Category: The Conversation – Canada

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Gio Dolcecore, Assistant Professor, Social Work, Mount Royal University

Lavender marriages, traditionally entered into by LGBT+ individuals to conceal their sexual orientation, are on the rise, according to several news sources, with some even calling them a “trend.”

Historically, lavender marriages refer to unions — often between two consenting LGBT+ individuals — formed as a way of concealing same-sex attraction in a society where being openly queer could mean social ostracism, career ruin or even criminalization.

Crucially, they were not loveless. On the contrary, they were bonds of protection and safety between two people navigating the reality of bias, prejudice and discrimination of society and politics.

Lavender marriages can be confused with mixed orientation marriages, but there is a difference: in mixed-orientation marriages, partners have different sexual orientations from one another. That doesn’t mean these relationships don’t make sense — plenty of couples do well without sharing the same orientation.

But are lavender marriages actually making a comeback? The answer is complicated. While social progress has made queer lives more visible, many still fear coming out because of social, religious, cultural and political pressures.

---

Dating today can feel like a mix of endless swipes, red flags and shifting expectations. From decoding mixed signals to balancing independence with intimacy, relationships in your 20s and 30s come with unique challenges. Love IRL is the latest series from Quarter Life that explores it all.

These research-backed articles break down the complexities of modern love to help you build meaningful connections, no matter your relationship status.

---

The roots of lavender marriages

Nowhere were lavender marriages more visible than during Hollywood’s Golden Age (1930-60s), when the Motion Picture Production Code — known as the Hays Code after the president of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America from 1922 to 1945 — imposed restrictions on “immorality” and demanded that stars maintain a carefully constructed image.

For example, the 1933 film Queen Christina portrayed an androgynous queen who shared a kiss with another woman. If the film were released a year later than it was, the androgynous image and kiss would have had to be removed to comply with Hays Code.

Notable examples in Hollywood include actor Rock Hudson, whose studio reportedly orchestrated a marriage to shield his private life from public scrutiny, and stage actress Katharine Cornell, whose marriage to director Guthrie McClintic was widely regarded as a partnership of convenience that allowed both to live more authentically in private.

Earlier still, silent film idol Rudolph Valentino faced speculation about his sexuality, and was rumoured to have entered into marriages that offered him protection amid tabloid attacks.

For these celebrities, lavender marriages were not only about survival in a hostile era, but also a way of retaining access to their careers, audiences and cultural influence.

Queer censorship today

It is unsurprising that lavender marriages have returned to public discussion, given that similar concerns of queer censorship are currently happening.

Inside Out 2 (2024) was rumoured to remove a transgender character to avoid international backlash, while Elio (2025) was also rumoured to erase queer subtext from the movie’s final cut.

Censorship of queer culture is on the rise as political and social movements directly attack the LGBTQ+ community. Examples include book censorship policies, exclusion of queer art and rising violence against drag performances.

---

Read more:
We must all speak out to stop anti-LGBTQ legislation

---

These realities were poignantly illustrated in the 2022 Pakistani film Joyland, which captures the grief and danger of living inauthentically when family bonds, social safety and political punishment are at stake.

Similar stories are surfacing in real life. In 2024, People profiled a 90-year-old grandmother who came out as bisexual after her husband’s death, revealing their 63-year union had been a lavender marriage of mutual protection.

Another People story followed a woman raised in a conservative Mormon community who married a man to conform, only to come out at 35 and reconnect with her first love.

Even today, couples negotiate these dynamics in new ways — Business Insider recently highlighted a gay man and straight woman who married not to hide but to redefine love on their own terms, while rejecting the label of “lavender marriage.”

The pressure to pass as heterosexual — whether by marrying, dating or travelling with opposite-sex friends — remains a strategy of safety for many queer people around the world.

Lavender and lesbians

The symbolism of lavender itself has particular resonance in lesbian culture. Throughout the 20th century, the colour became a coded reference to women who loved women, at once stigmatizing and unifying.

During the “Lavender Scare” of the 1950s, the U.S. government dismissed and persecuted lesbians and gay men in federal employment under the guise of “security risks.”

Yet lavender was also reclaimed as a badge of solidarity and resistance. Early lesbian feminists incorporated lavender into marches, protest sashes and art, using it as a way of asserting presence and pride in a culture that demanded invisibility.

The impact of concealment

Academic research consistently shows that concealment of sexual orientation remains widespread. A 2019 global public health study from estimated that 83 per cent of lesbian, gay and bisexual people worldwide hide their orientation from most people in their lives.

Research in Hong Kong found that concealment increases loneliness and diminishes feelings of authenticity, directly impacting well-being.

In Canada, a 2022 study of LGBTQ+ health professionals revealed how concealing one’s identity shapes daily decisions about disclosure, often producing stress and internal conflict in professional settings. Bisexual individuals frequently report concealing their orientation to avoid stigma from both heterosexual and queer communities.

---

Read more:
Queerphobic hate is on the rise, and LGBTQ+ communities in Canada need more support

---

“Passing” as straight is often a survival strategy shaped by stigma, with lasting consequences for identity, relationships and health. Lavender marriages remind us that queer lives have always been shaped by the tension between resistance and survival. Visibility itself can be an act of defiance, whether on a movie screen, in a march or in daily life.

However, visibility carries real risks: estrangement from family, discrimination or social backlash, political punishment or threats to personal safety. At the same time, concealment has often been a pragmatic choice to preserve dignity, livelihood and community.

Redefining marriage and partnership

These histories and contemporary examples reveal that marriage and partnership have never been one-size-fits-all.

For queer people, unions can be built around protection, friendship, parenting, finances or chosen kinship, just as much as romance or desire. To call them all “lavender marriages” risks oversimplifying the complex ways people craft love and survival.

Modern marriage is not bound by tradition alone; it is defined by the people who build it and by the choices they make to balance safety, authenticity and resistance in a world still learning to accept them.

This dual significance — lavender as both concealment and resistance — helps explain why the term continues to resonate today, as scholars, activists and communities revisit these marriages not simply as personal compromises, but as reflections of broader homophobia and gendered policing that continue to share queer history.

Gio Dolcecore 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. Beyond lavender marriages: What queer unions and relationships can teach us about love and safety – https://theconversation.com/beyond-lavender-marriages-what-queer-unions-and-relationships-can-teach-us-about-love-and-safety-264179

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Pablo Arrona Cardoza, Ph.D. Candidate in Human Nutrition, McGill University

Whether you’re at a party, a family gathering or even at work, chances are you’ve heard someone say: “I’m on the (insert name) diet. It’s amazing!” Or maybe you’ve been the one to say it. Either way, it’s not surprising.

