Category: The Conversation – Canada

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By James Deaville, Professor of Music, Carleton University

This story contains spoilers about the movie ‘Weapons.’

As we approach the scariest time of year, we need to make sure our home screens are in good working order for horror films, in particular the volume control.

It’s true that some effects of the horror genre are based on sounds that are popularly linked to danger — but let’s not forget the contrasting silences that are necessary for jump scares to have their full impact.

It’s not just in feature films where the sonic device of “un-sound” works: horror trailers are filled with unexpected crashes out of stillness and all-too-brief fragments that beg questions.

Skilled directors and sound designers can frighten us in myriad ways, and sometimes through less in this all-too-noisy world.

Space and emptiness

In this year’s contender for best horror picture, Weapons, director Zach Cregger wanted the sound team to adopt an understated approach to express a “sense of space and emptiness” for the movie’s locations.

He nevertheless deploys jump scares of varying intensity in diverse contexts, several of them involving the sudden appearance of the head of the witch Aunt Gladys (Amy Madigan).

Most deliver quick, unexpected frights, but one represents the classic horror slow burn, as teacher Justine Gandy (Julia Garner) walks around a seemingly deserted house to the accompaniment of cicadas.

In the words of Cregger, the cicadas “become the score,” their constant droning calming and unsettling us as we look through the window with Justine. We share her shock when we realize that there are two immobile figures sitting inside. Terror is conjured out of stillness.

‘A Quiet Place’

Weapons and other releases this past year continued the practice of crafting horror scenarios out of silence.

The A Quiet Place franchise, starting with the 2018 film which invoked the terror of alien invasion, helped to put horror silence on the map.

The 2018 film, with little verbal dialogue and a central Deaf character, also challenged the long eugenicist association of disability with monstrosity — often fashioned with what my scholarship has called “the moaning of unlife.”

---

Read more:
The uneasy history of horror films and disability

---

Horror silences were similarly essential to conjure the strangeness and weirdness of grief and hauntings in another 2018 film, Hereditary. The film’s sound designer, Asbjoern Andersen, has remarked “it’s the quiet ones you have to look out for,” a dictum that he brought to life through long pauses in dialogue, low and brooding music and threatening atmospheres of indistinct sounds.

The same holds true for the sonic environment of the Netflix series The Haunting of Hill House (also 2018), where sound editor Trevor Gates was able to create atmospheres to convey isolation and discover novel ways to “hold a silence.”

In such contexts, absolute silence is not necessary — any kind of low-end drone or soft, repetitive sound like a ticking clock or a babbling brook could lull audiences into a false sense of security.

Crashes out of stillness

Prior to these recent productions, masterful directors and sound designers crafted dread and psychological depth and viscerality partly through silence.

According to film specialists, the first classic jump scare occurred in the 1942 movie Cat People when producer Val Lewton, director Jacques Tourneur and film editor Mark Robson created a scene that involved a woman walking alone to a bus stop, her rising dread of being followed giving way to a sudden, explosive bus entrance.

This type of scene became known as the Lewton Bus: a gradual buildup followed by a sudden shock through misdirection and a sharp sonic jolt. The practice would become a commonplace in the producer’s later work.

Lulled into complicity

This sharp sonic jolt soundtrack device just needed the touch of director Alfred Hitchcock to become iconic in the famous shower scene of Psycho(1960).

Commentators — both academic and popular — frequently reference composer and film scorer Bernard Herrmann’s screeching string sound as the brilliant sonic representation of the stabbing knife.

Yet they typically pass over what makes the scene’s explosive violence so unexpected and visceral: the constant sound of the shower water that — like silence — lulls the audience (and victim) into complacency.

Hitchcock knew how to strategically mobilize stillness to make threats more tangible, like in the drawn out and famous crop-duster scene of North by Northwest (1959).

In Hitchcock’s wake, notable examples occur in Steven Spielberg’s Jaws from 1975 (especially the shark’s first closeup), at key moments in John Carpenter’s Halloween (1978), and — much later — in the notorious diner scene from David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive (2001).

The psychology of fear

These and other directors have understood how to exploit the psychology of fear to evoke startled responses of terror among audiences.

The jump scare and related fright-inducing sonic scenarios would become parodied in Scream and the Scary Movie series (2000-13), for example, where false (“cat”) scares subvert horror/slasher traditions.

This Halloween season, if you watch horror and suspenseful films, I encourage you to pay attention to the silence of the frames.

James Deaville 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. Creepy cicadas, ticking clocks and jump scares: How frightful films conjure terror out of quiet – https://theconversation.com/creepy-cicadas-ticking-clocks-and-jump-scares-how-frightful-films-conjure-terror-out-of-quiet-266750

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Ajay Kumar Shrestha, Professor, Computer Science, Vancouver Island University

Artificial intelligence is now part of everyday life. It’s in our phones, schools and homes. For young people, AI shapes how they learn, connect and express themselves. But it also raises real concerns about privacy, fairness and control.

AI systems often promise personalization and convenience. But behind the scenes, they collect vast amounts of personal data, make predictions and influence behaviour, without clear rules or consent.

This is especially troubling for youth, who are often left out of conversations about how AI systems are built and governed.

Concerns about privacy

My research team conducted national research and heard from youth aged 16 to 19 who use AI daily – on social media, in classrooms and in online games.

They told us they want the benefits of AI, but not at the cost of their privacy. While they value tailored content and smart recommendations, they feel uneasy about what happens to their data.

Many expressed concern about who owns their information, how it is used and whether they can ever take it back. They are frustrated by long privacy policies, hidden settings and the sense that you need to be a tech expert just to protect yourself.

As one participant said:

“I am mainly concerned about what data is being taken and how it is used. We often aren’t informed clearly.”

Uncomfortable sharing their data

Young people were the most uncomfortable group when it came to sharing personal data with AI. Even when they got something in return, like convenience or customization, they didn’t trust what would happen next. Many worried about being watched, tracked or categorized in ways they can’t see.

This goes beyond technical risks. It’s about how it feels to be constantly analyzed and predicted by systems you can’t question or understand.

AI doesn’t just collect data, it draws conclusions, shapes online experiences, and influences choices. That can feel like manipulation.

Parents and teachers are concerned

Adults (educators and parents) in our study shared similar concerns. They want better safeguards and stronger rules.

But many admitted they struggle to keep up with how fast AI is moving. They often don’t feel confident helping youth make smart choices about data and privacy.

