Category: English

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Kyle Rich, Associate Professor of Sport Management, Brock University

We are at a pivotal time for sport in Canada.

In August, Sport Canada released a National Sport Policy to guide sport in the country for the next decade. Through language such as “barrier-free sport” and recognition of “spaces and places” required to participate, the federal government signalled a broader approach to addressing sport participation that will impact more than just the sport clubs that have traditionally delivered sport programs.

Since 2020, a series of high-profile cases of harassment and abuse in hockey, swimming, gymnastics and other sports raised questions about safety. This was epitomized by Hockey Canada’s sexual assault scandal.

In 2023, advocates called on the federal government to launch a public inquiry into sport. Instead, the government chose to investigate through a Future of Sport in Canada Commission.

That commission recently released preliminary findings and recommendations. Importantly, the commission took a broad scope, considering not only abuse and harassment but also the broader structures and politics that shape the Canadian sport delivery system. Last week, the commission held a summit in Ottawa to discuss its findings and recommendations with survivors and stakeholders from across the country.

The decisions made by policymakers in the coming months and years could change the landscape of sport in important ways. But the sport system is shaped by long-standing rules, traditions and organizations that are deeply entrenched, making meaningful change difficult.

Collectively, our research has examined sport policy and governance in different parts of Canada since the formalization of federal sport policy in 2002. Some of us were also consulted by the Future of Sport Commission and participated in the summit.

In our current work, we are mapping the role of provincial and territorial governments in sport policy. Through this work, we’ve observed changes in sport policy across Canada, and we have thought a lot about what works and what doesn’t in different jurisdictions.

Key challenges in sport

The Future of Sport Commission highlighted some key issues within Canadian sport and made sweeping recommendations. These include a need for a new funding model for sport, alignment of policy across all levels of government, amalgamating sport organizations and the creation of a new centralized sport entity to oversee sport governance.

Many of these, however, have been noted by scholars and advocates for some time. While the goal of changing the sport system for the better is well-intentioned, it will not be an easy task. Here are a few reasons why.

Amateur sport programs and organizations in Canada remain largely volunteer run. These organizations have ingrained social and political practices and low capacity for change. In this context, governments and national and provincial/territorial sport organizations can lay out an amazing suite of policies and programs, but those delivering sport in communities may not take them up.

Simultaneously, public infrastructure for sport is aging, and municipalities and school boards are unable or unwilling to support increased demand. This has a negative impact on sport clubs that rely on this support.

Without meaningful changes to the environments that support clubs, they simply won’t be able to adapt initiatives to create safe environments or more welcoming spaces for new and existing members. In order to improve access to safe and healthy sport participation opportunities, provincial and municipal governments also need to be invested in these policy goals.

A rise of private equity investment is also impacting the Canadian sport landscape. We are in danger of losing youth sport to large commercial conglomerates, which could change how sports are accessed.

While commercial clubs can excel at offering high-performance training experiences, they are costly for participants and can segregate access to training and facilities based on an athlete’s income rather than their talent or potential.

Furthermore, commercial clubs can be unsanctioned and operate outside of established governance systems. If sport continues to be commercialized, it will only be accessible for those who can afford to pay, which will exacerbate existing inequities. And a rise in unsanctioned clubs will prevent attempts to foster safe sport environments through governance reforms from working.

Why change is difficult

As highlighted by the commission, change will be difficult, and requires time, investment and concerted effort. Change is particularly complicated in sport, as organizations at all levels work under the auspices of international organizations that operate with an unusual amount of autonomy.

This means that sport organizations in Canada may be faced with multiple and competing ideas about how they should operate, and what they can afford, now and in the future.

Change will not be easy. It will require buy-in and alignment of policy from all orders of government. Change will be particularly difficult for organizations that are struggling to recruit and retain volunteer coaches and board members. In those cases, it’s easier to focus on the status quo than to change.

Furthermore, public opinion and social norms about sport needs to keep pace with change. Canadians across the country need to think about what they want sport to do for their communities and themselves, and how they want sport to achieve those goals.

The Canadian government has repeatedly used sports imagery like “elbows up” recently in light of tariffs from the United States. Based on the commission’s recommendations, the federal government has an opportunity to show that kind of leadership by investing in change so the sport system works for all Canadians.

Kyle Rich receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Audrey R. Giles receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Jonathon Edwards receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Larena Hoeber receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

– ref. The Canadian government must take action following future of sport commission – https://theconversation.com/the-canadian-government-must-take-action-following-future-of-sport-commission-264103

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Aya Aboelenien, Associate Professor of Marketing, HEC Montréal

When we think about morality, we usually focus on actions: is this act morally right or wrong? But increasingly, these kinds of debates involve the morality of everyday objects, like plastic bottles, smartphones or even the the food on our plates.

