An 83-year-old Christian grandmother was allegedly euthanised against her will under Canada’s assisted-dying system, prompting a criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding her death.

Brigitte Stegemann died on July 10 at The Pearl long-term care facility in Cannifton, Ontario, after receiving Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD). Her granddaughter, Brigitte Kranendonk, alleges that Stegemann had repeatedly rejected euthanasia because of her Christian faith and did not provide valid consent before the procedure.

The allegations have now led to an investigation by Belleville Police. Police have confirmed that the matter is open and being investigated by the force’s Criminal Investigations Division, but have declined to provide further details while the investigation continues.

Kranendonk, who says she was her grandmother’s primary caregiver and held power of attorney for personal care, claims Stegemann had previously made clear that she did not want MAiD. Stegemann had been diagnosed with stage-four stomach cancer earlier this year.

The family also questions whether Stegemann had the capacity to consent. Kranendonk says her grandmother struggled during a cognitive assessment, including incorrectly answering basic questions about her family. She further alleges that, two days before the procedure, Stegemann became distressed and cried for approximately 45 minutes after being told explicitly that the scheduled procedure would result in her death, saying that she had “made a mistake.”

On the morning of her death, Kranendonk alleges that Stegemann did not respond when the doctor asked whether she could administer the “medicine”. According to Kranendonk, Stegemann did not open her eyes, nod or speak before the doctor proceeded. She died within minutes.

The family has also sought investigations by Ontario’s Chief Coroner and Patient Ombudsman.

Washington is warning that Australia’s proposed online safety regime could become a weapon for political censorship.

The Trump administration has formally warned Canberra that the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 “risks becoming a mechanism for viewpoint-based censorship.

The bill, which was released by Communications Minister Anika Wells earlier this month, would impose a sweeping new duty on online platforms, backed by penalties of up to $109.2 million.

Proposed section 25C(1)(m) would allow the Communications Minister to declare additional material “seriously harmful” if she is satisfied it may cause serious harm. The ministerial instrument would be subject to parliamentary disallowance, but the initial power to define the new category would sit with the minister.

Then there is proposed section 25D(1)(c), which defines material harmful to children to include material that: “encourages or promotes hostile attitudes towards women or gender equality.”

So, not violence or threats—attitudes, which the bill itself doesn’t define. That leaves enormous room for interpretation on the issues that already generate fierce political and religious disagreement.

A Christian teaching on marriage. An argument that biological sex matters. A criticism of gender ideology. A debate over whether males should compete in women’s sport. Where does legitimate disagreement end and “harm” begin?

Anika Wells was asked who would decide.

Her answer:

“The test for what would constitute a new serious harm would ultimately be, I guess, made by me.”

Isn’t it funny how, whenever the government acts in the name of our “health and safety,” it somehow ends up with more power, and we end up with less freedom?

But consider also the implications for platforms that host our speech. They don’t have to agree that content is “harmful.” They simply have to fear being wrong. At every demand, they’ll remove first, and maybe investigate later.

In its submission to the Australian Government, the US said the bill could encourage platforms to “pre-emptively” suppress controversial material to avoid liability and warned against “viewpoint-based censorship”.

Australia has already seen regulators intervene in speech.

Canadian activist Christopher “Billboard Chris” Elston was ordered by eSafety to remove a social-media post in 2024. The Administrative Review Tribunal overturned the order in 2025.

And the government is now proposing to put an even larger regulatory stick behind a vastly broader definition of online harm.

But perhaps the most revealing comments have come from the Greens.

Senator David Shoebridge has explicitly argued that Australia needs a Digital Duty of Care so that messages from Pauline Hanson and One Nation are not “amplified”.

Think about that.

A bill sold to Australians as a child-safety measure is being defended by a senator who has openly identified the political speech of his opponents as part of the problem the regime is intended to address.

That is not a hypothetical concern about how this power might someday be abused. It is a glimpse of how the power is already being justified.

This is always how freedom disappears. Not with a government announcing that it intends to censor you, but with a promise to protect you from “harm.”

Give the government power to decide what is harmful, give platforms a $109 million reason to comply, and sooner or later lawful speech becomes whatever the people in power say it is.