Some saw this as a gap in digital education. Others pointed to the need for plain-language explanations and more transparency from the tech companies that build and deploy AI systems.

Professionals focus on tools, not people

The study found AI professionals approach these challenges differently. They think about privacy in technical terms such as encryption, data minimization and compliance.

While these are important, they don’t always align with what youth and educators care about: trust, control and the right to understand what’s going on.

Companies often see privacy as a trade-off for innovation. They value efficiency and performance and tend to trust technical solutions over user input. That can leave out key concerns from the people most affected, especially young users.

Power and control lie elsewhere

AI professionals, parents and educators influence how AI is used. But the biggest decisions happen elsewhere. Powerful tech companies design most digital platforms and decide what data is collected, how systems work and what choices users see.

Even when professional push for safer practices, they work within systems they did not build. Weak privacy laws and limited enforcement mean that control over data and design stays with a few companies.

This makes transparency and holding platforms accountable even more difficult.

What’s missing? A shared understanding

Right now, youth, parents, educators and tech companies are not on the same page. Young people want control, parents want protection and professionals want scalability.

These goals often clash, and without a shared vision, privacy rules are inconsistent, hard to enforce or simply ignored.

Our research shows that ethical AI governance can’t be solved by one group alone. We need to bring youth, families, educators and experts together to shape the future of AI.

The PEA-AI model

To guide this process, we developed a framework called PEA-AI: Privacy–Ethics Alignment in Artificial Intelligence. It helps identify where values collide and how to move forward. The model highlights four key tensions:

1. Control versus trust: Youth want autonomy. Developers want reliability. We need systems that support both.

2. Transparency versus perception: What counts as “clear” to experts often feels confusing to users.

3. Parental oversight versus youth voice: Policies must balance protection with respect for youth agency.

4. Education versus awareness gaps: We can’t expect youth to make informed choices without better tools and support.

What can be done?

Our research points to six practical steps:

1. Simplify consent. Use short, visual, plain-language forms. Let youth update settings regularly.

2. Design for privacy. Minimize data collection. Make dashboards that show users what’s being stored.

3. Explain the systems. Provide clear, non-technical explanations of how AI works, especially when used in schools.

4. Hold systems accountable. Run audits, allow feedback and create ways for users to report harm.

5. Teach privacy. Bring AI literacy into classrooms. Train teachers and involve parents.

6. Share power. Include youth in tech policy decisions. Build systems with them, not just for them.

AI can be a powerful tool for learning and connection, but it must be built with care. Right now, our research suggests young people don’t feel in control of how AI sees them, uses their data or shapes their world.

Ethical AI starts with listening. If we want digital systems to be fair, safe and trusted, we must give youth a seat at the table and treat their voices as essential, not optional.

Ajay Shrestha receives funding from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC); the views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the OPC.

– ref. How to ensure youth, parents, educators and tech companies are on the same page on AI – https://theconversation.com/how-to-ensure-youth-parents-educators-and-tech-companies-are-on-the-same-page-on-ai-248265

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Kealey Dube, Assistant Professor, The School of Social Work, MacEwan University

When students move from university course work to real-world applications like internships, practicums or clinical placements, it’s not just about what they know, but how they use what they know.

These experiences are often the first time students apply classroom learning in unpredictable, high-stakes environments.

For students with disabilities, that leap can be especially challenging. Structural barriers, inaccessible learning environments and past negative experiences can make these transitions harder.

Something that can help students overcome barriers is simulation-based learning — when, via role playing, students practise key skills, try out strategies and learn from mistakes without the real-world consequences. It’s an approach practised across fields like health care, business as well as social work education.

We decided to explore the use of simulations with students who experience disability-related barriers, drawing on research related to learning through simulations and students with disabilities in practicum learning.

---

Read more:
Simulations with actors prepare nurses for the demands of their profession

---

From participants to partners

We took a “students as partners” approach, which sees students as active collaborators in designing their own learning experiences.

In this case study, we sought to design simulations that were practical, empowering and suited to a neurodiverse, social work university student. We also wanted simulations that reflected his particular concerns and were grounded in his unique lived experiences.

The student had experienced barriers in a previous work-integrated learning placement. Before starting another, he needed a safer way to build confidence, practise communication and prepare for the professional environment.

A team approach

The project was collaborative. As faculty members, we worked with the social work student involved in the field education course and a theatre student hired as our partner to co-create the simulations. Other participants were from MacEwan’s access and disability resources and the Centre for Teaching and Learning.

Together, the group co-designed two tailored, realistic simulation experiences aimed at helping the social work student prepare for his upcoming practicum.

How it worked

The team met over a summer to co-design the personalized simulations:

• A workplace conversation, where the student practised setting expectations with a supervisor.

• A client-facing scenario, where he responded to a phone inquiry — something he was likely to encounter during his placement.

Each simulation followed a three-part process:

• Briefing: The student reviewed the context and goals.

• Role play: The theatre student played a realistic role based on the scenario.

• Debrief: The student watched a video of the simulation, reflected on what worked, and received supportive feedback.

By repeating the simulations multiple times, the students could build skills gradually, adjust strategies and become more confident with each try.

The theatre student also gained valuable experience learning and practising how to respond authentically and adapt during unscripted moments — skills that carry over to his own performance training.

What changed

When determining learning goals for the simulation, we focused on aligning course learning outcomes with needs specific to the social work student, such as communication skills. With each role play rotation, we captured how long it took for the social work student to clearly communicate his question or reflection to the client (played by the theatre student).

The amount of time decreased each rotation. By the end, the social work student reported he felt more confident moving through the situations. He became quicker, more confident and more comfortable with professional communication.

Most importantly, he reported feeling included and respected throughout the process. He said:

“Being involved in everything helped me feel more prepared. I made mistakes in the simulation and learned from them — so I didn’t have to make those same mistakes in real life.”

The theatre student echoed this:

“I wasn’t just acting — I was helping someone grow. It made me realize how powerful theatre can be beyond performance.”

Beyond skill development, this was capacity-building, confidence-building and community-building — all made possible by student-centred design. A year later, the student with a disability has successfully completed two field practicums and has graduated.

Why it matters

When universities design learning experiences with students, not just for them — especially students who are often left out of the process, like students facing disability-related barriers — opportunties for student engagement and empowerment are strengthened.

Simulations give students a chance to:

• Practise real-world scenarios without real-world risk.

• Learn from feedback in a supportive environment.

• Build self-advocacy and professional communication skills.

