While I have never been a fan of Donald Trump and his outsized politics, I do sympathize with his views on what he sees as the scourge of modern society: political correctness. It seems to me that one cannot say very much that is critical about anything these days without inviting a backlash of fury from someone who might be offended. It has got so bad that Canada’s national online hews service makes use of a full-time censor, consisting of computer software, individual surveillance and snitching, to winnow out potentially disagreeable comments that could result in litigation. Such a policy means that this network now prevents any comments on aboriginal stories, young children in trouble with the law, the use of double-entendres such as ‘chink’, critical remarks on feminism, ¬†use of inflammatory terms like destroy, kill, or rape, and any expression of anger against a public official. Of course, this news service allowed a lot of vile comments against Ford and Harper, leading up to key elections, in the hope of being the journalistic agent for promoting a change in government. Going through the postings on its website today, it is easy to see that the politically correct reigns supreme: The sunny-faced Liberals are now in, and the CBC is rapidly switching to full PC mode in the interests of encouraging a more inclusive society. Reportage abounds on human interest concerns where there is a perceived injustice of whatever magnitude. We are still not to comment on the Ghomesi affair because it is still too hot to handle in terms of legal fallout, though the CBC is not slack in soliciting the views of women’s groups across the land in an effort to further the rights of women. While many of us would support the outcome of the trial as a healthy indication that the legal system works, we don’t get to express our views, within reason, in an open forum that should be available through our tax-supported national broadcaster. Obviously, its biggest fear is that politically incorrect language could insidiously creep into the comments, leaving the CBC in the untenable position of having to explain to a whole spawn of special interest groups why it allows racism, bigotry, sexism, and fascism. Frankly, I don’t see the need for this kind of tight grip on public expression. I follow other global online news services and I don’t get the same sense of censorship. Fair and rigorous bipartisan comments appear to be welcome on public affairs platforms such as Vox.com, NPR, Politico, On Point, The Guardian, NY Times, and the BBC without too much ado, which suggests to me that Canada is still, after a hundred-and-fifty-years of existence, a hypersensitive society that wants to appear to be civilized in a very uncivilized world. The problem with that reasoning is that it is a government that is largely trying to set the agenda for creating a national ethos that ideally embraces all views, right or wrong. While I am in favor of women receiving a greater opportunity to lead in society, that does not mean that I can’t weigh in with some healthy criticism of what might happen if they so happen to overstate their case. As for the Ghomesi case, those three women had every right to press charges against the man, but that doesn’t mean they have a slam dunk case. They also have the right to protest the findings of the court, but that doesn’t set aside the fact that legally the case was very weak to start with. The cudgel of narrowing debate, by eliminating the threat of ‘hurtful’ responses in advance with the hope of showcasing special target groups as the true reflection of society, comes with some serious repercussions. One, the individual’s voice can be eventually silenced through indifference and fear; two, the public debate pendulates too far in one direction so as to try to correct the injustices of the past while creating new ones in the present; and, three, former users of the service go elsewhere to find more objective coverage.