Category: The Conversation – Canada

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Laszlo Sarkany, Assistant Professor, Political Science, Western University

Canada has formally recognized the state of Palestine, drawing the ire of United States President Donald Trump.

At the same time, the U.S. is continuing to oppose the International Criminal Court (ICC) by sanctioning several of its judges, citing their involvement in investigations related to alleged war crimes by American and Israeli officials.

The ICC investigates and prosecutes individuals for international crimes that include genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Despite Canada’s historic support for the ICC, the current government has yet to officially defend it against the recent accusations, even though one of its sanctioned judges, Kimberly Prost, is Canadian.

American threats

There are two key questions worth asking in relation to these shifts in Canadian foreign policy:

• Why did Canada recognize Palestine despite signals from the U.S. that the move would impact its trade relationship?
• What does Canada’s silence on the sanctions against the ICC suggest about how and why Canadian foreign policy in relation to the court may have changed?

Recognizing Palestine placed Canada’s policy — and its trade negotiations — on a collision course with the U.S. as American officials called the move “reckless …and undermines prospects for peace.”

The stakes seemed even higher when Trump linked Canada’s recognition of Palestine with trade deals. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, mentioned Canada in his warning that if American allies comply with the ICC arrest warrants against Israeli officials, the U.S. will “crush” the economies in question.

The recognition seems to be a substantial shift in Canadian foreign policy. For a considerable amount of time, at the very least stretching back to the days of Stephen Harper’s Conservative government — Canada has been a staunch supporter of Israel.

Canada even publicly said on the international stage in 2014 that it didn’t recognize Palestine.

Canada’s lack of support for the ICC

Mark Carney’s Liberal government, however, has yet to push back against the U.S. attacks on the ICC. Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand did note that she has “utmost confidence” in Prost and praised the court, but made no reference to the American sanctions against her.

Canada has missed two opportunities to support the ICC: one in July 2025, when other states, members of civil society groups and international organizations defended the court during its Assembly of States Parties meetings in New York.

The second arose during the 59th meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Council in June 2025.

What could explain these shifts and apparent snubs?

The middle ground

There has been extensive domestic and global pressure to keep the plight of Palestinians caught up in the humanitarian catastrophe in the spotlight, and to recognize Palestine.

Canada has attempted to chart a middle ground on the issue, accusing Hamas of terrorizing both Palestinian and Israeli civilians.

Canadian allies like the U.K. and the European Union, along with other like-minded states, declared in July that Palestine is a state.

On the question of why Canada has not voiced public support of the ICC since Carney was elected in April 2025 — as France, Belgium, Slovenia and the UN have done — there are two possible explanations.

On the surface, it might be because the government is still weighing its options and isn’t ready to act. If so, however, its silence suggests a lack of support of the ICC given Canada’s previous backing of the court until March 2025, during Justin Trudeau’s years in office.

---

Read more:
What the ICC’s anticipated arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Hamas leaders mean for Canada

---

The ‘value of our strength’

Another explanation could involve Canada’s commitment to NATO and its new, broader foreign policy aims.

The Canadian government has promised it will allocate five per cent of its GDP to NATO by 2035. In the same declaration, Carney noted that “global conflict [is] becoming more frequent and volatile.”

Therefore, the federal government could be adopting a pragmatic position and aiming to prioritize security and sovereignty from now on. A wider global engagement for the Canadian military would mean that its service members could, at least conceptually, come under closer scrutiny by the ICC, which steps in when national judicial systems are unable or unwilling to hold perpetrators accountable.

During the so-called Somalia Affair in the early 1990s, Canada did prosecute its own. The government went as far as to disband the unit the soldiers involved belonged to. But Canada was not, in the early 1990s, bound by the Rome Statute of the ICC until 2002. The statute established four core international crimes — genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression — and stipulated they aren’t subject to any statute of limitations.

Current global geostrategic dynamics are also very different today than they were in the 1990s. Canada could be anticipating a much broader military engagement.