Our research shows that objects themselves can not only carry moral weight, but that these judgments can change over time. Take tattoos, for instance. Have you ever considered if having tattoos is considered moral, immoral or simply amoral?

In our recent research, we demonstrate how mainstream societal sentiments for tattoos have changed throughout history. We conducted a meta-synthesis of existing studies to develop a framework for understanding how moral attributions in markets are shaped.

Our findings show that shared moral sentiments toward objects, products or services are neither fixed nor are universally shared. By “objects,” we mean products and services that people might use, consume or embody due to moral associations, like plastic bags, tattoos, fur clothing or diamond jewellery.

The shifting moral landscape of tattoos

In early societies, tattoos were not stigmatized, but they were used to mark identity, social belonging or spiritual protection. This is still an ongoing sentiment in some cultures, including Kurds, Inuit and some Indigenous groups in the Philippines.

In the 19th century, tattoos started to have divergent moral meanings, including negative ones, depending on the context. For sailors, they were a mark of their sea adventures or the lands they conquered. For people in the periphery of the Global North, they were symbols of non-conformity.

Since then, the moral judgments of tattoos have fluctuated between being seen moral or immoral across time and place. Tattoos were seen as signs of bravery and remembrance for Second World War soldiers, yet in other contexts, they were associated with criminality or gang affiliation.

These changes happen through complex social processes that involve social entities with differing capacities: individuals, groups (like unions or consumer collectives) and organizations (like churches or governments). We call this process “marketplace moralization,” which produces what we call “marketplace moral sentiments.”

Not always black-and-white

Marketplace moral sentiments are not always black-and-white, but also can be in-between, debated and negotiated, such as in the case of meat consumption. While vegans consider it immoral to consume meat, other groups might consider it morally neutral or even necessary for cultural or health reasons.

To understand how these moral debates unfold, we used actor-network-theory — which involves the translation stages of problematization, enrolment, interessement and mobilization — to map the stages of marketplace moralization. In plain terms, these stages include raising an issue, persuading others and organizing support.

If successful, a new collective moral sentiment forms. For example, a new consensus about the necessity of eating animal protein can shift nutrition guidelines to advocate for more plant-based protein.

If unsuccessful, however, the old sentiment remains dominant. This means the object’s moral status remains contested and subject to further negotiation.

Outcomes of marketplace moralization

Our research found marketplace moralization can produce one of four outcomes. Sometimes an object can achieve “harmonized moral sentiment,” where nearly everyone agrees it is moral or immoral. Donating to charity, for example, is widely recognized as morally good. It is supported by your social network, and rewarded by government policies such as tax deductions.

Other times, an object can have a “divided moral sentiment,” with different groups holding opposing views. Some Hummer owners, for instance, moralize the purchase of their vehicles by arguing that it is an expression of individual freedom and rights or that it is a necessity for safer trips, while others condemn them as wasteful or environmentally harmful.

In some cases, moral sentiments are dispersed: a few people may challenge a widely held view but lack broad support. Early critics of bullfighting in Spain, for instance, spoke out against a deeply cherished cultural practice.

Finally, organizations can impose moral views on people through regulations or policies. In this case, individuals and groups are forced to conform even if they privately disagree, such as mask and vaccine mandates during COVID-19.

Why does this matter?

Markets are not just settings for economic exchange; they are also about values and moralized emotions. Large-scale issues like climate change, racism, animal rights or gender equality show how morality and markets are tied together.

Brands often leverage existing moral sentiments by supporting social movements or by promoting eco-friendly products. By doing this, they are also inserting themselves into moralized debates and negotiations.

For example, cosmetics retailer Lush closed its United Kingdom stores on Sept. 3, and shops in the Republic of Ireland on Sept. 4, as a gesture of solidarity with Palestine. The company is also selling watermelon-shaped soap to raise money for medical services in Gaza as part of its Giving Products collection.

More recently, concerns about environmental, cognitive and other ethical issues surrounding generative artificial intelligence have prompted criticism of companies seeking to integrate AI into their products or processes.

These examples illustrate why it is crucial to understand the fluidity of moral judgments about objects, rather than assuming objects have inherent or immutable moral value.

For individuals, this understanding can help contextualize moral disputes and allow them to see that disagreements over objects are not always rooted in absolute moral truths, but often in differing cultural, social and historical perspectives.

For managers and business leaders, it allows a more deliberate application of moral claims — like sustainable, green or cruelty-free — to their products or services while contextualizing them.

And lastly, for policymakers, it allows them to create better policies by monitoring public sentiments on complex issues such as gun ownership, food policy and technology.

Aya Aboelenien receives funding from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada.

