to market expectations. She reflects on her experience with censorship and her picture book Love in the Library—which ultimately led to her being a founding member of Authors Against Book Bans. Maggie also shares what it's like to author graphic novels, including The Worst Ronin and Squad, and to collaborate with artists throughout the process. She also highlights information on how listeners can fight book bans, as well as the most important action they can all take right now. On the topic, Olivia shares an opportunity for individuals to join a Banned Books Week Read-In this October to protest ongoing censorship. Read the full transcript: Use promo code: SWITCH when signing up for a new Libro.fm membership to get two additional credits to use on any audiobooks—meaning you'll have three from the start. About Maggie Tokuda-Hall: Maggie Tokuda-Hall has an MFA in creative writing from USF, and BA in art from Scripps College. She's the author of numerous award winning, best-selling children's and young adult books including Love in the Library, The Mermaid, the Witch, and the Sea duology, Squad, and The Worst Ronin. She has been called “... one of the most unflinching voices in contemporary genre literature.” Maggie is a founding member and national leader of Authors Against Book Bans. She is the co-host of the Failure to Adapt podcast. She lives in Oakland, California with her husband, children, and objectively perfect dog. Get Maggie's Books: Love in the Library The Siren, the Song, and the Spy The Mermaid, the Witch, and the Sea Books discussed on today's episode: Cantoras by Caro De Robertis Ne'er Duke Well by Alexandra Vasti Earl Crush by Alexandra Vasti Ladies in Hating by Alexandra Vasti Banned Books Week resources: Banned Books Week Read-In near you Ways to learn more about and fight bans

Chris Spangle, Harry Price, and Reinhold reunite for a new episode of We Are Libertarians. The hosts reintroduce themselves and reflect on the history of the show before diving into today's big issues. They discuss the speed of the news cycle, public trust in media, right- and left-wing biases, and why local journalism still matters. The conversation also explores libertarian principles, cultural debates, Christian nationalism, and the role of free speech in a divided society. Tune in for sharp analysis, humor, and spirited discussion as three different libertarian perspectives come together to debate politics and culture. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The murder of George Floyd in 2020 and the summer of rage that followed was a seminal event in U.S. politics. It was seized on by progressive ideologues who controlled most of the cultural and political discourse in America to assert an identity-based ideology and to marginalize dissent.    But their efforts to cement a woke revolution and cancel opposition has come back to haunt them. The re-election of Donald Trump last year represented in part a counter-revolution. And now he and his MAGA majority seem to be using some of the same tactics to squeeze their opponents from the public square.  How did we get here and how can we restore civility in an age of increasingly polarized intolerance?  On this episode of Free Expression, Gerry Baker speaks with Thomas Chatterton Williams, author of a new book ‘Summer of Our Discontent: The Age of Certainty and the Demise of Discourse.' They discuss how illiberalism turned university campuses into hotbeds of intolerance, why there is now a backlash against ‘identity politics,' and how Donald Trump's base is more multi-cultural than is portrayed by his critics.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A fierce debate about free speech has erupted in the U.S. in the wake of Charlie Kirk's killing. Government officials have encouraged reporting against Americans in their reaction to Kirk's death, with some, like talk show host Jimmy Kimmel having his show briefly suspended under government pressure.This debate over what is acceptable speech extends to Canada, as the federal government introduced a new bill in expanding Canada's anti-hate laws. The Decibel is joined by James L. Turk, director of the Centre for Free Expression at Toronto Metropolitan University, to talk about the state of free expression, censorship and what happens when speech crosses the line.Questions? Comments? Ideas? Email us at thedecibel@globeandmail.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Today: A political booth pulled from the Ashland County Fair has sparked fierce online debate and raised questions about free expression, public decency, and where the line is drawn at community events.Support the show: https://richlandsource.com/membersSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Life, Culture and Current Events from a Biblical Perspective with guest host, Tosh Sturgess.Your support sends the gospel to every corner of Australia through broadcast, online and print media: https://vision.org.au/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Your reaction to news ABC has put Jimmy Kimmel on an indefinite suspension. Our guest for the hour is James Turk, director of the Centre for Free Expression at Toronto Metropolitan University.