The pragmatism explanation is supported by the latest declaration Anand made in her recent speech to the United Nations General Assembly as Canada’s foreign affairs minister.

She noted that the three priorities of the Carney government will be “security and defence,” “economic resilience” and “core values.” Anand, a former defence minister, concluded her speech — echoing Carney’s words — that Canada will be defined not “by the strength of our values, but by the value of our strength.”

Laszlo Sarkany 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 is Canada quiet on the International Criminal Court while recognizing Palestine? – https://theconversation.com/why-is-canada-quiet-on-the-international-criminal-court-while-recognizing-palestine-265930

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Vanessa Fong, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of British Columbia

As students settle into the school year, the reality is that many will not experience full inclusion in the classroom.

Every child has the right to an education under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Yet, for many autistic students in Canada, this promise falls short.

Our recent study published in Autism Research uncovers why so many autistic students are denied their right to a full education and highlights what must change to make schools truly inclusive.

What exclusion looks like

Exclusion takes many forms. Sometimes, it’s overt, with students being told they cannot attend school for a period of time.

More often, it is informal or partial, where students are told to come on modified hours or days or sent home early because there aren’t enough staff to support their needs, or they aren’t permitted to participate in certain activities, like field trips.

In our online survey of 412 primary caregivers of autistic children in Ontario, primarily recruited through Autism Ontario, 42.3 per cent reported that their autistic children had experienced some form of school exclusion.

These exclusions have cascading effects on families, forcing parents to miss work and jeopardize their employment. They also drive some households closer to poverty.

Previous research from our team has indicated that many parents of autistic children, particularly mothers, struggle to maintain full-time employment as they need to be available to care for their children during school hours.

Powerful predictors of exclusion

Our survey also identified several important factors related to school exclusion.

Something that predicted lower rates of school exclusion was greater parental satisfaction with the child’s Individual Education Plan (IEP) — a legally mandated document meant to outline supports and accommodations for students with disabilities.

---

Read more:
Children on individual education plans: What parents need to know, and 4 questions they should ask

---

Analysis of parent responses to the open-ended survey questions revealed two critical factors contributing to exclusion:

• Bullying, where autistic children are victimized by peers, leaving them isolated, afraid for their safety and more likely to avoid school;

• A lack of specialized training and resources for school staff. This lack of training and resources leaves autistic students without the support they need to participate and engage fully in school life.

These findings echo international patterns. Autistic students face increased risk of exclusion because of sensory overload, lack of staff training and the absence of genuinely supportive environments.

The illusion of inclusion

The assumption that simply integrating autistic students into mainstream settings guarantees inclusion is not only misleading, but harmful. As many advocates warn, true inclusion demands a fundamental shift in attitudes, environments and policies.

Current failures are seen in the use of physical restraint and seclusion practices as well as insufficient funding and under-staffing that leave children’s needs unmet and their safety at risk.

Parents’ responses also indicated concerns about IEPs that are written but not followed, and lack of effectiveness or practical application of existing anti-bullying policies that leave students vulnerable.

What must change?

If we are serious about inclusion, several steps are critical.

Schools must develop robust anti-bullying initiatives that foster a culture of acceptance, empathy and understanding of neurodivergence. In Ontario, the Ministry of Education requires all school boards to have bullying prevention and intervention policies.

While previous research has examined the effectiveness of school bullying policies more broadly, research is needed to assess their impact within Ontario schools, particularly in relation to neurodivergent students.

---

Read more:
Too many kids face bullying rooted in social power imbalances — and educators can help prevent this

---

Staff training must be comprehensive, mandatory and ongoing, centred on understanding the needs and strengths of autistic and neurodivergent students. Indeed, previous research has shown that targeted professional development can strengthen teachers’ confidence and preparedness to support autistic students.

Greater collaboration is needed, with families and autistic youth being real partners in IEP planning and schools held accountable for following through. Classrooms must be tailored to be sensory-friendly and flexible, providing predictable routines and spaces for self-regulation.