Zeynep Arsel receives funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC)

– ref. From tattoos to plastic bottles, here’s how society assigns moral values to everyday things – https://theconversation.com/from-tattoos-to-plastic-bottles-heres-how-society-assigns-moral-values-to-everyday-things-264657

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By David Welch, Professor, Political Science; Research Chair, University of Waterloo

An independent international commission of inquiry appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council has released a report saying that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

Daniel Meron, Israel’s ambassador to the UN in Geneva, immediately dismissed the report for “promot[ing] a narrative serving Hamas and its supporters in attempting to delegitimize and demonize the state of Israel.” The report, he said, “falsely accuses Israel of genocidal intent, an allegation it cannot substantiate.”

Let’s imagine that there was no such thing as the legal definition of the crime of genocide. What would be left of the report? A gruesome, horrifying, utterly damning catalogue of Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity.

According to the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:

“Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

The prohibition of genocide is what is known in public international law as a peremptory (jus cogens) norm, meaning that it allows for no exceptions. It is one of a handful of jus cogens norms that include prohibitions on slavery, torture, war crimes and crimes against humanity. These are the worst of the worst, legally speaking, none lesser or greater than another.

How genocide is distinct

The crime of genocide stands out from other jus cogens violations in two ways, however — one legal and one sociological.

The legal difference is that genocide is the only jus cogens violation that requires proof of intent (mens rea, “guilty mind”). All the rest require nothing more than proof of a deed (actus reus, “guilty act”).

The sociological difference is that public opinion has come to regard genocide as somehow particularly important. If a state commits atrocities, it is for some reason unsatisfying today to call them crimes against humanity. There is seemingly a palpable urge to label it genocide.

In addition, the public understanding of genocide is much less restrictive than the legal one. The public feels that intent can be presumed and need not be proven, and that members of almost any group can qualify as victims. Sexual and gender minorities are not a protected group under the 1948 convention, for example, and yet it is not unusual to hear about the “genocide of gay people.”

Inviting quibbles and deflection

The UN report will be welcomed by all who understand Israel as guilty of the sociological version of the crime of genocide, because it concludes that Israel is also guilty of the legal version.

But a careful reading of the report will show that it often leaps to conclusions about intentions, drawing from statements or actions that might actually have explanations other than genuinely genocidal intent.

Alternative possible explanations the report does not entertain include overly emotional language or rhetorical hyperbole by Israeli leaders in the immediate wake of Hamas’s attack on Oct. 7, 2023; actions undertaken in the fog of war; a misplaced sense of military necessity; or even callous or reckless indifference to Palestinian suffering.

Such explanations, if true, would not be excuses. But they are not the same as an intention to destroy the Palestinian people.

Does this mean that the report is wrong to conclude that Israel is guilty of the legal crime of genocide? Not necessarily. It means only that it left room to quibble and deflect attention from unquestionable crimes.

It also gave Meron an opportunity to try to change the channel and make the conversation about “a narrative serving Hamas” or an attempt to “delegitimize and demonize the state of Israel,” rather than children starving or being shot in the head.

A high bar

None of this would be the case if the crime of genocide had not been defined so narrowly in the first place.

To some extent, its narrowness was the result of its inspiration. The evidence of genocidal intent was clear and overwhelming in Nazi Germany. One reason why there have been so few convictions is that the specific case of the Holocaust both spurred the definition of the crime and set the evidentiary bar so high.

Read more:
Why have so few atrocities ever been recognised as genocide?

However, its narrowness is also the result of political manoeuvring during the negotiation of the convention itself.

Was there any good reason why sexual orientation or gender identity were not included as protected categories? None whatsoever, unless you just so happened to be a state that wanted to be left in peace to persecute sexual and gender minorities.

Why was the convention silent on cultural genocide, or on forced relocations of Indigenous Peoples to reservations? Perhaps because certain powerful countries had embarrassing histories that they did not want to see criminalized.

Read more:
Ignore debaters and denialists, Canada’s treatment of Indigenous Peoples fits the definition of genocide

Conduct vs. intent

Perhaps the biggest error was insisting upon “intent to destroy.” Why not simply go with targeting, or disproportionately impacting, members of a particular group?

As the UN report demonstrates, it’s easy to show conduct (actus reus), but typically very difficult to prove intent (mens rea). Removing intent would have made genocide a subset of crimes against humanity rather than a separate crime. But so what?

Ultimately, none of this should matter. We should not need the word “genocide” to galvanize action to stop the horrors unfolding in Gaza. They are crimes enough in and of themselves — as were the horrors in Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda and so many other places — and they should be the sole focus of our attention.

David Welch does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Imagine a world without genocide – https://theconversation.com/imagine-a-world-without-genocide-265535

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By David Philpott, Professor, Special Education, Memorial University of Newfoundland

In 2025, the rapid rise of artificial intelligence access for the public at large also means growing concern about the mental health impact of screen time on children and their AI engagement.

