Canada's Double Standards On Free Speech Exposed
In an ironic twist for a country that prides itself on free expression, Canada has silenced an Australian news outlet, Australia Today, for broadcasting remarks by India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar. It stands exposed in the world arena, writes Gajanan Khergamker
The comments, made during a press conference in Australia, tackled escalating diplomatic tensions between India and Canada and explored the sensitive issue of Khalistani extremism within Canadian borders. Canada's swift and unilateral decision to ban Australia Today has sent ripples across international media, prompting critics to label it a blatant case of "free speech hypocrisy."
Australia Today has not taken this decision lightly, and its response was both dignified and resolute. Managing Editor Jitarth Jai Bharadwaj addressed the ban with defiance, stating, “We remain steadfast in our mission to bring important stories and voices to the public, undeterred by these obstacles.” Bharadwaj emphasised that the outlet would not be deterred from upholding journalistic values of transparency, accuracy, and the right to report significant stories.
 |
| Australia Today’s banned broadcast has reached more viewers than Canada might have anticipated |
He noted, “The overwhelming support we have received is a powerful reminder of the importance of free press, and we will continue to strive for transparency, accuracy, and the right to tell stories that matter.”
India has responded with a pointed critique, calling out what it perceives as Canada’s selective stance on free speech. Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal minced no words, stating, “It looks strange to us…These actions yet again highlight the hypocrisy of Canada towards freedom of speech.”
He reminded reporters of Jaishankar’s own critique of Canada, wherein the minister raised concerns about a pattern of unsubstantiated allegations from Canada and pointed to the troubling surveillance of Indian diplomats. These, Jaiswal said, were “unacceptable” practices, yet Canada’s leaders appeared unphased, more concerned with silencing critics than addressing the allegations against them.
For many, the underlying issue is Canada's struggle to balance its image as a progressive, rights-oriented nation with the realities of its foreign policy. While the country has historically stood as a beacon of liberal values, Canada's recent actions indicate that its tolerance for press freedom may be increasingly conditional. The timing of the ban on Australia Today underscores this selective approach, taking place amid heightened tensions following Ottawa's allegations against New Delhi regarding the killing of Khalistani figure Hardeep Singh Nijjar.
Notably, Australia Today expressed appreciation for the “unwavering support” it has received from viewers worldwide who value free and open journalism. “Despite these restrictions, your unwavering support has been a beacon of strength for us,” Australia Today stated in its message to readers. This outpouring of support has underscored the mounting concerns that Canada’s approach to media freedom is more malleable than previously thought — flexible when it suits the political environment and ruthlessly enforced when narratives clash with official positions.
This ban has also stoked fears among global press freedom advocates who argue that Canada’s move sets a dangerous precedent, especially for democracies that regularly confront the tension between national security concerns and free expression. By banning Australia Today, Canada is at risk of eroding its own democratic standing, suggesting that freedom of the press is negotiable. For many observers, this incident speaks volumes: the state’s enthusiasm for press freedom wanes quickly when the stories told do not suit its political agenda.
In the digital age, where content is near-impossible to contain, Australia Today’s banned broadcast has reached more viewers than Canada might have anticipated. Supporters have turned to alternative platforms to access the material and continue the discourse on free speech. What Canada might not have expected is that its crackdown on the media would backfire, sparking worldwide interest in Jaishankar's statements and drawing attention to Canada's double standards.
As it stands, Canada is now faced with a choice that will define its legacy on free expression and international transparency: either to embrace true media freedom, however uncomfortable, or to continue down a path that increasingly mirrors the actions of governments it has historically criticised. In either scenario, Canada’s actions have underscored a hard truth — that the defense of free speech, it seems, stops at the country’s borders when its interests are challenged.