Importantly, increased funding is also necessary. School staff, such as education assistants, are often required to support far too many students, with a lack of replacements when they are absent.

These issues ripple out to affect the entire classroom. A stable workforce of skilled staff with specialized training who are compensated competitively is essential if inclusion is to be a reality and not just a slogan.

---

Read more:
Teachers lack resources to meet classroom needs, and absences shouldn’t surprise us

---

A call to rethink inclusion

The latest estimates from the Public Health Agency of Canada indicate that about one in 50 children and youth aged one to 17 are diagnosed with autism.

In other words, just about every classroom will likely have at least one autistic student, among other neurodivergences.

Integrating these students fully and meaningfully is important not just for their education, but also for the betterment of the broader classroom culture, as well as families’ employment security and economic well-being.

In addition to exclusions, our previous research found that many families elect to keep their autistic children home, or enrol them in alternative programming, because they are unable to find an appropriate placement within a public school.

---

Read more:
I’m an ‘Autism Mom.’ Here’s why Ontario is choosing the wrong path

---

The current system is not working for too many; systematic improvements are needed to ensure that all children and their families are supported to reach their full potential.

We must start by listening to educators, parents and autistic students to understand these students’ diverse needs, and then put the resources in place to make these accommodations a reality. Until then, many children and youth will remain either partially or fully excluded from a safe, meaningful and reliable education.

Vanessa Fong receives funding as a Postdoctoral Fellow from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Michael Smith Health Research BC, and from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council through her Research Associate position at Wilfrid Laurier University.

Janet McLaughlin receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Margaret Schneider receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

– ref. Many autistic students are denied a full education — here’s what we need for inclusive schools – https://theconversation.com/many-autistic-students-are-denied-a-full-education-heres-what-we-need-for-inclusive-schools-265147

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Nicholas A. R. Fraser, Senior Research Associate , Toronto Metropolitan University

Most of us, whether we admit it or not, engage in a great deal of passive scrolling through social media daily.

And while the platforms have proliferated for years, experts are only now beginning to demonstrate their full impact on our attention, mental health, spending habits and politics.

Despite the benefits, social media is also creating new problems. A pressing concern is the dissemination of misinformation by political extremists, a trend amplified by the unprecedented reach of platforms like Facebook and X (formerly Twitter). When it comes to issues like immigration, many activists, experts and pundits point to social media as a vehicle for the spread of prejudice, conspiracy theories and false claims targeting immigrant and minority populations.

Even before launching his 2016 presidential bid, for example, Donald Trump used Twitter to share messages attacking immigrants and ethnic minorities with millions of people, giving him the power to dominate news cycles and shape public policy.

Does social media make people more xenophobic?

Polarizing platforms

For decades, scholars studying how people consume information about immigration have argued that print and TV news stories often portray the economic and social impact of immigration negatively.

Studies on major American newspapers and news stations show that traditional media coverage has encouraged prejudice toward Latin American immigrants and Muslims.

Does social media follow this trend? Social scientists are beginning to disagree.

Scholars point to racist and anti-immigration messages on social media as evidence that platforms like Facebook, X and Reddit encourage users to speak freely without the constraints of social norms to a broad and diverse audience.

Other studies argue that social media creates uniquely polarizing environments where users organize themselves into political tribes that fight one another using aggressive dialogue. Even in Canada — a country often touted as pro-immigration — social media has allowed users to attack immigrants and minorities.

Users’ attitudes, however, may matter more than the specific platform.

Politically aggressive users

Recent studies from the United States and Western Europe show that social media attracts politically aggressive users who often do most of the talking in heated online conversations.

Based on my recent research on Canadian X users, I found similar results. I analyzed roughly 13,000 English-language posts discussing immigration and Canada’s housing crisis in 2023. Unsurprisingly, I discovered that many users blamed immigrants for a lack of affordable housing, including influencers with tens of thousands of followers.