Diet trends are as old as, well, the grapefruit diet of the 1930s. But in today’s social media world, endless online wellness hacks, fad diets and nutrition misinformation are spreading faster than ever.

Why? Quick-fix regimens gain traction easily for many reasons. Our diets are deeply personal and, for some people, evoke a sense of devotion, almost like a religion.

The science of food choices

Food choices are complex. When we go to a supermarket, what we put in our basket is influenced by many factors.

Some are biological, like our brain’s tendency to prefer high-calorie foods. Others are cultural, like the staples we grew up eating. And some are basic business strategy, like the store we shop at nudging our choices by placing certain products at eye level.

Nutrition and public health scientists, however, largely agree that when it comes to eating behaviour, the food environment is key. The food environment refers to the complex systems that determine which types of food we have access to. It has a physical component, such as the grocery stores around our neighbourhood or workplace, but it also includes other important and highly effective factors like marketing.

In our 2023 meta-analysis, we found that exposure to food ads activated brain regions involved in eating behaviour. When people, regardless of age, were exposed to food ads, they ate more food afterwards.

This evidence, alongside a vast body of research, highlights just how strongly our environment influences what we eat, and how much. It also raises an important question: if traditional media and marketing can shape our eating behaviours, how much stronger is that influence today in our infodemic-driven digital reality?

The misinformation problem

Health misinformation on TikTok, Instagram and the like, is nothing new. But during the COVID-19 pandemic, with more time at home, the perfect recipe for the sharing of faulty claims emerged. And the nutrition space was no exception.

Countless personalities on social media spread nutrition “advice” that should be avoided. Two examples that have persisted on social media are the carnivore diet — based solely on eating animal products — and the anti–seed oil movement, which blames seed oils for many diet-related diseases. These controversial and thoroughly debunked recommendations have become so influential that they are even endorsed by the U.S. Secretary of Health.

A 2022 study reviewed more than 60 articles on online nutrition content, and about half concluded that the information quality was low.

Perhaps the more notable aspect, however, is the fervent and often combative way people react during these debates. Why do people display such passion — even tribalism — when discussing food and nutrition? What we eat and what we believe about our food runs deep. So deep, in fact, that it can become part of who we are.

Food and personal identity

Food is connected with identity in intricate ways. It acts as a socio-cultural force that shapes how we see ourselves. But certain traits that overlap with believing in conspiracy theories, such as relying too much on intuition and being antagonistic, can leave some particularly vulnerable to misinformation. They encounter nutrition-related misinformation online and become deeply entrenched in a specific diet and lifestyle.

Adopting a fad diet can also mean finding a community, or at least, a sense of belonging. It’s not just about following a guru figure proclaiming the diet’s benefits; it’s also about dozens of peers confirming those benefits, sharing tips and recounting their experiences. This creates an echo chamber that reinforces beliefs and shields them from external skepticism.

It doesn’t help that many claims about fad diets are framed in almost religious terms. In a 2015 Slate piece, Alan Levinovitz, professor of religion at James Madison University, wrote:

“Evil foods harm you, but they are sinfully delicious, guilty pleasures. Good foods, on the other hand, are real and clean. These are religious mantras, helpfully dividing up foods according to moralistic dichotomies. Of course, natural and processed, like real and clean, are not scientific terms, and neither is good nor evil. Yet it is precisely such categories, largely unquestioned, that determine most people’s supposedly scientific decisions about what and how to eat.”

Elevating claims about the healthfulness of certain diets to the level of the sacred is a striking phenomena. So much so that, for some, criticism of a diet can feel like criticism of the self. This identity-driven attachment is one reason why fad diets thrive on social media. They spread because they offer people something deeper: moral clarity and even purpose.

So the next time you see an influencer promoting their diet, ask yourself: are they sharing evidence-based advice in a composed and balanced way, or are they overly passionate, alarmist and entrenched in their views? If it’s the latter, you may have just spotted a misinformation red flag.

Pablo Arrona Cardoza receives funding from Fonds de recherche du Québec, Nature et technologies..

Daiva Nielsen receives funding support from the Canada Research Chairs program.

– ref. Social media nutrition misinformation fuels food-based attachments – https://theconversation.com/social-media-nutrition-misinformation-fuels-food-based-attachments-264073

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Spyros A. Sofos, Assistant Professor in Global Humanities, Simon Fraser University

The bombing of a Hamas office on Qatari soil by Israeli jets was more than a strike against a militant group. It was a bold and deeply consequential act against a state that has long positioned itself as a mediator in Middle Eastern conflicts and hosts 11,000 American troops on its territory.

For decades, Qatar has balanced its role as an American ally with its open lines of communication to groups that include Hamas and the Taliban. It has provided an indispensable channel for negotiations that the United States itself cannot conduct.

By targeting Qatar directly, Israel has crossed into uncharted territory. The strike is not just a military move — it is an unmistakably revisionist act, challenging the norms, alliances and security architecture of the region.

---

Read more:
Israel’s attack on Syria: Protecting the Druze minority or a regional power play?

---

Defining revisionism

In international relations, “revisionism” refers to attempts by states to revise the existing order of rules, institutions or the distribution of power.

Revisionist states seek to undermine the constraints imposed by the international system, reshaping it in ways that benefit them. They often do this not only by rejecting particular norms, but also by bending them to suit their own purposes.

Israel’s strike on Qatar demonstrates this pattern clearly.

By attacking a U.S. ally, Israel is not just pursuing Hamas operatives, it’s asserting that its own security imperatives override the norms of sovereignty, alliance management and the delicate balance that underpins regional diplomacy.

Qatar’s unique position

Qatar, unlike other Gulf states, has built a reputation as a broker of peace processes, hosting talks between Israel and Hamas, the U.S. and the Taliban and even among rival Palestinian factions.

Its role has often been tolerated, and even encouraged, by the U.S., which benefits from having a close ally act as a mediator of last resort.

The strike, therefore, is likely not just about Hamas. It is an apparent attempt to discredit Qatar’s mediating role, portraying it instead as a protector of terrorists and therefore unfit to serve as a diplomatic arbitrator. But more importantly, it seems an attempt to undermine diplomacy in the region as it eliminates a crucial venue for negotiation, leaving military action as the primary currency in Israeli–Palestinian relations.

With the massive U.S. Al Udeid airbase located in Qatar, Israel’s actions place American officials in an uncomfortable position: tolerate Israeli overreach and risk undermining their own ally, or confront Israel and fracture an already tense relationship. Either outcome serves Israel’s interests and loosens U.S. influence in the Middle East.