The assassination of Charlie Kirk marked the latest escalation of politically motivated violence, and it may be a breaking point for the country. After the murder of Democratic lawmakers in Minnesota and the attempts on President Donald Trump's life last year, the U.S. seems to be returning to the dark days of half a century ago when politically motivated violence was almost routine. President Trump and his allies put the blame on the radical left and have threatened a crackdown.   On this episode of Free Expression, Gerry Baker discusses the deteriorating political atmosphere with Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, who details his own experiences dealing with political threats. They also discuss the prospects for a government shutdown and the changes the Democratic Party needs to make if it is to re-earn the trust of American voters.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The assassination of Charlie Kirk and other recent incidents of political violence have instilled fear in many members of Congress. Those who worry they could be the next targets are requesting increased security and canceling public events. Tennessee Republican Congressmen Tim Burchett joins the Rundown to discuss his concerns about personal safety and what leadership can do to help protect Congressional members, their staff, and their families. The suspect in the assassination of Charlie Kirk is heading to court today. While many Americans mourn his death, some individuals are celebrating it on social media. Numerous posts have been flagged and circulated, leading to some of the authors losing their jobs. George Washington University professor and FOX News contributor Jonathan Turley joins the Rundown to discuss the fallout and what it reveals about free speech in today's political climate. Plus,  commentary from FOX News contributor Joe Concha. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The assassination of Charlie Kirk and other recent incidents of political violence have instilled fear in many members of Congress. Those who worry they could be the next targets are requesting increased security and canceling public events. Tennessee Republican Congressmen Tim Burchett joins the Rundown to discuss his concerns about personal safety and what leadership can do to help protect Congressional members, their staff, and their families. The suspect in the assassination of Charlie Kirk is heading to court today. While many Americans mourn his death, some individuals are celebrating it on social media. Numerous posts have been flagged and circulated, leading to some of the authors losing their jobs. George Washington University professor and FOX News contributor Jonathan Turley joins the Rundown to discuss the fallout and what it reveals about free speech in today's political climate. Plus,  commentary from FOX News contributor Joe Concha. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The assassination of Charlie Kirk and other recent incidents of political violence have instilled fear in many members of Congress. Those who worry they could be the next targets are requesting increased security and canceling public events. Tennessee Republican Congressmen Tim Burchett joins the Rundown to discuss his concerns about personal safety and what leadership can do to help protect Congressional members, their staff, and their families. The suspect in the assassination of Charlie Kirk is heading to court today. While many Americans mourn his death, some individuals are celebrating it on social media. Numerous posts have been flagged and circulated, leading to some of the authors losing their jobs. George Washington University professor and FOX News contributor Jonathan Turley joins the Rundown to discuss the fallout and what it reveals about free speech in today's political climate. Plus,  commentary from FOX News contributor Joe Concha. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

September 15, 2025 ~ Chris, Lloyd, and Jamie talk with The Detroit News Assistant Editorial Page Editor Kaitlyn Buss about her latest op-ed "Kirk Shooting shows conservatives, free expression, under fire." Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

With Donald Trump's tariffs heading towards a Supreme Court showdown, his efforts to reshape the Federal Reserve in his own image intensifying, and another Washington battle under way over funding the federal government, the U.S. economy and markets face new uncertainties entering the fall.   On this episode of Free Expression, Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan tells Gerry Baker that despite the uncertainty, he sees no U.S. recession in the near future and thinks inflation remains contained. But he emphasizes the importance of Fed independence and offers his thoughts on tariffs and the growing fiscal crisis, and on the challenges and opportunities posed by crypto currency and artificial intelligence to the banking system. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Aubrey Masango speaks to Anton Taylor, comedian and influencer, to discuss him being accused of “crimes against the state” after he posted a TikTok video, mocking the suspended Police Minister Senzo Mchunu. Tags: 702, Aubrey Masango show, Aubrey Masango, Anton Taylor, Senzo Mchunu, Hawks, Crimes against the state, Satire The Aubrey Masango Show is presented by late night radio broadcaster Aubrey Masango. Aubrey hosts in-depth interviews on controversial political issues and chats to experts offering life advice and guidance in areas of psychology, personal finance and more. All Aubrey’s interviews are podcasted for you to catch-up and listen. Thank you for listening to this podcast from The Aubrey Masango Show. Listen live on weekdays between 20:00 and 24:00 (SA Time) to The Aubrey Masango Show broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and on CapeTalk between 20:00 and 21:00 (SA Time) https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk Find out more about the show here https://buff.ly/lzyKCv0 and get all the catch-up podcasts https://buff.ly/rT6znsn Subscribe to the 702 and CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfet Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

With emerging signs that Donald Trump's revolutionary tariff regime may be starting to take a toll on U.S. economic prospects, what's the outlook for the immediate future? And how is the latest wave of technological change, allied with a new strand of government activism, going to change longer term economic performance? On this episode of the Free Expression podcast, Gerry Baker speaks with financier and philanthropist Glenn Hutchins about what the recent jobs and inflation numbers might mean for the economy, what the Federal Reserve should do in response, what the widespread adoption of artificial intelligence and the renewed focus on national priorities will mean. And as a long-standing supporter of Democratic candidates and causes, he offers a few thoughts on the future of the Democratic party. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James Turk is director of the Centre for Free Expression at Toronto Metropolitan University. He tells Alex Guye about the recent deaths of Palestinian journalists in Gaza and the amount of journalists that have been killed since October 2023.