• Develop strategies that work for their unique needs.

This kind of tailored preparation can be the difference between just getting through a placement and truly thriving in it.

Looking ahead

This project shows that personalized simulations, grounded in student experiences and supported by interdisciplinary collaboration, can pave the way for more equitable, empowering education.

It suggests how when students are treated as co-creators, not just consumers or recipients of education, the learning becomes deeper, more inclusive and more meaningful. It also points to the relevance of broader use of co-created simulations across disciplines. Future possibilities include:

• Adapting simulations for group settings or online delivery.

• Partnering across departments, like theatre and business or accessibility and STEM.

• Designing for diverse learning needs from the start, using Universal Design for Learning principles.

The approach is flexible, scalable and most importantly, human-centred. Sometimes, the best way to prepare for real life is to practise it.

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. Through role-play learning, a neurodivergent student found work practicum success – https://theconversation.com/through-role-play-learning-a-neurodivergent-student-found-work-practicum-success-258329

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Dr. Andrea Wagner, Associate Professor, Political Science, MacEwan University

The rise of populist leaders has drawn significant attention over the past two decades. Around the world, they have reshaped politics, from Donald Trump in the United States to Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Marine Le Pen in France, Giorgia Meloni in Italy, Santiago Abascal in Spain and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil.

These leaders often rise to power by promising to speak for “the people” against the established “corrupt elites.” But our recent research shows that not all populist voters want the same things.

Our study examined public opinion data from nine countries to better understand what drives support for “strongman” populist leaders. The findings reveal that there are two very different kinds of populist attitudes, and the authoritarian variety most strongly predicts whether people will support a leader who is willing to bend the rules.

Nine-country comparison

We conducted public opinion surveys in France, Italy, Spain, Hungary, Poland, Canada, the United States, Brazil and Argentina. Our Varieties of Populist Attitudes (VoPA) survey included multiple questions designed to tap into the two varieties of populism.

Respondents were asked about their trust in politicians, their support for referendums, their belief that the majority should always prevail and their preference for strong leadership — even if it means violating rules and norms — as well as their degree of nationalism.

Factor analysis confirmed that the variables associated with the above questions clustered into two distinct dimensions — anti-establishment and authoritarian populism — rather than forming a single populist attitude. This suggests that populist attitudes come in two distinct forms.

Next, we examined how each type of populist attitude predicted support for prominent populist leaders in each country who had positioned themselves as speaking on behalf of citizens against corrupt elites.

The results were striking. In most countries, including Italy, Spain, Brazil, Argentina, Hungary and Poland, authoritarian populism was the strongest predictor of support for populist leaders. In other words, people who subscribed to majoritarianism, nationalism and strong leadership were most likely to back leaders willing to centralize power and challenge liberal democratic norms.

By contrast, anti-establishment populism played a weaker role, and in some countries even a negative one. In other words, citizens who simply disliked elites or wanted more direct democracy were not drawn to strongman figures. In fact, in Italy and Hungary, anti-establishment populists rejected Meloni and Orbán.

Anti-establishment populism

France and Canada stood out as exceptions. In these countries, anti-establishment populism played a more important role than authoritarianism in explaining support for populist figures like Le Pen and Pierre Poilievre.

In Canada, multiculturalism, the unpopularity of overtly anti-immigrant rhetoric and the existence of the more authoritarian People’s Party of Canada limit the appeal of strongman politics, positioning Poilievre as an anti-establishment rather than authoritarian figure.

In France, Le Pen’s focus on referendums and institutional reform, combined with the presence of Éric Zemmour as an authoritarian alternative, reinforces that her base is motivated more by democratic discontent than authoritarianism.

In the U.S., surprisingly, neither dimension significantly predicted support for Trump. This suggests that Trump’s appeal may depend more on other dynamics such as partisanship, racial and anti-immigrant attitudes or cultural identity and backlash.

These findings shed light on the different democratic implications of the two kinds of populism.

Anti-establishment populism can be understood as a demand for more responsiveness and accountability in democratic institutions. While it can disrupt existing political systems, it doesn’t necessarily threaten the basic principles of pluralism, minority rights or checks and balances. In fact, some scholars argue that this kind of populism can serve as a corrective when elites become too insulated from the public.

Why this matters for democracy

Authoritarian populism is another story. It is linked to a preference for strong leaders who are willing to bypass institutional constraints, weaken independent oversight bodies or undermine minority protections, ostensibly in the name of the people.

This kind of populism is associated with democratic backsliding of the type seen in places like Hungary and Brazil, where populist leaders have concentrated power in the executive branch and eroded liberal democratic norms.

Our research reveals that the real threat to liberal democracy comes less from people who simply dislike elites, and more from those who desire a leader they regard as tough to embody and enforce the will of the majority at the expense of minority rights.

Recognizing this difference is important when designing democratic safeguards that distinguish between legitimate demands for accountability and more direct participation or more dangerous authoritarian impulses.

---

Read more:
Do you know what populism is? Research suggests most don’t, but some view it with disdain anyway

---

Populism is not monolithic

For years, populism scholars have debated whether populism is inherently dangerous or potentially democratic.

Our findings show that both views can be correct, depending on which variety of populism is at play. Anti-establishment populism reflects widespread frustration with elites but does not automatically lead to democratic erosion. Authoritarian populism, on the other hand, is more likely to support leaders who chip away at democratic safeguards.

This reminds us that defending democracy requires more than just countering populism in general. It requires recognizing and addressing the authoritarian currents that run through some forms of populist politics.

Dr. Andrea Wagner received funding from Erasmus + Jean Monnet Chair and MacEwan University

Anna Brigevich 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. Why some populist supporters want a strong-arm leader and others just want change – https://theconversation.com/why-some-populist-supporters-want-a-strong-arm-leader-and-others-just-want-change-266765

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Chris Hugenholtz, Professor, Geography, University of Calgary

Governments in Canada’s major oil and gas producing provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan, have touted their efforts in recent years to reduce methane emissions.

Methane is a greenhouse gas released into the atmosphere at oil and gas facilities through leaks, vents, maintenance activities and incomplete combustion. Methane traps significantly more heat than carbon dioxide, making it a potent climate pollutant.

We set out to independently verify if government claims of decreasing oil and gas methane emissions were accurate. Our new study shows that the answer is yes — but with important caveats and valuable lessons for Canada’s energy sector.