Hijacking U.S. foreign policy

Successive U.S. administrations have increasingly outsourced mediation to partners like Qatar. This reflects a recognition of American limits: its deep alliance with Israel makes it an unconvincing neutral broker, while states such as Qatar can talk to countries and organizations the U.S. designates as adversaries.

Yet Israel has repeatedly undercut such efforts. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action agreement on the Iranian nuclear program was relentlessly opposed by Israel, whose intelligence leaks and lobbying helped derail American efforts at forging a new deal in 2018.

---

Read more:
US-Iran tensions: no route for de-escalation in sight

---

In June 2025, just days before an Iranian delegation was scheduled to meet the American envoy for renewed discussions on the nuclear program, Israel initiated its 12-day war with Iran, collapsing the conditions for diplomacy before talks could even begin.

More recently, Gaza ceasefire talks in Doha were repeatedly disrupted by Israeli escalations on the ground or by making new demands, ensuring that negotiations never moved beyond crisis management.

The strike on Qatari soil takes this interference to a new level. It is not only a rejection of particular negotiations, but an attack on the infrastructure of American-led diplomacy.

Israel is seemingly aiming to hijack American foreign policy, narrowing U.S. options and entrenching Israel’s role as the sole gatekeeper of “acceptable” peace processes in the region.

Weaponizing peace processes?

Revisionist Israeli governments have tended to use negotiations not as pathways to a permanent peace, but as tools for managing conflict on their own terms.

By selectively engaging in negotiations while simultaneously engaging in settlement expansion in the West Bank, Israeli actions mean talks rarely translate into substantive concessions. The peace process becomes a means of buying time, dividing opponents and presenting Israel as a willing but frustrated partner.

Targeting Qatar continues this pattern. By undermining the one Gulf state that consistently invests in dialogue, Israel shrinks the diplomatic horizon. If no credible mediator is left standing, peace negotiations become a hollow exercise — something Israel could invoke to deflect criticism while pursuing its own security goals via military action.

This seems like peace as spectacle, weaponized to perpetuate the very state of war it claims to want to overcome.

A state of permanent war

One of the striking features of Israel’s regional stance is its reliance on a “permanent war” condition. Periodic escalations with Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, or Iran are not anomalies, but seem to be part of a strategy to normalize insecurity.

This strategy enables Israel to consolidate domestic political support, sustain high levels of military aid and investment and maintain control over the Palestinian Territories under the guise of an omnipresent existential threat.

That threat isn’t unfounded — and was underscored by the Hamas attacks of Oct. 7, 2023 — but Israel has used it to entrench a permanent-war posture that extends well beyond immediate security needs instead of pursuing peace.

The strike on Qatar extends this logic outward as Israel signals that there is no neutral space left and that even mediators can be attacked. The result is not the resolution of conflict but its apparent institutionalization: an endless cycle of violence where war is the baseline, not the exception.

---

Read more:
Can Israel still claim self-defence to justify its Gaza war?

---

What does Israeli revisionism achieve?

Israel’s strategy achieves several goals. By striking a U.S.-allied state, Israel challenges the principle that allied territory is off-limits.

At the same time, undercutting Qatar’s mediating role undermines the American ability to engage in diplomacy in the region, and leaves fewer avenues for talks, which means military action sets the agenda. Finally, expanding the geography of conflict turns instability into the Middle East’s default condition.

Such strategies may achieve short-term gains, but they come at enormous cost. The strike risks fracturing Israel’s quiet alignment with Gulf monarchies, alienating the U.S.

If the U.S. cannot or will not restrain strikes against its key allies, what meaning do American security guarantees truly carry? U.S. allies in the Middle East will point to the Qatar strikes as evidence that American protection is conditional, eroding confidence in the very alliance system that underpins U.S. power.

For the U.S., the attack underscores a deeper dilemma: the more it outsources its regional diplomacy to Israel, the more vulnerable it becomes. Israel’s repeated strikes in the midst of sensitive negotiations — from the Iran nuclear talks to Gaza ceasefires — show how effectively it can hijack American policy and systematically undermine the prospect of peace in the Middle East.

Spyros A. Sofos 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. How Israel’s attack on Qatar erodes peace — and American influence — in the Middle East – https://theconversation.com/how-israels-attack-on-qatar-erodes-peace-and-american-influence-in-the-middle-east-265017

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Robert B. Gibson, Professor of Environment, Resources and Sustainability, University of Waterloo

The federal government is about to refer its initial selection of national interest project candidates to its new Major Projects Office. The news stirs both excitement and trepidation.

Projects considered in the national interest would “enhance Canada’s prosperity, national security, economic security, national defence and national autonomy,” the government says.

While the notion of national interest projects is compelling, success on the ground depends on thinking through the implementation. There’s little evidence that’s happened.

The enabling law — the Building Canada Act, hustled through Parliament in June — establishes separate decision-making steps for project approval and for approval conditions, but not much else. How the candidate projects will be evaluated is mostly unknown.

---

Read more:
Why the federal government must act cautiously on fast-tracking project approvals

---

Big project challenges

Major project development is notoriously difficult. That’s evident in the long global record of megaproject cost overruns and embarrassments. It’s not surprising, given the organizational, economic and technical complexities, inevitable trade-offs and opposition and attractive alternative uses for the money.

For the current initiative, additional practical difficulties include:

• How to share implementation power and responsibility with many players, given the constitutional fragmentation of jurisdictional authority;

• How to respect Indigenous rights and consent;

• How to cover the multitude of linked factors that should inform overall public-interest evaluations and justifications for decisions;

• How to achieve reasonable reliability in predicting the positive and adverse effects and their distribution, especially for projects expected to induce further activities;

• How to draw well-supported conclusions about project viability, serious opportunities and risks, costs and legacies, in an uncertain global economic, geopolitical and climate context; and

• For non-renewable resource projects, how to use limited-life gains to build more lasting well-being, while avoiding dependencies, stranded assets and toxic legacies.

Dealing with all these matters entails careful elaboration of the Building Canada Act’s basic two-step process for decisions on national interest projects.

It also requires a departure from the approach so far, which has identified potential candidates through a cloaked process involving proponents and relevant political jurisdictions without published criteria for evaluating the projects or clear plans for the deliberations to follow.

Defensible evaluations and decisions

Before candidates are referred to the Major Projects Office, all parties would benefit from the publication of a well-defined, open and rigorous approach that ensures defensible evaluations and decisions.