In August 2023, discussions about housing on X peaked, with 3,638 posts mentioning both immigration and housing. This significant increase in online conversation coincided with federal government’s public comments linking international students to the housing crisis. The data supports the idea that Canadians were actively discussing the housing crisis in relation to immigration during this time.

Does this mean that Canadian X users are now seething with hatred for immigrants? While some are, a closer look reveals the partisan nature of these posts.

When I examined users’ identities and networks, it became clear that their anti-immigration messages were often a means of criticizing Justin Trudeau and his Liberal government. In other words, right-wing users (with large and small followings) were chiefly responsible for creating and sharing these posts, including People’s Party of Canada leader Maxime Bernier.

For instance, Fringe Albertan (about 2,500 followers in August 2023) posted in response to a post by Rebel News:

“@RebelNewsOnline Its a lie! Typical Liberal. Hes lying bc Canada is a UN member, and as a member, has signed onto an immigration pact to flood Canada with migrants, destroying our economy, social network, housing, and culture. #EndUNMembership @UCPCaucus @CPC_HQ @Buffalo_AB @BuffaloPartySK”_

Similarly, lloyd (about 50 followers at the time) posted in response to a post by CTV News:

“@CTVNews Thanks CTV News it’s no wonder why they are leaving as Canada is so poorly governed ! Housing shortage when Immigration brings millions of Migrants and never checked to see how many homes they had and shortage worst ever for Canada! Worst blunder in Canadian History! HELP.”

Right-wing social media users significantly contributed to public discourse blaming immigrants for Canada’s problems.

Some might argue polarizing content is simply a reflection of free speech.

This is true to some degree, but recent studies suggest online polarization can also threaten free societies. Algorithms designed to focus users’ attention on threats and conflict can reliably make users engage with content; this is what makes social media platforms potentially dangerous. Fortunately, users are far from powerless.

Reducing online polarization

While figures like Trump show that social media can be used to spread prejudice to mass audiences, it also matters that users often self-select into networks they like.

New studies make clear that users’ socio-political context, partisanship and behaviour seem to matter as much as the platform itself.

It turns out both platforms and users are responsible for online polarization.

What can we do about social media platforms?

Ultimately, we need socially responsible online platforms that focus less on producing outrage and division to attract users. This means including researchers, governments and civil society in designing social media interfaces and algorithms to establish reasonable community standards for sharing information and regulating users’ behaviour.

But we cannot wait for politicians to solve this problem. Even if we get platforms that focus less on outrage, trolls will still exist.

Social media’s rapid pace and the lack of consensus over online behaviour create ethical dilemmas for users everywhere. For example, many people passively scroll and react to content they skimmed, but if conflict arises later in the thread, many users are unsure how to respond or whether they should respond at all.

To see less polarizing social media content, we need to both consciously choose what platforms we wish to join (and why), and we need to cultivate better ways to handle online conflict.

Nicholas A. R. Fraser 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. Politically aggressive social media users are creating most of the anti-immigrant content – https://theconversation.com/politically-aggressive-social-media-users-are-creating-most-of-the-anti-immigrant-content-264750

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Emine Fidan Elcioglu, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Toronto

There is a widely held misconception that young people are politically disengaged. This is based on narrow measures like voter turnout. But this overlooks the fact that many young people are deeply curious, especially when politics is understood more broadly: as a way to make sense of society, power and everyday life.

In my research with youth in the Greater Toronto Area, I explored how their views on inequality, identity and government form over time.

My findings build on my earlier research, conducted with second-generation Chinese and South Asian Canadians, where I found that many of them turned to conservative ideas to access feelings of dignity and belonging. For them, embracing meritocracy wasn’t about denying racism — it was a way to prove they’d succeeded by Canada’s rules.

---

Read more:
Why are so many second-generation South Asian and Chinese Canadians planning to vote Conservative?

---

In this new study, I wanted to understand what shapes that gap — what makes some students more likely to see power as structural, and others more likely to see it as personal or cultural.