We studied satellite observations between 2019 and 2023 to understand how methane emissions rates in Canada’s main oil-producing region were changing. We focused on the heavy oil belt near Lloydminster, Alta., where a distinctive extraction method known as CHOPS (cold heavy oil production with sand) has long been associated with notable methane emissions.

CHOPS brings a mix of oil, water, sand and gas to the surface. The oil is collected, but the co-produced gas — which is mainly methane — has historically been vented or flared.

Observing emissions from space

Methane emissions can now be monitored from space, offering a powerful vantage point. Satellites can be used to independently measure and monitor emissions, helping to better understand and confirm emissions in regions where ground-based or other data are lacking.

To track changes over time, we evaluated the ratio of methane emissions to the energy produced, a measure known as emissions intensity. This metric provides an important benchmark for understanding how efficiently energy is being produced and how effectively emissions are being managed, regardless of production rates, which can change over time.

Satellites also pass over the same locations repeatedly, over days or weeks, enabling tracking of emissions over time. This can capture how emissions may be responding to policy changes, new technology or economic shifts. The large scale of satellites can average out day-to-day fluctuations from individual sites.

While satellite data provide unique coverage, they have limitations. Cloud cover, sun angle, terrain and other atmospheric or surface conditions can reduce effectiveness. In our study, we overcame these limitations with new techniques using data from the European Space Agency’s Tropospheric Monitoring Instrument aboard the Sentinel-5 Precursor satellite.

We combined those with a mass balance emissions flux model to estimate emissions from 2019 to 2023. This method was effective within the context of this study, but it may not work elsewhere, particularly where satellite observations are even more limited.

What we found was striking. Methane emissions in the Lloydminster heavy oil region declined by approximately 71 per cent between 2019 and 2023, and the intensity of methane emissions dropped by 63 per cent, reaching 0.69 gCH₄ per megajoule of energy produced.

The reasons for these reductions are likely multifaceted. Improved regulations, greater adoption of gas capture and combustion systems and enhanced operator compliance have all likely contributed to lower emissions. At the same time, a decline in oil production during portions of the study period likely played a role in driving emissions downward.

Distinguishing between efficiency-driven and production-driven reductions remains an important focus for future research, as rising production could reverse some of these gains.

These findings indicate that between 2019 to 2023, CHOPS operations are becoming less polluting and progress toward emission reductions is being achieved, even within one of Canada’s most methane-intensive oil-producing areas.

Measurement-reporting gap

Our satellite-based emissions estimates, however, were about 4.5 times higher than industry-reported values for the region. This gap underscores the flaws in traditional emissions reporting frameworks, which may not fully capture all emissions, sources or reflect real-time changes in operations.

This difference highlights the importance of independent measurement. Satellite and other measurement-based data can complement conventional reporting, providing a clearer and more dynamic picture of regional methane trends.

The study shows that substantial emissions reductions are achievable, even in mature oil fields with complex infrastructure, without fully curtailing production. This finding provides a valuable example for energy-producing regions pursuing practical pathways to decarbonization.

Reducing methane emissions

Methane is a short-lived but highly potent greenhouse gas and can trap much more heat than carbon dioxide. However, it breaks down relatively quickly in the atmosphere — around 12 years. Cutting methane emissions offers one of the fastest and most cost-effective ways to slow global warming.

Unlike many emerging climate technologies that remain costly or unproven at scale, methane mitigation can be implemented immediately using existing tools and proven methods. For example, a fraction of proposed private sector investment into expensive and highly uncertain emissions reduction technologies and projects could yield substantial and quick greenhouse gas emissions reductions from Canada’s oil and gas sector if redirected to mitigating methane.

There are benefits to industry for taking strong action on methane, including cost savings through efficiency improvements, increasing marketable gas volumes and securing access to premium markets demanding increasingly low-carbon oil and gas.

While Canada has struggled to meet its climate goals, progress is evident at the regional level. The reductions observed near Lloydminster suggest that emissions control and energy production can coexist when supported by sound policy, modern technology and transparent monitoring.

If Canada wants to achieve its commitment of cutting oil and gas methane emissions by 75 per cent by 2030 relative to 2012 levels, more independent measurement and monitoring efforts, such as those demonstrated in our study, are needed.

These are necessary to confirm whether regulations and other initiatives are delivering results, to guide future policy developments and to credibly demonstrate reductions.

Chris Hugenholtz receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. In the past, he has received funding from the oil and gas industry, but not for this project.

Coleman Vollrath receives funding from a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada CGS-D scholarship and performs occasional part-time work on methane emissions for the Pembina Institute in Calgary.

Thomas Barchyn receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. In the past, he has received funding from the oil and gas industry, but not for this project.

Zhenyu Xing 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. Satellite data shows methane emissions are declining in part of Canada’s oil patch, but more monitoring is needed – https://theconversation.com/satellite-data-shows-methane-emissions-are-declining-in-part-of-canadas-oil-patch-but-more-monitoring-is-needed-265940

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Justin Vovk, Adjunct Professor. History of the Royal Family, Redeemer University

Prince Andrew has announced he will “no longer use my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me.” Translation? Andrew is giving up his Duke of York title.

The decision comes as the Royal Family has faced calls to take action against Andrew over his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, the notorious convicted sex offender and pedophile who died in prison in 2019.

The late Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein’s victims, accused Andrew of sexually assaulting her on three occasions when she was 17, allegations he has repeatedly denied. In 2022, she settled a civil lawsuit against him in a Manhattan court for an undisclosed amount and a charitable donation.

PR disaster

Prince Andrew’s public image imploded after his now infamous 2019 interview with BBC’s Newsnight. Speaking to host Emily Maitlis, he presented an incredulous, implausible and, at times, baffling series of denials in an attempt to clear his name of any wrongdoing toward Giuffre when she was underage.

Andrew’s statements during the interview were met with “near universal condemnation” and were a public relations disaster for the prince. He was removed from public duties four days later.

---

Read more:
A Very Royal Scandal: of all the interviews that rocked the royal family’s brand – Prince Andrew’s might just be the worst

---

Within a week, he resigned from his role as patron of more than 200 charitable organizations. He was no longer a working member of the Royal Family, but a member he nonetheless remained.

These actions did little to improve public opinion of Andrew or his actions. In June 2020, Newsweek released a poll suggesting almost 60 per cent of Britons felt Andrew should not only be stripped of his titles, but also extradited to the United States to answer for his conduct with Epstein.