As set out with few specifics in the Building Canada Act, the two decision-making steps are:

1. Evaluations leading to a determination on whether to pre-approve the candidate project;
2. Expedited assessment and provision of permits to consolidate the conditions of approval.

The sequence seemingly ignores the normal process where assessment precedes approval (first consider, then decide). In practice, however, defensible decision-making in Step 1 must have detailed project information and a strong overall assessment of the project’s benefits, risks and uncertainties.

That’s a basic necessity if the government wants decisions on the pre-approval of projects to be well-founded and justifiable, and if the project planning is to be far enough advanced to be ready for the for Step 2’s expedited process for conditions of approval.

Process essentials

For Step 1, the Major Projects Office should provide specifics on the following requirements for decision-making on pre-approval:

• Well-elaborated, comprehensive and visibly applied criteria for evaluations;

• Detailed project information;

• Analyses covering specifics on all the key considerations and their interactions;

• Mobilized expertise for due diligence rigour in evaluating project viability, opportunities, risks and trade-offs;

• Special imperatives for responsibility in allocating public funding;

• Solidly defensible decisions, clearly based on well-informed analyses, while also respecting controversies and uncertainties;

• Credible transparency and meaningful engagement;

• Detailed project readiness for the expedited conditions and the permits process; and

• Clarity about how other authorities are involved in Step 1 and will collaborate, especially in joint assessments, in Step 2.

One project, one assessment

The final point above may present the greatest challenges and opportunities.

The federal government has emphasized a commitment to “one project, one assessment” that will apply often. But many of the reported candidate projects involve several jurisdictions.

Perhaps in a few cases, one assessment could be achieved by deferring largely to a single provincial or territorial process. But where two or more provinces, territories and/or Indigenous jurisdictions are involved — or the project depends on significant federal funding — a joint assessment process is necessary.

Exemplary joint assessments have been conducted in Canada before. Doing so today for fast-tracked mega-projects would be a major accomplishment, especially if those joint assessments prioritize best practices and respect Indigenous rights, including the right to give or withhold free, prior and informed consent.

---

Read more:
‘Elbows up’ in Canada means sustainable resource development

---

Rigour and transparency

In sum, what’s needed now is detailed elaboration of the process for the initial group of identified candidates for national interest projects. That process should incorporate all the components listed above, including a comprehensive and credible equivalent of assessment before the first step’s pre-approval decision.

Such an approach is consistent with the the Building Canada Act and stated policy. Perhaps that’s been the federal government’s intention all along. If so, it must ensure the process is transparent to ensure the understanding and confidence of all participants.

Political enthusiasm is a useful stimulant but a poor guide and a risky base for deliberations and decisions on major projects. Judging the opportunities and risks of national interest projects is important and difficult. It’s time for an open and rigorous process.

Robert B. Gibson has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. He is a member of the Agency’s Technical Advisory Committee.

– ref. Decision-making on national interest projects demands openness and rigour – https://theconversation.com/decision-making-on-national-interest-projects-demands-openness-and-rigour-264755

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Kenneth Bartlett, Professor, Department of History, University of Toronto

Se non è vero, è ben trovato (even if it isn’t true, it makes a good story). This traditional Italian observation reflects a good deal of human history.

One such colourful event was the 14th-century War of the Bucket between the Italian cities of Bologna and Modena. The story is that after years of tension, a group of Modenese entered Bologna and stole the bucket from the town well.

The Bolognese demanded its return, but the ruler of Modena refused, and war ensued, culminating in the Modenese victory at the Battle of Zappolino in 1325.

It is an engaging story, but is it fact?

The reality is that the two cities were on either side of an ideological division that characterized the northern Italian states from the early 12th century. At the root of the conflict was a struggle for power and authority over Europe that pitted the Holy Roman Empire against the papacy.

The Guelphs and Ghibellines

After the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the fifth century, Italy was a mosaic of small states trying to defend their territory while attempting to expand at the expense of their neighbours.

Rulers of city states sought alliances with powers who could defend and legitimize their rule. But who had the power to grant the right to rule in these often unstable, violent times?

One claimant was the Holy Roman Emperor, who claimed the authority of the ancient Roman Empire after the coronation of Charlemagne in St. Peter’s Basilica in 800 CE.

The other was the pope, who claimed universal dominion over Christendom as the heir of St. Peter, Christ’s vicar on Earth and the legal recipient of Roman imperial authority.

The papacy’s legal claim was based on one of history’s greatest forgeries: the Donation of Constantine. This was purported to be a document that Constantine I, the first Christian emperor of Rome, issued to Pope Sylvester I before the emperor moved his capital to Constantinople (present-day Istanbul) in 330 CE. It granted full imperial authority to the pope in gratitude for curing the emperor of leprosy and his role in leading a Latin Christian empire in the West.

Although there is no evidence of the donation existing before the eighth century, it was widely accepted. It was not proven to be a forgery until the mid-15th century when Italian scholar and priest Lorenzo Valla revealed it to be fraudulent through textual analysis. Nevertheless, it was still referenced well into the 16th century, including in the Sala di Costantino (Hall of Constantine) at the Apostolic Palace in the Vatican.

Those who saw ultimate authority in the papacy were called Guelphs, an Italianization of the House of Welf, who thwarted claimants to the imperial throne. Those who supported the Holy Roman Emperors were called Ghibellines, another Italianization of a German word: Waiblingen, the name of the castle and the battle cry of the House of Hohenstaufen, the family that most seriously threatened the papacy in the 12th century.

This ideological division was not only an abstract reflection of divergent concepts of sovereignty. It was a practical division often determined by class, geography, events and opportunity. If your enemy was a Guelph, you were a Ghibelline; if a usurper overthrew a rival who was Ghibelline, he claimed to be Guelph, generating immediate support from within and outside the city.

The War of the Bucket

This struggle between the Guelphs and Ghibellines was the real issue in the Bucket War. Bologna was a leading Guelph city, later forming part of the Papal States and guarding passes through the Apennine Mountains of Italy. Modena was a state that depended on support from the Holy Roman emperors, who had entered Italy and granted authority to their supporters.

As two cities on the edges of this divide, tension was inevitable, leading to the story of the purloined bucket. But the reality was much deeper and more dangerous.

A far more likely cause of the war was not the theft of a bucket but the capture of the Bolognese fortress of Monteveglio by Modena in September 1325, a serious threat to Bolognese defenses and a reason to seek redress.

After years of border incursions, the capture of Monteveglio was the final straw. Two cities and their rival world views were in conflict, so every small victory was celebrated.

In November 1325, a greatly outnumbered Modenese army met the Bolognese at Zappolino. The pope had excommunicated the Modenese leader, declaring him a rebel against God.

The Bolognese had superior numbers but were largely untrained, whereas the Modenese had professional German soldiers sent by the emperor. The result was a decisive Modenese victory, with many Bolognese casualties.

Such victories often occasion popular mythologies, and the bucket story was one. It is far more likely that the bucket was taken after the battle, not before, and its symbolism was codified in the 17th century with the creation of a mock epic poem by the poet Alessandro Tassoni, La Secchia rapita.

To this day, many people continue to believe the story. In Modena, the original bucket is proudly displayed in the town hall, and a replica in the Ghirlandina Tower of the cathedral, where the original had been kept for centuries.

History and myth are often merely different narrative techniques, and both can be used to stimulate national pride and cohesion and to celebrate events that defined a people. This is the significance of the War of the Bucket, a real war with real causes now characterized by charming, if unlikely, actions of distant but not forgotten ancestors.

Kenneth Bartlett 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. The War of the Bucket: What one medieval battle tells us about history and myth – https://theconversation.com/the-war-of-the-bucket-what-one-medieval-battle-tells-us-about-history-and-myth-264751

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Johanathan Woodworth, Assistant Professor, Education, Mount Saint Vincent University

Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping how students write essays, practise languages and complete assignments. Teachers are also experimenting with AI for lesson planning, grading and feedback. The pace is so fast that schools, universities and policymakers are struggling to keep up.

What often gets overlooked in this rush is a basic question: how are students and teachers actually learning to use AI?

---

Read more:
AI in schools — here’s what we need to consider

---

Right now, most of this learning happens informally. Students trade advice on TikTok or Discord, or even ask ChatGPT for instructions. Teachers swap tips in staff rooms or glean information from LinkedIn discussions.

These networks spread knowledge quickly but unevenly, and they rarely encourage reflection on deeper issues such as bias, surveillance or equity. That is where formal teacher education could make a difference.

Beyond curiosity

Research shows that educators are under-prepared for AI. A recent study found many lack skills to assess the reliability and ethics of AI tools. Professional development often stops at technical training and neglects wider implications. Meanwhile, uncritical use of AI risks amplifying bias and inequity.

In response, I designed a professional development module within a graduate-level course at Mount Saint Vincent University. Teacher candidates engaged in:

• Hands-on exploration of AI for feedback and plagiarism detection;
• Collaborative design of assessments that integrated AI tools;
• Case analysis of ethical dilemmas in multilingual classrooms.

The goal was not simply to learn how to use AI, but to move from casual experimentation to critical engagement.

Critical thinking for future teachers

During the sessions, patterns quickly emerged. Teacher candidates were enthusiastic about AI to begin with, and remained so. Participants reported a stronger ability to evaluate tools, recognize bias and apply AI thoughtfully.

I also noticed that the language around AI shifted. Initially, teacher candidates were unsure about where to start, but by the end of the sessions, they were confidently using terms like “algorithmic bias” and “informed consent” with confidence.

Teacher candidates increasingly framed AI literacy as professional judgment, connected to pedagogy, cultural responsiveness and their own teacher identity. They saw literacy not only as understanding algorithms but also as making ethical classroom decisions.

The pilot suggests enthusiasm is not the missing ingredient. Structured education gave teacher candidates the tools and vocabulary to think critically about AI.

Inconsistent approaches

These classroom findings mirror broader institutional challenges. Universities worldwide have adopted fragmented policies: some ban AI, others cautiously endorse it and many remain vague. This inconsistency leads to confusion and mistrust.

Alongside my colleague Emily Ballantyne, we examined how AI policy frameworks can be adapted for Canadian higher education. Faculty recognized AI’s potential but voiced concerns about equity, academic integrity and workload.

We proposed a model that introduced a “relational and affective” dimension, emphasizing that AI affects trust and the dynamics of teaching relationships, not only efficiency. In practice, this means that AI not only changes how assignments are completed, but also reshapes the ways students and instructors relate to one another in class and beyond.

Put differently, integrating AI in classrooms reshapes how students and teachers relate, and how educators perceive their own professional roles.

When institutions avoid setting clear policies, individual instructors are left to act as ad hoc ethicists without institutional backing.

Embedding AI literacy

Clear policies alone are not enough. For AI to genuinely support teaching and learning, institutions must also invest in building the knowledge and habits that sustain critical use. Policy frameworks provide direction, but their value depends on how they shape daily practice in classrooms.

1. Teacher education must lead on AI literacy. If AI reshapes reading, writing and assessment, it cannot remain an optional workshop. Programs must integrate AI literacy into curricula and outcomes.

2. Policies must be clear and practical. Teacher candidates repeatedly asked: “What does the university expect?” Institutions should distinguish between misuse (ghostwriting) and valid uses (feedback support), as recent research recommends.

3. Learning communities matter. AI knowledge is not mastered once and forgotten; it evolves as tools and norms change. Faculty circles, curated repositories and interdisciplinary hubs can help teachers share strategies and debate ethical dilemmas.

4. Equity must be central. AI tools embed biases from their training data and often disadvantage multilingual learners. Institutions should conduct equity audits and align adoption with accessibility standards.

Supporting students and teachers

Public debates about AI in classrooms often swing between two extremes: excitement about innovation or fear of cheating. Neither captures the complexity of how students and teachers are actually learning AI.

Informal learning networks are powerful but incomplete. They spread quick tips, but rarely cultivate ethical reasoning. Formal teacher education can step in to guide, deepen and equalize these skills.

When teachers gain structured opportunities to explore AI, they shift from passive adopters to active shapers of technology. This shift matters because it ensures educators are not merely responding to technological change, but actively directing how AI is used to support equity, pedagogy and student learning.

That is the kind of agency education systems must nurture if AI is to serve, rather than undermine, learning.

Johanathan Woodworth 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. Social media is teaching children how to use AI. How can teachers keep up? – https://theconversation.com/social-media-is-teaching-children-how-to-use-ai-how-can-teachers-keep-up-264727

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Lauren Knight, PhD Candidate, Faculty of Information, University of Toronto

This week, the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) is celebrating 50 years of films and programming.

Through its evolution, TIFF has become an industry staple for both artists and fans, and remains important as a “major launching pad for Hollywood.” It showcases a range of international and independent films to wider market success and connects filmmakers to distributors.

TIFF also plays an important international role by programming, launching and generating wider conversations — both at the festival and beyond via fan, industry, media and social media commentary — in response to emerging trends and technologies in the film industry.