Liberal democracy is under siege. Domestically, popular discontent with civic, cultural and political institutions is tempting voters in many democracies towards more authoritarian leadership. Globally, the axis of autocracies in Russia and China threaten to upend weaker democratic neighbors. Donald Trump's trade policies and diplomacy are weakening alliances and undermining faith in "the west.” Is democracy in retreat? Does it matter? On this episode of Free Expression, Gerry Baker and former British prime minister Rishi Sunak discuss the state of democracy in the U.K. and the U.S, how liberal democracy can be strengthened, and how rapid technological change is affecting economics and politics. And the U.K.'s last Conservative prime minister offers his thoughts on the state of conservatism on both sides of the Atlantic.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

While Israel continues to achieve great military successes against Hamas, Hezbollah and most recently Iran in its almost two year campaign, the humanitarian consequences of the conflict in Gaza are growing worse. There is growing evidence of famine throughout Gaza, caused by disruptions in the delivery of aid, and both sides are being accused of causing the crisis. International pressure on Israel is mounting. Last week, Emmanuel Macron of France announced he would recognize a Palestinian state and Keir Starmer, the British prime minister, has said he could do the same in September. So can Israel effectively finish its war in the face of the human cost and growing international isolation? On this episode of Free Expression, Gerry Baker speaks with Israeli journalist and commentator Nadav Eyal about what it could take to settle the war between Israel and Hamas, the international reaction to the crisis, and how Israel can ultimately guarantee its own security and very existence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Donald Trump's control of the Republican Party is almost complete. But there are still some members pushing back against the president. Sen. Lisa Murkowski is a persistent dissident. She was one of the few Senators to vote against a recent package of cuts that had already been approved in a spending bill. She has also voted against and expressed reservations about a number of Donald Trump's cabinet members. She voted to convict him on impeachment charges after the January 6 2021 Capitol Hill riots.  On this episode of Free Expression, Gerry Baker speaks with Murkowski about her recent memoir, “Far From Home,” her concerns about HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s stances on vaccines in relation to the recent measles outbreak in Texas, and why she's “not losing sleep” over the direction of the Republican party. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The hottest properties in the Democratic Party at the moment are self-described democratic socialists. Zohran Mamdani won the party's nomination for New York City mayor last month while Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders (who's not even a Democrat) are in the forefront of the party's campaigning against President Donald Trump. The trend alarms the party's leadership and mainstream establishment, who see it as a quick route to electoral oblivion. Can the next wave of Democratic candidates for local and national elections appeal to the middle, or is the distaste for President Trump making the party hostage to its more radical elements? On this episode of Free Expression, former Commerce Secretary and White House Chief of Staff William Daley tells Gerry Baker about his concerns for the direction of the Democratic party, what it can learn from the mistake from the Tea Party movement of the GOP, and who he thinks are the party's most electable candidates for president.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Is misinformation really a new crisis—or just the latest chapter in a centuries-old debate over truth, speech, and power? In this episode, Cato Institute's Jennifer Huddleston and David Inserra unpack the cultural and policy panic surrounding misinformation and disinformation in the age of AI, deepfakes, and viral tweets. Who should decide what counts as truth online? Plus, why humility, media literacy, and a competitive internet might be better solutions than censorship.Show Notes:Jennifer Huddleston, "AI and the Future of Our Elections" Testimony, September 27, 2023Jennifer Huddleston and David Inserra, "Oversight Board Comment on Misinformation and Manipulated Media: The Importance of Free Expression in the Debate over Misinformation" cato.org, October 25, 2023Jennifer Huddleston, "The Rush to Regulate AI Coule be the Death of Parody" National Review (Online), January 26, 2024David Inserra and Jennifer Huddleston, "Actually, Tim Walz, the First Amendment Does Protect Misinformation and ‘Hate Speech'" National Review, August 11, 2024Jennifer Huddleston and Emma Hopp, "What the Past Can Teach Us about Our AI Fears" Reason, October 29, 2024David Inserra and Brent Skorup, "Comments in Response to FCC “Delete, Delete, Delete” Initiative" cato.org, April 11, 2025David Inserra, "The Misleading Panic over Misinformation" Policy Analysis No. 999, June 26, 2025 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Donald Trump and the Republicans in Congress set a July 4th deadline to pass a spending package the President and others gave the moniker the “One Big, Beautiful Bill.” Getting the measure to the president's desk hasn't been plain sailing - the Senate version passed this week only with a tie-breaking vote by Vice President JD Vance. Now fiscal conservatives in the House are battling over some of the details, but it seems likely to become law soon enough.  On this episode of Free Expression, Gerry Baker speaks with economist and former director of the Congressional Budget Office Douglas Holtz-Eakin about the bill's likely positive impact on the economy as well as the nation's dire fiscal situation, how the nation's budget challenges still require reform of entitlements that seems politically elusive, and what this signature piece of domestic policy says about the direction of Trump's Republican Party.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Amid escalating federal pressure on universities, Stanford Law School alum Greg Lukianoff, JD '00, joins host Professor Pam Karlan for a sharp look at the free speech firestorms engulfing universities like Harvard and Columbia. First Amendment champion, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), and co-author of The Coddling of the American Mind, Lukianoff recently penned an essay for The Atlantic titled “Trump's Attacks Threaten Much More Than Harvard.” In this episode, Lukianoff expands on his essay, breaking down the Trump administration's tactics to punish elite institutions, from defunding threats and faculty interference to student visa crackdowns, while also calling out universities themselves for stifling dissent and eroding public trust in higher education.Links:Greg Lukianoff  >>> FIRE pageThe Canceling of the American Mind >>> web pageThe Coddling of the American Mind >>> web page“Trump's Attacks Threaten Much More Than Harvard” >>> The Atlantic pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00:00) Introduction of Greg Lukianoff(00:05:01) Free Speech and Academic Freedom(00:10:01) Challenges to Free Speech(00:15:01) Legal Cases and Free Speech(00:20:01) Free Speech and the Government (00:30:01) Future of Free Speech