Concerns encompass the harvesting of children’s personal data and children’s and teens’ vulnerability in dialogue with AI chatbots — some now in cuddly stuffed animals.

There are also risks that the promise of AI for learning and companionship could deprive children of the essential human relationships and hands-on play experiences that are foundational for their well-being and cognitive development.

AI is entering classrooms quickly, whether through children’s own AI use or lesson plans. The New York Times recently reported on an AI school in Texas that replaced teachers with “guides,” and AI-led lessons. Many apps, meanwhile, promise to diagnose, assess and “optimize” children’s learning.

As a researcher with expertise in how early education shapes children’s learning and developmental trajectories, and a retired practising psychotherapist, I amplify educator calls for caution. We need to regulate technologies and safeguard children’s privacy, especially considering the rapid rate that children adapt to technology.

72 million data points by age 13

In the transition back to fall routines, educators and parents concerned with the benefits of children’s active outdoor play for their well-being struggle to balance such play with the return to more sedentary and online routines.

A recent Organization for Economic Development Report entitled “How’s Life for Children in the Digital Age?” outlines the importance of a “four-pillar” approach to enhancing child well-being that involves parents and guardians, a legal and policy framework, teachers and schools and the voices of children themselves.

Concern over children’s mental health in the digital world is hardly new. Advocacy groups such as FairPlay for Kids and their 5 Rights Foundation have long pushed for stronger monitoring and regulation, urging tech companies to put children’s needs ahead of corporate profit.

They have amassed “overwhelming evidence” that child-targeted marketing, and the excessive screen time it fuels, undermines healthy development. By the time a child turns 13, technology companies may have already amassed up to 72 million data points on them — and there is virtually no regulation governing how that information is used.

OECD data shows that 70 per cent of 10-year-olds in developed countries own a smartphone, and by age 15, at least half of them spend 30 or more hours a week on their devices.

Called “persuasive design,” techniques like infinite scroll, autoplay, intermittent rewards and eye-catching design are used to hook children and keep them glued to screens, reshaping childhood.

From cognitive off-loading to emotional mining

AI, with its growing ability to “think” for us, is accelerating cognitive off-loading, outsourcing mental effort to machines. For young children whose neural pathways for reasoning are still forming, this is especially troubling. If for adults this sounds abstract, ask yourself how many phone numbers you can remember without your device.

What researchers call “emotional AI” goes even further, mining facial expressions, tone of voice, body language, text sentiment and even heart rate to engage children more deeply. The technology is increasingly built into smart toys, wearables and, perhaps most concerning, AI chatbots that children or teens turn to for comfort.

The stakes are high: without deliberate safeguards, we risk not just outsourcing children’s memory and reasoning, but compromising their opportunities to develop empathy and emotional resilience.

Policymakers’ lag on digital regulation

Researchers are increasingly recognizing the risk to student mental health, and there are growing calls for stronger oversight and regulation. In law, and with regulation and guidance in schools and in the home, student mental health and privacy protection should be prioritized.

Read more:
Youth social media: Why proposed Ontario and federal legislation won’t fix harms related to data exploitation

But policy experts note regulatory efforts in Canada related to youth and data exploitation are wanting.

The Liberal government’s proposed Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, died with Parliament’s prorogation in 2025, and with it the promise of a Digital Safety Commission with the power to audit and penalize companies.

Calls have grown for the federal government to revisit the act again.

Privacy commissioner consultations

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada recently held consultations on the need for Canada to follow international trends in digital regulation, with the consultation window closing in mid-August.

Forty-one leading civil organizations, academic institutions and experts endorsed a joint statement outlining 15 principles for effective oversight, inspired by the United Kingdom’s age-appropriate design code. The top principle: the best interests of the child.

Some voices of children

But never underestimate a child. When social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, author of The Anxious Generation, and a team of researchers collaborated on a Harris Poll of more than 500 children between the ages of eight and 12 in the United States, they found something striking.

While most children said they weren’t allowed out in public alone, and more than half had never walked down a grocery aisle unaccompanied or used a sharp knife, their online use was remarkably unsupervised.

But when asked how they prefer to spend their leisure time, only a quarter mentioned their devices, favouring free play with their friends. Eighty-seven per cent of surveyed children said they wished they could spend more time with their friends in person outside of school.

Read more:
Raising independent and resilient children: Lessons from TVO’s ‘Old Enough!’ and the science of love

Parents and educators are navigating a world where screens, algorithms and AI companions compete for children’s attention and shape their development.

In this context, the humble call from kids for more unstructured play with friends is not nostalgia; it’s a health intervention. Protecting that space may do more to safeguard their cognitive and emotional growth than any app, program or device ever could.

David Philpott does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Children’s best interests should anchor Canada’s approach to their online privacy – https://theconversation.com/childrens-best-interests-should-anchor-canadas-approach-to-their-online-privacy-264963