By bringing together stakeholders and curating conversations, film festivals are also powerful cultural hubs that set the tone for the norms and practices of the industry. A major theme at the moment involves questions around AI.

Future of labour in film

In our work as researchers within the Creative Labour Critical Futures project at the University of Toronto, we are tracking and examining media responses to AI use across the film industry.

We’re also mapping emerging trends around policy, governance, worker organizing, creativity, discourses around venture-backed technology startups and acts of refusal when it comes to generative AI across the creative industries, in Canada and beyond.

Film festivals are trying different ways to address AI. One film festival founded and directed by American actor Justine Bateman promises no AI.

TIFF allows the use of AI-generated material in submissions but requires filmmakers to disclose how AI was used. The festival is providing a forum for AI-related conversations through a variety of panel discussions and events.

For example, on Sept. 8 at a “Visionaries” industry conference event, Andrea Scrosati of Fremantle, a major production and distribution company, spoke about Fremantle’s AI-focused Imaginae Studios.

He discussed unlocking new possibilities, noting that AI “tools will permit a new generation of talent to emerge, because they are taking away the barriers to entry.”

Yet the role of AI is a hot-button issue that all stakeholders — filmmakers, tech companies, distributors, creatives’ guilds and unions, policymakers and viewers — are struggling to negotiate.

This negotiation involves narrating and interpreting the meaning of AI in the film industry, which in turn establish new norms and practices.

The ‘ethical’ AI narrative

A key aspect of what’s being negotiated across culture industries is how the public, fans, media commentators and creative professionals understand responsible AI creation and how this intersects with legal issues around ownership, fairness issues around compensation and philosophical issues related to creativity and authenticity.

A notable participant at a TIFF industry event was the company Moonvalley, a Toronto-based AI research firm.

With the company Asteria Film Co., co-founded by American actor and writer Natasha Lyonne and entrepreneur Bryn Mooser, Moonvalley built a generative AI model called Marey, trained only, as the company notes, on “licensed, high-resolution footage.”

Asteria Film identifies itself as “an artist-led generative AI film and animation studio” which, alongside Moonvalley, “has built the first of its kind clean foundational AI model.” Some media reporting amplifies this discourse about it being “clean” and “ethical.”

---

Read more:
AI is bad for the environment, and the problem is bigger than energy consumption

---

Yet, there are questions around private companies, including Moonvalley, and public transparency and accountability in terms of how AI has been trained. A Vulture story that covered a visit to Asteria’s Los Angeles studio and interview with Mooser reports the company ultimately declined to provide details about where and how exactly the company paid for and acquired data for training, citing confidentiality.

Labour concerns

Amid conversations about the potential of AI, debates were amplified this year in labour disputes, union strikes and changes to major award regulations.

In July 2024, 2,500 voice-acting members of the SAG-AFTRA union began what would become a year-long strike against 10 video game companies, including Electronic Arts and Activision. The strike outlined 25 disputes, but the primary concern was the industry’s use of AI to “replicate” or “replace” human performers.

This debate began alongside the announcement of an AI Darth Vader non-playable character in Fortnite. Trained using the voice of James Earl Jones, with approval from Jones written into his estate, players could interact with Darth Vader during gameplay.

This integration has become controversial partly because the AI Darth Vader has been recorded swearing or using homophobic slurs in conversation with players.

SAG-AFTRA members reached an agreement on July 9, 2025, noting the addition of “consent and disclosure requirements for AI digital replica use” in union contracts.

---

Read more:
When does an actor stop, and AI begin? What The Brutalist and Emilia Pérez tell us about AI in Hollywood

---

Following debates about AI use in Oscar-nominated films, the Academy Awards has similarly amended qualification requirements to account for AI use and disclosure. The academy announced that “the use of generative AI will neither help, nor hinder, a film’s chances of nomination,” though it has stressed that voting members should consider the role of the human at the heart of the creative process.

As these controversies show, the role of AI in the film industry is far from decided. Instead, it is being continually negotiated by many stakeholders.

Festivals like TIFF not only provide a window into these debates, but also play an active role in shaping their direction.

Lauren Knight receives funding from Creative Labour and Critical Futures (CLCF) project.

Daphne Rena Idiz receives funding from the Creative Labour and Critical Futures (CLCF) project.

Rafael Grohmann receives funding from Creative Labour and Critical Futures (CLCF) project and SSHRC Connection Grant (Workers Governing Digital Technologies).

– ref. Film festivals like TIFF set the tone for wider industry norms — here’s what we’re watching around AI – https://theconversation.com/film-festivals-like-tiff-set-the-tone-for-wider-industry-norms-heres-what-were-watching-around-ai-264225

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Moira A. McDonald, Associate Professor, Director, School of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Royal Roads University

Global attitudes towards the United States as a tourism destination are plunging. Travel pressures, exchange rate shifts and increasing economic uncertainty have all damaged the reputation of the American travel sector.

Canadian travellers are increasingly turning to domestic destinations instead of heading south. In July, Canada recorded its seventh consecutive month of declining travel by Canadians to the U.S..

Political tensions appear to be playing a role in this shift.
U.S. President Donald Trump’s repeated remarks about wanting to annex Greenland and make Canada the “51st state” continue to strain relations between the U.S. and its allies.

---

Read more:
Allies or enemies? Trump’s threats against Canada and Greenland put NATO in a tough spot

---

For travellers, these tensions are one more deterrent for travelling to the U.S. About three-quarters of Canadians say Trump is “dangerous” and favourable views of the U.S. are at an all-time low.

Impact south of the border

This year, many Canadians reconsidered plans to visit the U.S. for business, leisure or school-related excursions, and some also boycotted American products.

---

Read more:
Canadian retailers are seeing a surge in domestic sales amid the ‘Buy Canadian’ movement

---

A spring 2025 prediction by Tourism Economics anticipated a 20 per cent drop in Canadian travellers to the U.S.. The U.S. Travel Association trade group warned that even a 10 per cent decrease would translate to two million fewer visits and US$2.1 billion in lost spending.

By the end of the summer, year-to-date Canadian visitation numbers to the U.S. had dropped about 25 per cent, confirming that U.S.-inbound travel continues to under-perform.

These choices also reflect anxiety over border-related issues. Measures such as selected detainment and asking Canadians to register with Homeland Security if they plan to stay in the U.S. for 30 days or more has raised concerns among those accustomed to a less intrusive cross-border experience, with some even describing the U.S. as a “hostile state.”