A shockwave rippled through New York politics this week as little-known 33-year old assemblyman Zohran Mamdani toppled Andrew Cuomo, whose political lineage could not compete with his scandal-ridden tenure as governor, to win the Democratic primary nomination for the city's mayoral election. Mamdani mobilized a coalition of young voters, ethnic minorities and others behind a hard-left platform that called for even higher taxes than New Yorkers already pay and expanded government programs. He has voiced strong support for Palestinian causes and has called to “globalize the intifada” whatever that means. Meanwhile, current mayor Eric Adams plans to run as an independent as a way to head off the new young radical's path to Gracie Mansion. What does Mamdani's stunning success say about Democrats - in New York and in the country as a whole.  On this episode of Free Expression, Gerry Baker and political analyst Heather Mac Donald look at some of Mamdani's more radical views, break down just who voted for each candidate, and what the latest far left Democratic plans for a major city may do to New York's economy and financial sector.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

#1,074 - Douglas Young - Fifth Interview Douglas Young joins The Paul Leslie Hour for his fifth interview! Are you here? It's episode 1,074 of The Paul Leslie Hour, and we're thrilled to welcome back Douglas Young for his fifth personal interview on the show!  This time Dr. Young and your host dive into two under-the-radar Bob Dylan albums from the ‘80s, Empire Burlesque and Knocked Out Loaded, as well as explore the truth about so-called gentlemen's lounges, and then dissect Woody Allen's The Curse of the Jade Scorpion.  These topics spring from Young's book, Not Just Political: Essays on Life, Family, Education, Free Expression, the Arts, and Entertainment.  Want to keep the show rolling? Head right here, and lend a hand! We depend on you! Heeeere's Douglas Young, back for his fifth spin keeping it real.

