Across Ontario, police services have begun treating lawful political views as a public-safety problem. The details change, but the method does not. Officers identify a viewpoint, concede that it is not criminal, and then use the authority of the police service to watch it, isolate it, or warn the public against it.
In late December 2020, the Ontario Provincial Police’s Provincial Operations Intelligence Bureau issued an update under Project ARDEN. The assignment was a threat assessment of the COVID-19 vaccine supply chain for the force’s COVID Critical Incident Management Team and its partners—and analysts concluded there was no threat to distribution, risk of theft, division, sabotage, or an organized crime plot.
But the file did not stop there.
The same report examined Police on Guard for Thee, a network of retired and serving officers who argued that COVID public-health orders were unconstitutional. Open-source research confirmed a retired OPP member in the group and listed other retired officers by their former services, including the Toronto Police Service, the RCMP, Niagara, and Waterloo. The analysts did not cite criminal activity; instead, they were concerned about influence. The presence of police, they wrote, could “lend credibility and legitimacy” to people opposing COVID restrictions. It might also encourage “disinformation” or inspire “direct action.”
The recommendation that followed was broader than the vaccine chain. The bureau advised continued monitoring of individuals, organizations, and “non-cohesive movements of like-minded individuals who have demonstrated opposition to COVID-related public health measures,” watching for signs that opposition might become action. The trigger for attention was not a crime in progress; it was disagreement with the government’s pandemic rules.
Six years later, Hamilton Police Service performed the same move in public.
In August 2026, the Dominion Society of Canada tried to hold a conference in Hamilton—which ignited a full-scale campaign, orchestrated by the municipality, to shut it down. Hamilton Police said the conference messaging “does not meet the threshold for criminal or unlawful activity.” So any ordinary police response would have been an operational plan for traffic, counter-protesters, and any offence that actually occurred.
Instead, the Hamilton Police Department morphed into an ideological messaging hub for the city, with Official statements urging venues to “consider the impact” of hosting the event. They described the messaging as “divisive and exclusionary” and said it could harm a sense of “safety and belonging” in the city. In a phone call recording, Inspector Darren Murphy said the department was “non-partisan based on context,” and that the conference was “not welcome” or “something the Hamilton Police Service supports,” while staunchly defending his poorly understood interpretation of what the Charter of Rights and Freedoms actually means.
The department called this community safety, but in reality it is ideological policing—and Niagara Regional Police have adopted the same official messaging and methods.
On September 10, 2026, Niagara Police posted an educational propaganda postcard, teaching the public how to spot the “red flags of hate and discrimination”—and warned the public that jokes might be a thought crime. Hate-crime offences exist in the Criminal Code, and police can investigate them if they want—but now they are signalling to the public that comedy might be a pre-crime indicator for terrorist behaviour. This is not an operational plan. It’s a Soviet Union-style behavioural messaging system designed to create distrust, paranoia, and suspicion.
These cases are not one investigation, and they do not need to be. What links them is the standard being used, where crime is no longer the gate that has to open before police launch an investigation. Words such as “divisive,” “disinformation,” “belonging,” and “credibility” are allowing them to act against a legal opinion the way they used to act against criminal activity.
The Charter does not expire because a chief or government official prefers his flavour of politics— and expression, assembly, and association are not privileges police can revoke. When a service says the conduct is legal and then uses its power to kill the room, watch the network, or brand the opinion. Context policing becomes the new normal—and it’s spreading because it’s cheap.
Project Arden reveals this policy framework is already on paper. But the Hamilton Police Department’s Ideological witch hunt and Niagara Police’s Soviet-style propaganda flyer are showing you what it looks like in the streets—and everyone should be afraid.