I found that young people now form political beliefs through two competing knowledge systems: a hollowed-out university, and YouTube’s attention economy. In the university classroom, students learn to connect experience to systems like racism or class inequality. On YouTube, other students encounter simplified stories or common-sense clichés.

The result is a generation pulled between critique and clarity, where YouTube offers answers that feel true.

Changes to postsecondary education

Post-secondary institutions in Canada have historically played a central role in public life. They offered young people a place to explore political ideas, learn history and develop critical thinking skills. That mission has since eroded.

In Ontario, former premier Mike Harris’s so-called “Common Sense Revolution” marked a turning point in government approaches to education. Post-secondary education was rebranded as an individual investment rather than a public good. The cost of tuition increased, public funding stagnated and student debt rose.

As a result, academic paths became stratified. Lower-income students pursued vocational degrees, while their wealthier peers could afford less lucrative paths, like the social sciences and humanities.

The ability to encounter transformative ideas narrowed along class lines.

Market priorities

At the same time, disciplines like sociology and history began to lose institutional standing as universities became increasingly reliant on tuition fees, corporate partnerships and research tied to economic outcomes. Funding shifted toward programs seen to deliver market returns — like business and technology — while fields focused on critique or public interest were sidelined.

This reorientation entrenched the idea that higher education exists to serve the market. So it was no surprise when Ontario announced $750 million in new post-secondary funding; none for the social sciences and far below the $2.5 billion recommended by a government-appointed group tasked with reviewing the financial sustainability of Ontario’s post-secondary system.

Universities are now judged by job outcomes for graduates, with less support for courses that analyze, critique or challenge inequality or power.

YouTube steps in

As universities retreat, platforms like YouTube have increasingly stepped in as a political educator. This is accelerating a shift that may have happened anyway, but has now taken on a new urgency in this hollowed-out educational landscape.

In 2015, YouTube’s algorithm shifted to maximize watch time, pushing content independent of its quality.

I found that for students in technical or vocational programs — where inequality is rarely addressed — YouTube often becomes their main source of political learning.

Conservative influencers offer simplified narratives: inequality reflects natural differences, tradition ensures order, progressivism is elitist.

These messages land because progressive ideas remain concentrated in universities, out of reach for many working-class youth. This dynamic has also expanded across platforms like TikTok and Instagram, where short-form content delivers similar emotionally charged explanations.

When critical education is confined to elite spaces, structural thinking becomes a privilege and not a public tool. This matters because it shapes who feels entitled to analyze power and imagine alternatives — and who is left to make sense of inequality through personal experience and YouTube algorithms.

Some young people are pushing back: BreadTube creators, civic tech projects and public sociology podcasts translate progressive ideas for digital audiences.

---

Read more:
Meet BreadTube, the YouTube activists trying to beat the far-right at their own game

---

But these efforts remain small compared to the reach and resources of right-wing media. Without broader infrastructure — from education funding to algorithmic transparency — even the most compelling content struggles to shift how people understand the world.

The decline of progressive institutions

Universities were never the only sites of political education. In earlier generations, unions, political parties and community groups shaped public consciousness.

They established adult education programs, published newspapers and linked political ideas to everyday life. Feminist and anti-racist traditions added their own spaces, from women’s consciousness-raising circles to Black political study groups.

Civic initiatives like Company of Young Canadians, supported youth in under-served communities with political engagement and collective action. These institutions helped working people identify shared interests and organize for change.

That world has largely disappeared, especially with the decline of unions in Canada, driven by decades of neoliberal restructuring that weakened collective bargaining and eroded political education.

In Canada, the New Democratic Party has increasingly prioritized electoral success over grassroots organizing. This isn’t unique to the NDP. Across the North America, left-leaning organizations often function as symbolic communities, struggling to build collective power.

Their abstract language feels out of step with people navigating material problems like rent hikes and job precarity.

In contrast, the political right speaks plainly. And, its messages may be simple, but they are easy to find.