A case of déjà vu

The first major step taken by the Royal Family only came in January 2022 once a judge allowed Giuffre’s civil suit to proceed. Andrew was stripped of all his military appointments and honourary positions.

At the same time, Buckingham Palace announced Andrew would no longer be referred to as His Royal Highness. To date, there has been no formal decree stripping Andrew of HRH. It simply disappeared from his name.

That makes his recent announcement to give up his royal titles seem like a case of déjà vu.

Despite appearances to the contrary, he hasn’t actually been renounced or been stripped of those titles or honours. They have simply fallen into dormancy; an inactive limbo. Andrew is still a prince and is still in the line of succession to the British throne, at least for now.

The natural question that many people are now asking is why hasn’t Andrew been formally stripped of these titles? Why is he still a prince? To answer those question, it’s necessary to explain what these titles mean and the process to remove them, which is actually much more complicated than meets the eye.

Andrew’s titles

Let’s start with the prince. As a child of the late Queen Elizabeth, Andrew was born a prince of the United Kingdom. In 1917, King George V issued a royal decree known as Letters Patent. The document stated “that the children of any Sovereign …shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess.”

There is currently no mechanism for stripping a sovereign’s child of that princely title. But never say never.

In 1986, Queen Elizabeth granted Andrew the titles Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh. These titles are known as peerages.

For centuries, it has been customary for sovereigns to bestow peerages on their sons and heirs. Prince William was made Duke of Cambridge on his wedding day in 2011. Prince Harry was similarly granted the title Duke of Sussex when he married Meghan Markle in 2018.

It has become tradition that certain peerages go to certain members of the Royal Family. Since 1474, for example, the title Duke of York has been bestowed on the sovereign’s second son.

An act of parliament

For nearly 40 years, this title has been synonymous with Prince Andrew. When it was recently announced that he would no longer use his peerage titles, news reports spread like wildfire with headlines declaring he had lost or relinquished his titles. Neither, in fact, has happened.

King Charles can’t simply revoke a peerage once it has been granted. Doing so would require an act of parliament under some pretty extreme circumstances. It has only happened twice in the last two centuries.

In 1798, parliament passed an Act of Attainder (or treason) against Lord Edward Fitzgerald for leading a rebellion in Ireland.

In 1917, parliament passed the Titles Deprivation Act during the First World War. Several German princes held British titles because they descended from Queen Victoria. The act provided parliament with a way to deprive enemy German princes of their “British dignities and titles” for fighting against Britain in the war.

Prince Andrew’s recent announcement has done little to deflect public fury away from him. This week, a group of British parliamentarians presented a motion to take legal steps to officially remove his peerages. As more Epstein revelations come to light, Andrew’s troubles are clearly far from over.

Justin Vovk has previously received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada. He is an advisory board member of the Institute for the Study of the Crown in Canada.

– ref. Prince Andrew didn’t really give up his titles, and truly removing them would be onerous – https://theconversation.com/prince-andrew-didnt-really-give-up-his-titles-and-truly-removing-them-would-be-onerous-267940

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Megan Levings, Professor of Surgery and Biomedical Engineering, University of British Columbia

While Canada invests billions in infrastructure projects and national defence, a critical area of investment remains overlooked:
biomanufacturing.

Biomanufacturing is the production of biological products like vaccines and cell therapies at the scale and quality needed for human use. It encompasses everything needed to reliably produce and deliver safe, effective biological products from development to commercial-scale production.

This sector requires not only physical infrastructure like bioreactors, clean rooms and equipment, but also the availability of skilled personnel, robust supply chains and quality control — all operating under strict regulatory requirements.

Amid Canada’s ongoing tariff tensions with the United States, investing in domestic biomanufacturing is a way for Canada to strengthen its economic independence while securing critical health infrastructure.

A wake-up call for Canada

Canada once boasted world-class biomanufacturing capacity, particularly in vaccine production. Over the past few decades, however, domestic investment in this sector withered away.

Funding for research, training and infrastructure declined, and as a result, much of the industry migrated to the United States, where more start-up capital, larger markets and more extensive infrastructure supported its growth.

The COVID-19 pandemic made the consequences of this decline painfully clear. Billions of dollars were spent importing life-saving vaccines and therapeutics that could have been made here. While Canada’s dependence on foreign manufacturing predates the pandemic, the crisis highlighted the urgent need for domestic capacity.

Future pandemics are unpredictable, and new Canadian manufacturing infrastructure needs to be poised to act. This is especially important given ongoing vaccine skepticism and hesitancy.

If Canadians need a new vaccine, the country must be able to produce it domestically and support other countries lacking access.

Missed opportunities

Biomanufacturing has expanded beyond vaccines and monoclonal antibodies to include cell and gene therapies and new drug types, such as those based on RNA.

These advanced therapeutic products are highly innovative, but don’t fit neatly into traditional developmental pipelines or regulatory frameworks. Without the necessary manufacturing processes and infrastructure, countries can miss out on economic and health benefits and are vulnerable to future pandemics.

For example, the research to develop the lipid nanoparticle component of an mRNA vaccine was conducted in Canada. Yet when it came time to manufacture, test and distribute the vaccine, Canada lacked the infrastructure and had to rely on foreign suppliers.

Historically, Canada has excelled at research but has struggled to translate breakthroughs into domestic production. With the right investment, Canada could actually reap the benefits of its own innovations.

Recognizing this gap, the federal government has invested $2.3 billion since 2023 to build new facilities capable of manufacturing biologics at the speed and scale for future pandemic responses. These investments also aim to revitalize Canada’s capacity for producing other, more conventional drugs.

---

Read more:
Canada needs to invest more money into science innovation to help prevent the next global crisis

---

But more sustained investments are needed — ones on par with funding for other infrastructure projects and national defence. The biomanufacturing sector offers tremendous opportunity for economic growth, significant health benefits for Canadians, and pandemic-preparedness.

The biotech boom

Gaps in Canada’s biomanufacturing capacity spurred the creation of a new coalition led by the University of British Columbia. Known as Canada’s ImmunoEngineering and Biomanufacturing Hub, it brings together more than 50 organizations from the private, public, not-for-profit and academic sectors to strengthen life sciences and biomanufacturing capacity in B.C.

It aims to accelerate applied biomedical research, train highly skilled workers and expand domestic infrastructure.

It’s part of a broader $574 million federal commitment supporting 19 projects at 14 research institutions across Canada. Investing in new infrastructure is an important step toward rebuilding and bolstering domestic biomanufacturing in Canada.

We are part of the coalition’s research leadership group and the leads on its flagship infrastructure project, the Advanced Therapeutics Manufacturing Facility, which is being built on the UBC campus. This facility, spanning approximately 20,000 square feet, will support the production of advanced therapeutic products like vaccines, cell therapies and regenerative medicines.

It will accelerate the commercialization of Canadian innovations, enhance patient care and position Canada as a global epicentre of biomanufacturing while leveraging Vancouver’s biotech boom.

Construction of the facility has begun, with an estimate of March 2028 for opening operations. Projects will include modifying immune cells to fight cancer and protect against autoimmune disease and transplant rejection, as well as turning stem cells into therapies that heal or replace terminally damaged organs.

From research to market

Pandemic-prepared facilities have the potential to generate wide-ranging health benefits for Canada. A critical function of facilities like the Advanced Therapeutics Manufacturing Facility is moving innovative therapies from early-stage research to clinical trials and, ultimately, market approval.

In addition to their health benefits, advanced therapeutics can have significant economic impact. Their curative potential allows companies to benefit from premium pricing, with high upfront costs justified by reduced long-term health-care costs.

Subsequent generic versions of these biological products, termed biosimilars, can provide safe, effective and economical alternatives. Ultimately, domestic manufacturing allows greater pricing control and allows health-care dollars to stay in Canada.

The biomanufacturing industry also creates high-quality jobs, boosts national innovation ecosystems, attracts large-scale venture capital funding and supports pharmaceutical partnerships.

Canada’s bioeconomy is expected to need approximately 65,000 jobs by 2029, making workforce training a critical priority. State-of-the-art training facilities will produce a highly qualified workforce and ensure these skilled personnel remain in Canada.

Investing in domestic infrastructure also strengthens Canada’s export potential. Adding advanced therapeutic products into the country’s export portfolio will give it an important trade advantage and allow Canada to become a global player in biomanufacturing.

Megan Levings receives funding from the Canadian Foundation for Innovation and BC Knowledge Development Fund for the ATMF Project.

Robert A. Holt receives funding from the Canadian Foundation for Innovation and BC Knowledge Development Fund for the ATMF Project.

– ref. Why Canada’s next big infrastructure investment should be in biomanufacturing – https://theconversation.com/why-canadas-next-big-infrastructure-investment-should-be-in-biomanufacturing-254377

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Leda Stawnychko, Associate Professor of Strategy and Organizational Theory, Mount Royal University

In an era of heightened political polarization, merely longing for civility is no longer enough. Understanding just how to debate and respectfully disagree has become truly imperative, now more than ever and for a couple good reasons.

Humans are wired for connection. Our brains evolved for collaboration.

Sharing experiences with people who see the world as we do feels affirming. It makes collaboration possible. And in prehistoric times, our survival depended on it. Working together meant protection, food and belonging, while conflict risked exclusion or, worse, death.

But civility isn’t about avoiding conflict, it’s about choosing to see the other’s humanity all while fully disagreeing with them.

The weaponization of civility

Avoiding conflict for the sake of civility comes at a cost.

Societies move forward when people are willing to engage in honest disagreement, exposing blind spots and opening paths to progress. Yet too often, calls for civility are used as tools of oppression, privileging those already served by the status quo.

History is full of examples — from women’s suffrage to the civil rights movement — where demands for “politeness” were used to quiet those pushing for change.

When discomfort is mistaken for disrespect, dissidence is curtailed and legitimate anger invalidated. At such moments, civility ceases to be a virtue and becomes a mechanism of control.

This helps explain why reactions to “cancel culture” have been so strong — a response to the ways in which demands for consideration can be seen as silencing rather than inviting dialogue. Recent events from cancelled university lectures to the suspension of high-profile comedic television hosts reveal how fear of controversy increasingly constrains open expression.

Maintaining civility is a delicate balance. When disagreement turns uncivil, especially in the public sphere, people tend to withdraw altogether, eroding the very dialogue that civility is meant to protect.

Grounding civility in dignity

True civility begins with a disposition of the heart — a sincere recognition of the dignity of others.

From that foundation flow the actions and skills that make respectful engagement possible: listening with curiosity, showing courtesy and extending respect even in disagreement.

Civility, however, is not simply about being polite; it is about choosing to see others as moral equals, worthy of being heard and understood. In fact, civil disagreement is healthy and necessary.

In workplaces, teams that can debate ideas respectfully tend to be more innovative and make better decisions than those that avoid conflict altogether.

When grounded in dignity rather than deference, civility enables the kind of disagreement that strengthens communities rather than divides them. It reflects the diversity of our experiences, interests and values — fuelling the dialogue, learning and innovation that help societies grow stronger.

Some conversations feel unsafe

Certainly, some engagements feel riskier than others. Part of this comes down to our physiological makeup — factors largely beyond our control.

The balance of hormones and neurotransmitters in our bodies influences whether we are more prone to react impulsively or respond calmly in moments of tension. This biological wiring is continually shaped by our experiences, including how we’ve learned to navigate conflict and connection in the past.

When our bodies and minds are already operating near their stress limits — for example, while caring for a sick child, navigating a divorce or managing financial strain — our capacity to engage thoughtfully shrinks. In those moments, even minor disagreements can feel overwhelming, not because of the issue itself but because our systems are already overtaxed.

These personal limits are magnified by the social environments we inhabit. Social media, for instance, amplifies echo chambers and rewards outrage, reinforcing our tendency to interact only with those who share our views.

In such spaces, argument often becomes interest-driven rather than truth-oriented — more about winning than understanding.

When one or both sides see their position as morally correct, any deviation from it is framed as wrong, leading to emotionally charged, difficult-to-resolve conflicts. As soon as our moral convictions harden into absolutes, compromise becomes nearly impossible.

And without shared moral ground, we begin to justify the dehumanization of the “other,” treating those who disagree not as mistaken, but as immoral — and therefore unworthy of empathy.

How to have tough conversations

Productive disagreement begins with self-awareness.

Start by asking why a certain conversation feels risky. What emotions or experiences might be shaping your reaction? Then pause to decide whether this discussion is worth having, and with whom.

What are your motives for engaging? Are you entering a genuine exchange or simply entertaining debate for debate’s sake? Does this context or person matter to your learning, your work or your advocacy? Or are you engaging in discourse that reinforces division rather than insight?

Communication skills also matter because when we believe in our ability to communicate effectively and influence another person’s perspective, we feel safer and more confident entering a difficult conversation. People who see a disagreement as manageable — and themselves as capable of managing it — are more likely to engage constructively rather than withdraw in frustration or defensiveness.

Cultivating skills in listening, reflection and self-regulation, together with dispositions such as open-mindedness, tact, empathy and courage, creates the conditions for genuine and respectful dialogue — the kind that not only builds understanding but sustains relationships and strengthens communities over time.

Ultimately, civility is about engaging in debates with ethics, humility and humanity.

It asks us to create space for honest conversations — where discomfort signals growth, not danger, and where disagreement strengthens rather than fractures our society.

Leda Stawnychko has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and the Business Schools Association of Canada (BSAC).

Maryam Ashraf 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. Agree to disagree: Why we fear conflict and what to do about it – https://theconversation.com/agree-to-disagree-why-we-fear-conflict-and-what-to-do-about-it-267576

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Pascal Michelberger, Postdoctoral Scholar, Western Academy for Advanced Research, Western University

In the context of the temporary suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show on ABC, commentators have rightfully raised concerns about free speech, First Amendment rights and press freedom, linking them to the larger issue of American democracy in decline.

But it’s also important to consider how political satire helps defend democracy in ways that go beyond speaking truth to power.

For example, political satire can serve as a source of knowledge about current affairs and has even found its way into political-science classrooms. As a storytelling form, it can also equip citizens with the tools to navigate moments of crisis in real time.

---

Read more:
‘Pax Americana’ in Toronto: How speculative art can help us navigate threats

---

Multiple facets of political satire

To better understand the multifaceted power of satire in times of political turmoil, we can turn to the work of Sophia A. McClennen, professor of international affairs and comparative literature and an expert on the connections among satire, democracy and the public sphere.

In her 2023 book Trump Was a Joke: How Satire Made Sense of a President Who Didn’t, McClennen argues that while political satire offers citizens ways to critique those in power, it also helps to inform the public, encourages audiences to engage critically with the issues at stake and uses humour to lower audience barriers, especially in difficult or unpleasant contexts.

She also points to studies that suggest political satire can build community and even set the public and political agenda.

Satire in unprecedented times

According to McClennen, this variety of important functions allows satire to serve as an effective tool to make sense of unprecedented political times, such as the first Trump presidency from 2017 to 2021.

Trump and his grotesque public persona, notes McClennen, presented political satire with a considerable challenge when reality itself seemed like a bad joke.

As other commentators also noted, Trump already seemed a caricature of himself and therefore resistant to satire. For some, this problem raised questions about the genre’s effectiveness.

---

Read more:
How Trump’s America changed political satire – for both liberals and conservatives

---

The solution, McClennen explained, came in the form of overhauling the way satire works, essentially moving toward producing irony that made “the bizarre real while also revealing how bizarre reality had become.”

As one particularly effective example of this new approach, McClennen cites Alec Baldwin’s acclaimed portrayal of Trump on Saturday Night Live. The character worked so well, she argues, precisely because it did not go far beyond the original.

Because of that, the portrayal effectively exposed both the performative nature of Trump’s persona and the anti-democratic features of his platform.

Canadian satire

McClennen’s book covers Trump’s first term; as we know, things have turned arguably even more absurd and unprecedented during his ongoing second term.

Faced with a trade war and recurring annexation threats, Canadians have now officially become part of this equation.

During these times, McClennen’s assertions about the power of political satire perhaps become even more apparent. In order to understand how, we can turn to Canadian political satire.

Take CBC’s This Hour Has 22 Minutes: in a segment from the show’s Jan. 28, 2025 episode, we witness two Canadian shoppers (played by Mark Critch and Chris Wilson) grappling with the new reality of tariff and annexation threats.

The skit acknowledges Canadians’ confusion and disorientation in the face of this new conflict, provides them with concrete and useful information that can help them navigate the current situation — and invites them to reflect on their own roles as citizens affected by conflict on a deeper level.

As The Globe and Mail TV critic, J. Kelly Nestruck, noted, the clip resonated with many Canadians and went viral, racking up 11 million Tik Tok views within a week. It’s also among the most popular This Hour YouTube videos uploaded in recent months.

A 22 Minutes segment aired only a few weeks after the grocery store sketch also has Critch in role as Ontario Premier Doug Ford. The sketch shows Critch’s Ford restock American liquor in an Ontario booze store, in the wake of a trade war “pause,” only to frantically remove it again.

The sketch acknowledges the absurdly fast-moving and unpredictable trade war situation, but it also explains Ontario’s particular role in the conflict by pointing to the province’s purchasing power, while also touching on the province’s cancellation of an earlier deal made with Elon Musk’s Starlink.

Another 22 Minutes sketch from May portrays a self-help group where Canadians confess shopping at American chain stores or purchasing American products.

The clip can be understood as a logical follow-up to the grocery store sketch, reinforcing how difficult and even confusing it can be to change buying habits during the ongoing trade war. But the sketch also informs viewers about potentially misleading grocery labelling practices, and it invokes a certain sense of community by emphasizing that Canadians are all in this together.

Deeper engagement

All of these examples underline that while satire is often thought of primarily as a stage for critical political commentary, it also has a vital function of informing the public and encouraging deeper engagement with the issues at stake.

In the Canadian context, satirical formats such as 22 Minutes are also part of distinct Canadian cultural and political commentary in a sea of voluminous American media.

---

Read more:
Should global media giants shape our cultural and media policy? Lessons from satellite radio

---

Political satire creates opportunities for public action and engagement that go far beyond speaking truth to power. It also enables citizens to navigate disorienting and fast-moving circumstances more effectively, which proves particularly useful in times of political turmoil.

Limiting the reach of satire by way of regulatory action would have consequences far greater than just the silencing of critical voices.

Pascal Michelberger 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. ‘Trump said what?!’ — How satire helps us navigate disorienting politics – https://theconversation.com/trump-said-what-how-satire-helps-us-navigate-disorienting-politics-266557

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Frederick John Packer, Associate Professor of Law and former Director of the Human Rights Research and Education Centre (2014-2025), L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa

Widespread, unrestrained hatred and polarization in the United States recently jolted Americans when conservative influencer Charlie Kirk was gunned down in broad daylight. As thousands of attentive students at Kirk’s Utah event watched in horror, thousands more have seen it unfold online — an experience none will easily forget.

In the aftermath of the shooting, the U.S. became engulfed in extremist reactions, unsubstantiated accusations and escalatory rhetoric.

