Chrystia Freeland pays lip service to press freedom

“Be careful what you wish for” is a caution people would do well to heed more frequently.

This week, Rebel News journalist David Menzies was arrested – handcuffed, put into a cop car, and dropped off in a random parking lot – after questioning Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland on her way into an event.

He was asking her about Iran, but the story became about the RCMP protective officer who blocked Menzies and then accused him of “assaulting a police officer” when Menzies inevitably collided with him.

Freeland had no comment on it except to claim that police make their own operational decisions, which is to say her official position is that she has no say in who gets close to her and who doesn’t.

Critics of Menzies and Rebel, of which there are many, have pointed out that this isn’t Menzies’ first rodeo. It’s not: he’s been arrested or removed from events before, and the Conservatives were responsible for a couple of those.

The truly cynical say Menzies wanted to be arrested. Even if that were the case, which I don’t think it is, would that justify what the officer did?

The same goes for those who say “Well, he’s not really a journalist.” If a private citizen posing no threat to Freeland were to approach and ask a pointed question, would an arrest be justified?

When we dispatch these retorts, we’re left with the uncomfortable truth that the people defending Menzies’ arrest don’t care about the precedent or rule it creates – they’re just happy with people they don’t like getting arrested.

It’s the same phenomenon that saw people otherwise skeptical of law enforcement be thrilled to see Freedom Convoy demonstrators get pepper sprayed or criminally charged simply because they didn’t like the convoy.

But I return to my original warning: be careful what you wish for.

Ever since Pierre Poilievre was elected Conservative leader, there has been no shortage of pearl-clutching by people displeased with the tone he takes with journalists. Poilievre is happy to go on offense against questions or even outlets he doesn’t like. There’s a big difference between being acerbic with a reporter and having them thrown into the back of a cop car, but there have been far more journalists crying about “attacks on the press” with the former.

Politicians don’t have to answer questions (although they should). But I believe they do have an obligation to subject themselves to questions. The Liberals are not fans of either.

The reason Menzies was ambushing Freeland is because she and her government do not allow independent journalists any official opportunities to question them.

Journalists who aren’t among the Liberals’ chosen ones must get creative.

The only times I’ve ever been able to access her have been at events in other countries, which fortunately are more serious about press freedom than she is, despite her public statements.

Just this morning, in fact, I was not permitted to attend a press conference Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was holding only an hour away from me.

People can make whatever judgements they’d like about me and my work, but given the disdain Poilievre has expressed for some mainstream media, are folks really comfortable with politicians deciding who qualifies as real media or not?

I put this question to Minister François-Philippe Champagne a few years back (at an international summit, of course) and he gave the right answer.

"I don't think it is for any government to define who is a journalist, actually,” he said. “I would leave it to journalists to define that themselves."

Freeland has been far more hypocritical on this. Freeland loves pontificating about press freedom in Iran and Belarus but is uninterested in protecting it in her own country, as the Menzies episode illustrates.

Freeland co-hosted the Global Conference for Media Freedom with the United Kingdom in 2019. Fortunately it was the Brits who handled accreditation, so I was welcomed there. But at the last minute, Freeland tried to block me and Rebel News’ Sheila Gunn Reid from attending a press conference she was holding.

All of the other reporters stood firm and said they wouldn’t cover it unless we all could – a display for which I remain grateful nearly five years later. Freeland’s team folded and we were all allowed in.

Sadly, that solidarity has not been there in years since when the Liberals have banned independent journalists from their campaign events and even official government press conferences. More recently, I was denied access to the Liberals’ winter caucus retreat which happened to be in my own city.

Freeland had a right to ignore Menzies or even clap back at him the way Poilievre does to Canadian Press or CBC journalists, if she wanted. Instead, she opted to stand by while he was arrested for daring to question her.

Perhaps the next media freedom conference can take a closer look at Canada.

Thanks for reading! The large book project that has consumed the last six months of my life is nearly complete, so my thanks to those of you who’ve tolerated a sparser release to this newsletter than is typical. I look forward to sharing details about this book soon enough. In the meantime, if you want to keep on top of these dispatches, please make sure you’re subscribed using the button above. As always, we thank our paid subscribers for their generosity in keeping this project viable.