This has been a summer of media disputes, and the stories dominate the front pages of newspapers, along with angry opinion pieces editorialising about democracy, freedom of speech and the press. No, I am not talking about Hong Kong, but Canada. I spent more than a month with my children on holiday in Toronto. When you baby-sit full-time, you can do little except read newspapers. And if you hold a Canadian passport but work as a reporter in Hong Kong, some of their headlines really stand out. Here are some stories that have got Canadians all hot and bothered. They may well give you a new perspective on freedom - or the lack of it - in undemocratic Hong Kong. They certainly did with me. After long delays, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission finally approved the broadcasting of pan-Arab TV news station Al-Jazeera, but imposed unprecedented conditions that pretty much guarantee no distributer would touch it because of prohibitive costs. These include round-the-clock recording and monitoring of all programmes to ensure they are not harmful to viewers. A distributer may be penalised if it fails to pull the plug immediately on offensive content. Like me, you probably do not speak Arabic and have no way of judging whether the self-styled CNN of the Arab world is anti-Semitic, anti-American and a mouthpiece for terrorists. But I recommend that you try to get hold of a new documentary by Egyptian-American Jehane Noujaim called Control Room: Inside Al-Jazeera. Its poster advert perfectly summarises the film's main theme: 'Different channels, different truths.' Among other things, the feature-length film observes that the Qatar-based network regularly shows horrendous injuries inflicted by American soldiers on Iraqi civilians, especially women and children, while the US news networks almost never do. Which side is broadcasting propaganda? Noujaim asks the question but leaves you to decide. Meanwhile, in a Canadian first, the commission revoked the broadcasting licence of French-language CHOI-FM, Quebec City's most popular radio station, solely because of a long-running pattern of offensive remarks by its morning hosts. Rude comments included fantasying about a popular woman TV host's breasts and calling for the eugenic killing of a mental patient. The dispute continues, but the commission's decision could spell the end of the station. But it was this headline on the August 5 front page of The Globe & Mail that really caught my attention: 'Canadian opts for Hong Kong vote, renounces citizenship to help former British colony's democracy movement.' The Canadian in question was ousted radio host Albert Cheng King-hon, and the story was about his Legislative Council election bid. The report contained a large photo of Cheng at the Wong Tai Sin temple asking the gods' blessings for his coming democratic fight. At least three of the newspaper's readers wrote in, saying to the effect that they were proud that a (former) Canadian was helping spread democracy in Hong Kong. Three weeks before this - rather out of the blue - the newspaper ran a lengthy leader rounding on Beijing's shortsightedness for not granting full democracy to Hong Kong. But what does democracy mean by the newspaper's, or Canadian, standards? Does it automatically guarantee free speech? At least the Broadcasting Authority did not try to cancel Commercial Radio's licence during the tenures of Cheng and fellow ousted talk show host Wong Yuk-man. So, who is freer to speak out - Canadians or Hongkongers? I do not know; different places, different truths. Alex Lo is a senior reporter and columnist for the Post