The hatred and violence have barely subsided. U.S. President Donald Trump and War Secretary Pete Hegseth stoked further fears while addressing an assembly of American generals and admirals and warning of an “enemy from within” that needs to be met with military force in some of America’s largest cities.

Language fuels extremism

Political violence has long been associated with the United States. But heated and volatile politics is fuelling extremist movements around the world, undermining social cohesion and the political stability required for sustainable peace and prosperity.

Canada is facing this same challenge and needs urgently to reverse the trend.

In a previous article published shortly after the Oct. 7, 2023 attacks against Israel by Hamas, one of us warned of a dangerous surge in hate crimes against Jewish and Muslim communities in Canada.

---

Read more:
Israel-Hamas war: Canada must act to prevent hate crimes against Muslim and Jewish communities

---

Decisive action was urged to protect vulnerable populations. Those fears have not only materialized, but have intensified.

Crisis in Canada, too

The June 2025 assassination of Melissa Hortman, Democratic speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives, and attacks on other legislators, starkly illustrates the prevailing threat — not just in the U.S., but in Canada as well.

Canadian lawmakers are facing greatly increased threats. In 2020, a former Canadian army reservist rammed his truck through the gates of Rideau Hall to confront Prime Minister Justin Trudeau with firearms in what a judge called a “politically motivated armed assault intended to intimidate Canada’s elected government.”

---

Read more:
11 years after the Parliament Hill shooting, is Canada doing enough to tackle political violence?

---

Some argue we’re living in a “hateful era of public speech” as toxic language emboldens real-world violence.

This grim reality echoed throughout the International Conference on Countering Hate and Polarization at the University of Ottawa in May 2025, when community leaders, scholars, practitioners and policymakers came together to discuss possible solutions to the crisis.

Rising hate crimes

Hate crimes motivated by racism, homophobia, antisemitism and Islamophobia have sharply increased in Canada, according to statistics from Canadian police services:

• There were 4,777 hate-motivated incidents in 2023, a 32 per cent increase over 2022 (3,612 incidents)
• That marked the third sharp rise in four years and was more than double the 2019 rate
• Religion-based hate crimes surged 67 per cent
• Antisemitic incidents were up 71 per cent (900 cases)
• Islamophobic incidents were up 94 per cent (211 cases).

These are only the reported and recorded cases; undoubtedly, there are many more incidents since victims often fear reporting, or incidents are not categorized by police as hate crimes.

Marginalized groups in Canada, including diaspora communities, face particular vulnerability, as discussed at the Ottawa conference by representatives of different communities, including Hazaras, Yazidis, Hizmet and others.

Small minorities are especially targeted and vulnerable. They endure threats, intimidation and surveillance connected to overseas conflicts, compounding historical trauma and undermining their sense of safety, security and belonging in Canada.

The ongoing hate rhetoric against diaspora communities both in their countries of origin and in Canada fuels hate crimes against them and facilitates the increasing transnational repression aimed against them.

---

Read more:
New commission sheds light on how diaspora communities are impacted by foreign interference

---

The role of social media

Social media platforms thrive on outrage, amplifying divisive content that fuels anger and resentment.

Experts at the Ottawa conference emphasized that algorithms reward inflammatory posts, creating echo chambers that isolate communities and silence diverse perspectives. So far, profit-seeking social media corporations and their directors have been shielded from any accountability or liability — criminal or civil — despite established roles in political violence, including genocides.

---

Read more:
Unliked: How Facebook is playing a part in the Rohingya genocide

---

This state of affairs has motivated some jurisdictions, like Australia, to ban social media for children.

But addressing hate and polarization requires more than stronger laws. While it’s critical to enhance existing legal tools, such as clearly defining hate-motivated crimes, it’s not enough without broader systemic reforms.

5 ways to take concrete action

1. Online platforms must be held accountable.

The European Union’s Digital Services Act offers a useful model for regulating harmful online content, emphasizing transparency and responsibility. Canada should adopt similar measures, ensuring tech companies prioritize public safety over profit.

At the University of Ottawa conference, speakers highlighted Canada’s proposed Online Harms Act (Bill C-63), underlining the need for balanced, carefully defined legislation that safeguards free expression while effectively combating online hate.

2. Police and prosecutors need better training.

At the Ottawa conference, Mariam Musse of the Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, along with policy and legal researcher Hannan Mohamud, explained that police often lack the necessary cultural sensitivity and trauma-informed approaches.

Implementing mandatory anti-bias and human rights training can help build trust between law enforcement and communities. Positive examples in Toronto and Ottawa shed light, but need guaranteed, long-term funding.

3. Canada must focus its response on victims.

Strengthening the 10-year-old Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, increasing funding for culturally sensitive support services and improving access to compensation can empower victims and help communities heal. Collecting detailed demographic data is critical to understand the full impact of hate crimes and tailor effective solutions.

4. Community-led dialogue initiatives are essential.

Investing in grassroots organizations that regularly bring diverse groups together can build genuine relationships and reduce prejudice. This must begin in schools.

5. Addressing socio-economic inequalities is crucial.

At the Ottawa conference, Victoria Kuketz of the Public Policy Forum’s Democracy Project pointed out that financial pressures, housing crises and political opportunism fuel resentment and radicalization. Tackling these issues through inclusive social policies will reduce the appeal of hateful narratives.

Our shared responsibility

Effective activism requires a clear, hopeful vision, not just resistance to threats. Without a positive vision for society, efforts risk becoming reactionary rather than transformative.

Canada is long past the warning stage: hate and polarization are palpably threatening our democracy, social cohesion and public safety every day. The path forward is clear: collective, sustained and compassionate action through means and approaches that are proven to work.

So far, Canada’s response is inadequate, hesitant and late.

Policymakers need to take action, including establishing a dedicated national body to address all hate-motivated crime, working with provincial authorities to support local programs across Canada and promoting community-wide actions tailored to specific needs.

By embracing dialogue, strengthening communities and implementing systemic reforms, the rich diversity that defines Canada will be protected and a safer future will be secured for everyone. But it requires investing in the proven methods of countering hate and polarization and ending the blight with determination and urgency.

Frederick John Packer receives funding from the Open Society Foundations and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Davut Akca receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).

– ref. From warning to reality: Canada’s escalating hate crisis demands action – https://theconversation.com/from-warning-to-reality-canadas-escalating-hate-crisis-demands-action-265933