Cultivating critical thought

When universities retreat and progressive organizations lose influence, new forces shape how people come to understand the world.

My research found that the way Canadian youth explained inequality differed depending on their access to education. Students with post-secondary social science education connected personal experience to systemic inequality. Those outside these spaces — especially those relying on YouTube — were more likely to see inequality as natural, rooted in individual effort or cultural values.

This divergence reflects a deeper shift: the pipeline for developing structural literacy has broken down. Where critical thinking was once nurtured through unions, political parties and public education systems, those institutions have thinned out.

With unions weakened and parties consumed with electoral success, the university remains one of the few institutions still cultivating critical thought — and conservative leaders know it.

Ahead of the 2025 election, the Conservative Party pledged to end the “imposition of woke ideology” in university research funding and steer university hiring “away from ideology.”

For from neutral, these efforts turn universities into places where challenging ideas are no longer welcome. In their place, young people are left to navigate politics through platforms shaped by algorithms, where nuance is rare.

A different future

If we want a different future, where more people feel equipped to understand and change the world, we need institutions that foster imagination, inclusion and collective purpose. That means rebuilding unions, community-based groups and civic networks.

It also means rethinking what political parties and universities are for.

Political parties must organize, not just campaign. Universities must educate for democratic participation, not just employability. These institutions must do the slow, relational work of building solidarity: helping people understand the systems they live in and feel part of something larger than themselves.

Without that kind of infrastructure, progressive ideas stay abstract: visible to some, but disconnected from the everyday lives of most.

Emine Fidan Elcioglu 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. YouTube shapes young people’s political education, but the site simplifies complex issues – https://theconversation.com/youtube-shapes-young-peoples-political-education-but-the-site-simplifies-complex-issues-260758

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Tamara Krawchenko, Associate Professor, School of Public Administration, University of Victoria

As Canada advances toward its 2050 net-zero emissions target, it’s facing a fundamental challenge: ensuring all parts of the country can participate in and benefit from the transition to a clean economy.

Canada’s regional economies are diverse, spanning Alberta’s oilsands, Québec’s hydroelectric systems, northern mining operations and urban tech hubs. These differences mean that net-zero transitions will manifest differently, creating opportunities for some regions and vulnerabilities for others.

Rural and remote regions accounted for 52 per cent of Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions in 2022 alone, and these regions in particular face complex transition dynamics. These regions host oil, gas, coal and mining industries that power Canada’s economic development.

An equitable net-zero transition requires promoting regional competitiveness while ensuring no place is left behind; in other words, cohesion. Successful sustainability transitions demand both innovation-driven growth strategies and support for regions facing economic disruption.

Canada needs to ensure a net-zero transition translates into broadly shared prosperity rather than exacerbated regional inequalities. Doing so can help rectify the historical pattern of resource extraction that has not always benefited local communities.

Challenges faced by rural and remote regions

Rural and remote communities are typically less economically diverse than urban centres. They are often built around one or more dominant industries and have smaller labour markets with fewer specialists. They also have limited access to the financial and human capital necessary for transitioning to net-zero.

Energy transitions can create new industries and transform existing ones to be cleaner. They can replace old industries with new ones and diversify the economy. However, they can also phase out industries in areas where there aren’t enough replacement options. Communities that depend on a single industry are often hit the hardest by these changes.

Canada’s transition policies are rightly focused on regional competitiveness and innovation through, for example, the Regional Economic Growth through Innovation and the Global Innovation Clusters programs. However, they often fail to proactively support the rural, remote and resource-dependent regions and communities most vulnerable to the disruptions of transitions.

This results in reactive policies and programs that are often deployed only after economic shocks. They rarely target the most at-risk groups and governance frameworks lack clear mechanisms for co-ordinated action, accountability and consideration of Indigenous rights and local well-being.

European precedents

The European Union’s 55 billion euro Just Transition Mechanism provides valuable insights for Canadian policymakers. The EU initiative combines both competitiveness and compensation strategies within a comprehensive development model.