Israel's air assault on the heart of Iran's nuclear program has shifted the balance of power in the Middle East. Iran's bid for regional hegemony and the survival of the Islamic regime itself is now under serious threat. But can Israel finish the job on its own or does it need the U.S. to tighten the vise on Teheran? While Donald Trump still says he wants to see a deal made, his administration is also weighing whether to join Israel's assault. As the conflict continues, who will eventually define the future of the Middle East? On this episode of Free Expression, Middle East policy analyst Marc Reuel Gerecht tells Gerry Baker how much more assistance the U.S. should provide Israel, how Russia and China are reacting to the conflict, and how Iran's future might look.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Few people have lived the entertainment world like Barry Diller. Over 60 years in the business, he has run movie studios and TV networks and most recently built a portfolio of digital media properties. In the process he has seen the sector move from a studio-and producer-driven model to the increasingly tech-dominated business it is today.  On this episode of Free Expression, Diller speaks with Gerry Baker about his life in the entertainment business, how modern tech domination has diminished the value of creativity and why Hollywood went woke and progressive. Discussing his newly published memoir, “Who Knew?,” he also reveals what he calls the “sexual nuance” of being gay while being married to a woman, his wife of 25 years, the fashion designer, Diane Von Furstenberg.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The House of Representatives has passed Donald Trump's “Big Beautiful Bill” and now the Senate is pondering its version. Chief among the concerns for some senators is how much it will add to the federal debt. Already at $36 trillion, how much is too much? Are we on the brink of a major fiscal crisis? On this episode of Free Expression, Bridgewater founder and investor Ray Dalio talks to Gerry Baker about the risks of a debt calamity if bond markets take fright. They also talk about his new book, “How Countries Go Broke: The Big Cycle”, which chronicles the history of governments with unsustainable debt and offers his “3%”, three-part solution for ensuring fiscal health.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Improbable as it would have once seemed, Donald Trump is the dominant political figure of the first quarter of the 21st century, creating a populist movement not seen in recent American history. But is he really a conservative, and what are the defining characteristics of the way he has bent the Republican party to his will? On this episode of Free Expression, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich talks to Gerry Baker about his new book, “Trump's Triumph: America's Greatest Comeback,” why the lack of coverage of Joe Biden's cognitive decline is one of history's greatest scandals, and why the courts should not have the power and authority over Donald Trump's executive power. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of The Non-Prophets, the panel unpacks a troubling new bill—The Interstate Obscenity Definition Act—that threatens to redefine what counts as “obscene” in America. Framed as protecting public decency, the bill could lead to sweeping censorship of porn, LGBTQ+ content, art, and personal expression. The hosts expose the vague language, moral posturing, and religious overtones driving the legislation, and explore how it could impact everything from adult entertainment to free speech. It's not about protecting children—it's about control.News SourceInteresting Engineering, “New obscenity bill could trigger anti-porn prosecution”By Aamir Khollam, May 12, 2025https://interestingengineering.com/culture/new-obscenity-bill-could-trigger-anti-porn-prosecutionThe Non-Prophets 24.13.24 with Helen, Rob, Tracy, E.J. The Porn Panic Is Back: A 1950s Morality Reboot

Actor Kelsey Grammer is known for his many acting roles, most notably as radio psychiatrist Frasier Crane in the long running TV sitcom “Frasier.” But behind the comic mask lies a lifelong story of pain and grief. Fifty years ago, his beloved sister Karen was abducted, raped and murdered. In a new memoir, “Karen: A Brother Remembers,” he writes of how the tragedy shaped his own life. On this episode of Free Expression, Grammer speaks with Gerry Baker about his sister as a source of joy in his life, his spiritual reunion with her and his evolving Christian faith. A rare conservative in Hollywood, Grammer also discussed the current political climate in America and how the pursuit of individual freedom remains his guiding philosophy.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Donald Trump celebrated a “reset” with China, lowering tariffs and signaling a major thaw in the trade war between the two countries. Meanwhile, as the President traveled to the Middle East, House Republicans announced their framework for the “big, beautiful” spending bill looking to make changes to Medicaid and reduce the budget deficit. Where does Donald Trump's wider economic agenda now sit? On this episode of Free Expression, Harvard economics professor Greg Mankiw tells Gerry Baker why the President has to stop thinking the U.S. is an economic “loser,” and how the U.S. under Trump is starting take on some of the appearances of an unstable emerging market and gives his perspective on academic freedom on the Harvard campus and elsewhere after the administration's unprecedented campaign against institutions of higher learning.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Clarisse Rosaz Shariyf, interim co-CEO of PEN America, and Mia Couto, Mozambican author and recipient of this year's PEN/Nabokov Award for Achievement in International Literature, discuss the work of PEN America promoting free expression and this year's 61st annual Literary Awards Ceremony at Town Hall.

The conclave of Cardinals to choose the 267th pope, bishop of Rome and leader of the Catholic Church opened Wednesday at the Vatican. Whoever is chosen by the 133 voting Cardinals from all over the world will follow Pope Francis, the first Jesuit Pope who died last month. What kind of leader are the cardinals looking for and where is the church headed? On this episode of Free Expression, theologian, author and commentator George Weigel talks to Gerry Baker about what goes on in the conclave, why he thinks the Cardinals will choose a different character than the autocratic Francis, and how the growth of the Catholic faithful outside its traditional heartland of Europe could be changing the church.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices