“Social democracy is based on a single premise: the Right to Free Speech (R.F.S.). This guarantees the inalienable right to speak, think and believe anything whatsoever. This right embraces all Swedish citizens, from the crazy neo-Nazi living in the woods to the rock-throwing anarchist – and everyone in between. Every other basic right, such as the Formation of Government and the Right to Freedom of Organization, is simply an extension of the Right to Free Speech. On this law democracy stands or falls.
All democracy has its limits, and the limits to R.F.S. are set by the Freedom of the Press regulation (F.P.) This defines four restrictions on democracy. It is forbidden to publish child pornography and the depiction of certain violent sexual acts, regardless of how artistic the originator believes the depiction to be. It is forbidden to incite or exhort someone to crime. It is forbidden to defame or slander another person. It is forbidden to engage in the persecution of an ethnic group.” — Stieg Larsson, The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets’ Nest (2009), p. 285
My opening quote for this article comes from a Swedish novel, The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets’ Nest by Stieg Larsson. Larsson published only three rather bulky novels featuring the anemic-looking, asocial, genius computer hack, Elizabeth Salander, and the indefatigable, unstoppable, obsessive investigative journalist, Mikael Blomkvist. Larsson died suddenly, and a fourth novel in the series was published posthumously, The Girl in the Spider’s Web, supposedly constructed from an unfinished manuscript by Larsson.
I am an admirer of the novels featuring Salander and Blomkvist. I was drawn to them because of the social, political, and financial issues in the context of which the stories unfold. And that drew me to the passage with which this blog opens, about the right to free speech as the foundation of a country’s constitution. I found out that this was not a fictional formulation; Larsson was exactly right in describing this foundation of Swedish social democracy. The tenet—that people have the right to speak freely, to disagree with their rulers, and to express their dissent without fear of coercion, suppression, or retribution—is supposed to be core to democracy.
And it was a hard won right. No one gave it as a gift to common people; they fought for it. Thus, this right and its protection by the state are to be found as a “Fundamental Principle” in the constitutions of many other countries—from Article 1 of the US Constitution to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Fundamental Principles of the Indian Constitution.
But today, as our liberal democracies take an “Illiberal Turn,” this is no longer an iron-clad right. There is a growing gap between constitutional promise and contemporary adherence. As governments throughout the liberal democratic world lose popular support, become disconnected from their people, and rely increasingly on coercive force, the “policing” of the right to free speech has become a core form of state response to dissent.
The “Soft” Power of Mockery: State Insecurity
Sadly, it is not just dissent expressed in critical speeches or op-eds that is targeted. Even laughter is now construed as a threat. Take Pulkit Mani’s March 2026 video poking fun at Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s penchant for giving bear hugs to world leaders and his striking laughter at unexpected points in diplomatic encounters. By March 18, the video had 16 million views. The government of India promptly invoked Section 69A of the country’s IT Act to block it. Instagram and X complied, silencing a parody that millions found funny.
The law used here is meant to deal with threats to national security or public order. How does a video mocking a public figure’s laughter meet this criterion? It doesn’t—unless the state views its own loss of dignity as an existential threat. Humor, mockery, and satire are part of a historic, global tradition of holding the state to account, from the 18th-century Anglo-Irish writer Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal to contemporary performers in India like Neha Singh Rathore, with her use of Bhojpuri folk music to poke fun at the powerful, and Kunal Kamra, who uses standup comedy for political satire. But today, these modes of commentary are in serious jeopardy. When people start laughing, the ruler has lost control. The response is to shut down the circulation of such cultural productions and embroil the performers in extended criminal litigation and, even, imprisonment.
The Weaponization of Definition & Administration (The Soft Glove)
As speech moves from satire to direct political criticism, the “gloves” change, but the goal remains the same. In the European Union, we see sanctions against analysts and journalists like Colonel Jacques Baud enforced not by judicial process, but by arbitrary political decisions of EU foreign ministers that result in frozen bank accounts and travel bans. Jacques Baud is not even the citizen of an EU country; he is Swiss, but lives in Brussels. He has a distinguished military career, serving NATO and the UN. But his writings and analyses of the EU’s foreign and defence policies are critical of Europe’s current direction. Baud is not alone; there are nearly 50 other Europeans who have been similarly sanctioned.
In Canada, this administrative policing is taking a legislative form through Bill C-9 (The Combatting Hate Act). While framed as a tool to combat hate, critics note how its circular definitions leave a vast gray area for arbitrary enforcement. This intersects dangerously with the state-sanctioned IHRA definition of antisemitism, which is being used to equate pro-Palestine advocacy with hate speech and criticism of the state of Israel, a political entity, as an expression of antisemitism. We saw this “mischievous” narrative at play recently in the media attacks on the newly elected leader of the New Democratic Party (NDP), Avi Lewis, where legitimate political expression was pathologized to delegitimize dissent. Ironically, Mr. Lewis is himself of Jewish background.
Across the Atlantic, France is attempting a similar move with the Yadan Bill (Bill 575). Though it faced a temporary withdrawal on April 16, 2026, due to massive public pressure and a petition with over 700,000 signatures, the government plans to reintroduce it in June. The bill targets “implicit” incitement and calls for the “destruction of a state,” effectively turning judges into a “police of thought.”
The Militarized Front: Campus & Street (The Hard Glove)
When administrative “labeling” fails, the state resorts to the “Hard Glove”—literal, militarized policing. The “Illiberal Turn” is perhaps most visible on university campuses in the US, Greece, and Germany. In Canada, we have seen administrative threats and police deployments in Toronto at the University of Toronto, Toronto Metropolitan University, and York University. These policing actions have been in response to protests related to homelessness, poverty, environmental concerns and the state silence in the face of continued violence against civilians and destruction of public infrastructure in Gaza, widely considered to be violations of international laws.
Such “Hard Glove” tactics are present throughout the liberal democratic world. They are to be found outside the campuses, as well—in conference rooms, people’s homes and on the street where protests occur. They were and continue to be used widely throughout liberal democracies, like the UK, Germany, Switzerland and, of course, US and Canada. Some examples:
- In London, England: On April 11, 2026, independent journalist Asa Winstanley had his home raided and communication equipment seized under the Terrorism Act.
- In Germany and Switzerland: Ali Abunimah, founder of Electronic Intifada, was stopped from speaking at a conference in Germany and later arrested in Switzerland to prevent a scheduled speech.
- In the US: Former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter was prevented by the FBI from flying to Russia, having his passport seized while on a plane.
- In Canada: Journalists Yves Engler and Davide Mastracci have faced criminal charges and covert RCMP investigations, respectively, for their
These are just a small sampling of the application of the “Hard Glove” treatment to people whose views and ideas are not aligned with those of the state. They include ordinary people who take their civic and democratic responsibilities seriously, academics, journalists, social-political-economic-environmental activists among others.reporting on foreign policy and resource extraction.
Policing of dissent has been redefined as national security and anti-terrorism policing. In Toronto, the launch of Task Force Guardian in early 2024 saw police officers equipped with C8 semi-automatic rifles. On April 4, 2026, tactical-ready officers conducted a “walkabout” inside the TIFF Lightbox cinema during a screening of Palestine 36. Such presence in a place of cultural expression is a masterclass in state-sponsored intimidation.
This physical presence is augmented by a digital dragnet—from the monitoring of WhatsApp groups in India to “social media checks” for H-1B applicants. In New Delhi, when students protested air pollution at India Gate in late 2025, police seized cell phones to scrutinize WhatsApp messages related to organizing the protests and accused organizers of “terrorist activities.” Technology has made the policing of speech more efficient and invisible than in Larsson’s 2009 context.
The impact of this digital policing is felt acutely by those crossing borders. People applying for visas to the US to work or study have found the processing of their applications inordinately delayed because in June last year, the Trump administration ordered a social media vetting process for visa seekers from 40 countries, including India. The process is supposed to screen for applicants who may pose a national security risk. It is not hard to see, in the current political environment, what type of social media posts and comments would qualify as “threats.”
The “Why” of the Illiberal Turn
Why is this happening now? This shift isn’t an accident; it is a structural response to a legitimacy crisis. There is a growing “representational gap” where the state is seen managing the interests of capital and special interests rather than the public interest.
This “representational gap” is marked by two processes. First, “capture” of the state, the public, educational and cultural institutions, and the economy etc. by narrow economic, political and ideological interests. And second, consolidation of “Executive Power,” whereby government decision-making has been getting increasingly concentrated in the office of the President or the Prime Minister, depending on a country’s political system.
The consequence is the “Illiberal Turn,” with the state failing its core duties: housing crises, healthcare collapses, and environmental degradation. When a state can no longer provide prosperity or social harmony, it loses the “soft power” of persuasion and negotiation. Having abandoned the tools of dialogue—because it no longer intends to meet the public’s material demands—the state defaults to control. Force becomes the only way to manage a population that is rightfully discontented.
Resistance & The Looming Shadow
There are dim glimmers of pushback. In India, the Delhi High Court’s December 2025 ruling that a journalist is not liable for defamation if information is factual is a rare victory for truth. Yet, the shadow remains long. As Chris Hedges, the veteran US journalist and writer, noted in his March 2026 Princeton lecture, “Iran and Gaza are Only the Beginning,” the repression of public dissent is the start of a broader process and not a unique development that will go away.
We must see these events not as isolated incidents, but as a convergence. Whether the state uses the “soft” administrative glove or the “hard” militarized glove, the target is the same: our right to speak and to disagree with those who govern us. In this era of the Illiberal Turn, the policing of speech is no longer an exception; it has become a core feature of the modern state. On the right to free speech, democracy stands or falls—and currently, it is teetering.
___________________________________________________________________________________
This article is part of an ongoing series exploring “The Illiberal Turn”—a study into the rise of the executive state and the systematic policing of dissent in modern liberal democracies.
Alok Mukherjee, The Way I See It 
Leave a comment