---

Read more:
Travelling to the U.S.? Here’s what you need to know about the risks and your rights

---

U.S. border cities feel the pinch

The consequences of declining travel are being felt most acutely in U.S. border cities that rely heavily on Canadian visitors. Canadians are no longer “flooding the streets of Seattle,” but instead are supporting their own tourism economy.

Cities such as Buffalo, N.Y., hoped to entice Canadians with welcoming billboards and special incentives over the summer. But according to Patrick Kaler, CEO of Visit Buffalo Niagara, it was clear their efforts were not working, and the customary wave of Canadian visitors never arrived.

The ripple effects extend well beyond traditional tourism destinations as well. One New York golf club reported losing US$400,000 in Canadian revenue, for instance.

It’s not just Canadian travellers, either. While Canada has seen an increasing number of European visitors, the U.S. recorded a 17 per cent decline in European arrivals this past spring, also likely due to the Trump administration’s policies and general actions.

Canadian tourism grows stronger

While U.S.-bound travel declines, domestic tourism in Canada is on the uptick. Tourism is the country’s second-largest service export, bringing $31 billion into the country last year, according to Destination Canada.

Unlike traditional exports, where goods are shipped out of the country, tourism brings the world’s travellers to Canada — and increasingly, keeps Canadians exploring at home.

Canadians took a total of 77.4 million trips within Canada in the first quarter of 2025. This shift has been a welcome trend to local tourism organizations and businesses that have been increasingly relying on the support of local travellers.

But the increasing fear and uncertainty of American tariffs, policies and bilateral relationships are also causing unrest among Canadian tourism businesses.

The impact from Trump’s tariffs are felt particularly strongly by many Indigenous business owners who are now navigating inflationary pressures and workforce shortages.

Looking forward

The downturn in U.S.-bound travel could extend beyond the summer as travel trends continue to evolve. The statistics underscore the challenges that the U.S. tourism sector is facing and is likely to continue to face in to the future.

With World Tourism Day approaching on Sept. 27, travel and tourism professionals are encouraged to reflect on the industry’s development.

A central goal of World Tourism Day is to inspire “awareness among the international community of the importance of tourism and its social, cultural, political, and economic value.”

As tourism experts, we continue to promote Canadian generosity through professionals and travellers who keep kindness at the centre of their travel — an action that may be even more important than many realize.

Intentional travel and tourism can foster both peace and understanding. While the focus of World Tourism Day and the United Nations World Tourism Organization is to bring the world closer, this year Canadians worked to bring Canada itself closer together.

Moira A. McDonald is affiliated with Tourism and Travel Research Association Canada (TTRA).

Ann-Kathrin McLean is affiliated with Tourism and Travel Research Association Canada (TTRA).

– ref. Political tensions and border anxiety pushed Canadians away from the U.S. this summer – https://theconversation.com/political-tensions-and-border-anxiety-pushed-canadians-away-from-the-u-s-this-summer-254780

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Tanya Basok, Professor, Sociology, University of Windsor

Cuts to humanitarian aid by the United States government under Donald Trump are triggering a global dismantling of humanitarian infrastructure, which is severely undermining asylum systems.

These cuts are occurring alongside the current rise of a “post-humanitarian” approach to the U.S. border characterized by militarization, deterrence and deportation that is quickly replacing protection and care for those in need.

Many asylum-seekers have seen their lives plunged into turmoil by Trump’s policies, in particular the cancellation of all appointments for presenting asylum claims at ports of entry, the removal of temporary protection status for nationals of many countries (including Honduras, Nicaragua and Venezuela) and the deportations of asylum-seekers, regardless of their country of origin. Asylum-seeked have been deported to countries that include Costa Rica, Panama, El Salvador, Eswatini, Libya and South Sudan.

---

Read more:
Supreme Court rules Trump can rapidly deport immigrants to Libya, South Sudan and other countries they aren’t from

---

At the same time, the U.S. administration has also weakened the capacity of many countries in the Global South to provide protection to asylum-seekers by suspending funds for foreign aid first announced in January 2025 and reaffirmed in August 2025.

The vital role of the UNHCR

Cutting funds to the United Nations refugee agency, known as the UNHCR, has harmed many asylum-seekers.

The UNHCR says that by June 2025, it had to reduce its global staffing costs by 30 per cent via downsizing or closing offices and eliminating 3,500 permanent staff posts and hundreds of temporary staff positions.

The agency warned that the budget cuts weaken the health of 12.8 million displaced people, including 6.3 million children. These people depend on the UNHCR for access to various aid involving primary health and mental health care, nutrition programs, prenatal care, gender-based violence programs, sexual and reproductive health care for women and girls and HIV and TB testing and treatment in countries such as Bangladesh, The Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Egypt and Jordan.

Other international organizations, such as UNICEF, the International Organization for Migration and the Red Cross, have also lost international funds and had to withdraw their support to asylum-seekers.

International co-operation is one of the core principles of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. By providing funding, channelled mainly through UNHCR to countries of the Global South, northern states ensure that the responsibility for refugee protection does not fall disproportionately on poorer states.

Our research

Over the years, we have conducted research on UNHCR aid and humanitarian support provided by other international organizations at refugee camps in countries that include Namibia and Uganda. We’ve also examined aid in Turkish cities.

We have documented the vital role the UNHCR has played in supporting refugees in Costa Rica, Cyprus and Mexico, and third-country resettlement from Turkey to northern countries.

But we’ve also shown that some of the UNHCR’s initiatives in collaboration with northern states can keep refugees in the Global South for long periods of time, which, in turn, can violate their human rights.

Nonetheless, we recognize that without UNHCR support, many refugees would be deprived of crucial forms of protection and resources needed to successfully migrate.

The UNHCR has been dealt a severe blow by recent developments. By early May 2024 in Costa Rica, for instance, the UNHCR budget had been cut by 41 per cent, reducing the capacity of the state refugee agency by 77 per cent.

Such a reduction resulted in considerable delays in documenting asylum-seekers and granting them access to health care, the labour market and education.

The impact on community organizations

The budget cuts have not only weakened state systems and international agencies, but have also severely undermined the ability of civil society organizations to provide aid to asylum seekers and migrants, as we have learned through our research.

In Costa Rica in January 2025, for example, Casa Esperanza — a front-line shelter for migrants in transit at the northern border — was forced to close after losing international funding, leaving hundreds without a safe place to stay and receive assistance.

In Mexico, the non-profit feminist organization Fondo Semillas has warned of a serious financing crisis, with migrant-serving organizations hit especially hard.

Some organizations have lost more than half of their capacity when key donors withdrew, jeopardizing food distribution, shelter and legal aid for migrants. A director of a migrant shelter we interviewed in Mexico City told us that two-thirds of roughly 50 migrant organizations were expected to close after the cuts.

These losses not only dismantle critical services but also weaken the capacity of these organizations to advocate for the rights of asylum-seekers and migrants.

Today, Global South countries are pressured to shoulder an ever-growing share of asylum hosting, but without adequate financial support. The loss of donor support for international organizations, such as the UNHCR, has in turn crippled many other community groups and non-governmental aid organizations that assist asylum-seekers.

Building communities

One immediate way forward is to locate new sources of funding for these and other aid organizations. Another solution is to foster stronger commitments toward building communities among concerned citizens, migrants, workers, volunteers, activists, artists, and others representing diverse ethnic, national, socioeconomic, religious and gender-based groups.

As we have witnessed elsewhere, building these communities often requires voluntary labour and, where possible, donations from local residents. The communities support the everyday lives of asylum-seekers and other displaced people seeking protection by enhancing their friendship circles, networks, education, language and training skills, and can ultimately help improve their precarious status.

---

Read more:
The Learning Refuge: How women-led community efforts help refugees resettle in Cyprus

---

These communities may initially form locally but have regional, national or transnational reach.

Furthermore, in an increasingly polarizing world, expanded forms of solidarity among activists and others who support migrants are needed to fight against the rising xenophobia and racism that are shaping the current crisis.

Fostering solidarity through community building can help mitigate social and political divisions among migrants struggling with precarity, isolation and exploitation. It can also strengthen inclusive dialogue, assist in bolstering democratic values and build a more socially just future.

Canada’s role

In light of the U.S. retreat from humanitarian leadership, countries like Canada must assume a more prominent role in sustaining global protection systems.

Canada’s recent multi-year funding to UNHCR and its commitment to refugee resettlement signal a willingness to lead.

But further steps are needed: Canada could expand its support to grassroots organizations in the Global South, simplify access to funding for smaller aid organizations and use its G7 presidency to rally international partners around a renewed commitment to refugee protection.

Tanya Basok receives funding from Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada

Guillermo Candiz receives funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

Suzan Ilcan receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

– ref. How international aid cuts are eroding refugee protections in the Global South – https://theconversation.com/how-international-aid-cuts-are-eroding-refugee-protections-in-the-global-south-264560

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Alex Baudet, Assistant professor in Marketing, Université Laval

This back-to-school season, students across Québec are adjusting to a significant policy change: cellphones are now fully banned in elementary and secondary schools. This conversation, though contentious, is not new, nor is it unique to Québec.

With stories ranging from teenage suicide after conversations with ChatGPT to allegations of child exploitation on Roblox feeding parental anxiety, policymakers worldwide have been responding to rising concerns about the effects of digital technology on youth.

But as researchers of everyday technology use, we argue that a ban alone overlooks a key challenge that families face: once children return home for the day, parents must independently manage tech-related negotiations. But because much of children’s online activities are hidden, it’s difficult to set boundaries and maintain open communication.

Parents need digital literacy

According to l’Observatoire de la parentalité et de l’éducation numérique, a think tank based in France, 53 per cent of parents believe that they lack support when it comes to the digital education of their children.

Our research shows that the issue isn’t just screen time, but the invisibility of children’s activity that fuels household conflicts.

For example, a teenager we interviewed used gaming to stay in touch with friends, but his mother saw it as a way to isolate himself. A simple conversation might have eased tensions, but the stigma around gaming made it harder.

These misunderstandings widen the digital literacy gap between parents and children.

Thinking beyond screen time

Screen time alone doesn’t tell us much about youth’s online activities. Some studies link moderate use rather than none — roughly an hour a day — to lower depression rates, and show that digital platforms can foster more diverse and inclusive friendships than offline ones. Context matters: what children are doing, with whom, and under what conditions.

Focusing on gaming, our study explored how families experience technologies at home.

We found that parents worry not only about gaming itself — often seen as isolating and unproductive — but also about how it disrupts routines. A child refusing to quit a game for dinner is one example. Because technologies are designed to absorb the user, their impact on others in the household is often overlooked.

The challenge of invisibility

These struggles are worsened by the invisibility of online activity. Watching a child at a screen offers no insight into whether they are bonding with friends, arguing with strangers or facing harm.

We found that this opacity complicates household negotiations.

Parents certainly do set limits: “one hour of gaming,” “no phone after 9 p.m.,” but without understanding gaming dynamics, these rules can feel arbitrary and unfair to teens.

In our study, players were often caught between competing demands: leaving mid-session could mean penalties or letting down teammates, while staying online clashed with family expectations like coming to dinner. These clashes left parents feeling disrespected and children feeling misunderstood.

Why bans fall short

From a policy perspective, banning devices in classrooms may reduce distractions, but it does little to help families manage tech use at home, where tensions quickly resurface.

Evidence from abroad shows bans rarely solve deeper issues.

In Australia, for example, where several states restrict phones in schools, researchers warn such measures shouldn’t altogether replace broader digital literacy efforts.

Fostering literacy and dialogue

If we want to support families, we need to better understand the hidden aspects of digital life. This means helping parents develop the literacy to ask informed questions, grasp usage contexts and negotiate fair rules.

Phones and gaming consoles are often treated as private devices which leaves parents guessing about what’s happening behind the screen. Dialogue helps, but parents need specific support systems.

In Québec, for example, Vidéotron has partnered with CIEL to offer tools that help families discuss and manage phone use.

In our study of competitive gamers, we found that such initiatives show how intermediaries can act like coaches: guiding youth and adults toward healthier, more balanced tech practices. Rather than leaving families to navigate this alone or relying solely on school bans, structured support can make the invisible side of technology more manageable.

It also means recognizing that technology use is rarely solitary. A child gaming is connected to peers; a teen scrolling social media is navigating complex social pressures. By acknowledging these connections, parents can move beyond screen-time limits toward conversations about safety and balance.

Our research shows that when families can talk openly about online life, even if parents don’t fully understand the platforms, tensions ease and rules become easier to follow.

Where do we go from here?

Technology will always evolve faster than policy. And while bans may offer short-term relief, they’re no substitute for open dialogue, digital literacy and patient understanding at home.

As the new school year begins, the real challenge isn’t just deciding whether phones belong in class.

It’s finding realistic ways to support families in navigating a digital world where much remains hidden from view.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Québec’s school cellphone ban won’t solve the challenges of family tech use – https://theconversation.com/quebecs-school-cellphone-ban-wont-solve-the-challenges-of-family-tech-use-264079