The mechanism integrates investment schemes that promote innovation in clean technologies with targeted support for the regions most vulnerable to job losses and economic downturns. Each EU member state develops just transition plans identifying specific regions and industries requiring support, alongside dedicated investment programs tailored to local economic conditions.

This approach recognizes that effective sustainability transitions require incentives for innovation and protections for disrupted communities.

In addition, the EU’s Just Transition Fund specifically targets regions that are socially, economically and environmentally most vulnerable to transition impacts, while simultaneously encouraging investments in emerging sectors critical for reaching net-zero.

Canadian regional development approaches have historically emphasized competitiveness and innovation, with transition management remaining largely reactive rather than proactive.

An exception is the Canada Coal Transition Initiative, which provided flexible, locally tailored approaches and co-ordinated support across federal, provincial and local levels. That approach is essential for sustainable and equitable transition outcomes in diverse regions.

But Canada has generally been reluctant to explicitly identify and designate regions most at-risk from net-zero transitions. This hesitancy may leave vulnerable communities without targeted support.

Institutional capacity and governance challenges

The effectiveness of both competitiveness and cohesion strategies depends on a region’s institutional capacity and governance. On this point, rural and remote regions are often at a disadvantage. They have smaller administrations, fewer resources and limited capacity to manage complex transitions.

The Canadian government’s Regional Energy and Resource Tables offer a new collaborative approach to help bridge these gaps by bringing federal, provincial, territorial and Indigenous partners together.

The tables aim to co-ordinate expertise, resources and partnerships to identify economic priorities and build the capacity to pursue low-carbon growth opportunities. Ten tables are presently underway. This will be an important initiative to watch and evaluate.

Other collaborations can also facilitate peer learning and shared problem-solving. For example, Yukon University’s Northern Energy Innovation group partners with First Nations and utility companies to provide place-based solutions and facilitate knowledge networks. The challenge here lies in connecting these local strengths with external resources and expertise and to expand them as needed.

Sustainable transitions

As Canada encourages new economic activities essential for net-zero transitions, such as critical minerals development, it’s crucial that past inequalities are not reproduced, particularly regarding Indigenous rights holders on territories where these projects are operating.

Canadian governments have substantial room for improvement in this regard, as a lot of rural policy in Cananda continues to treat these regions as sites of resource extraction detached from broader development strategies.

The stakes of this transition are considerable. Managed effectively, net-zero transitions can put Canada on a path to sustainable and inclusive growth. Managed poorly, they risk deepening territorial divisions and creating new patterns of regional disadvantage.

The policies adopted today will determine which of these futures emerge, making the integration of competitiveness and cohesion approaches not merely desirable but essential for Canadian prosperity and social cohesion in the decades ahead.

Tamara Krawchenko received funding for this research from the Centre for Net-Zero Industrial Policy. She is an expert panelist with the Canadian Climate Institute, a Visiting Scholar with the Institute for Research on Public Policy, and a Board member for Ecotrust Canada.

– ref. How Canada can support rural regions in its net-zero transition – https://theconversation.com/how-canada-can-support-rural-regions-in-its-net-zero-transition-264747

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Andrew Buzzell, Postdoctoral Fellow, Rotman Institute of Philosophy, Western University

On Sept. 25, the Donald Trump administration in the United States again extended the TikTok ban-or-divest law, possibly for the last time. The latest extension to the law, which was passed in 2024 by the Joe Biden administration, includes a deal to transfer TikTok to American owners as a condition required to avoid a ban.

This raises the question on the validity of the warnings about the app as a tool of Chinese influence and whether American ownership will help.

Canada should be watching closely, because anxieties about foreign manipulation and social media exist north of the border, too. These range from bans on TikTok and concerns about Beijing-linked surveillance to efforts like Bill C-18 aimed at safeguarding domestic news sources.

---

Read more:
Concerns over TikTok feeding user data to Beijing are back – and there’s good evidence to support them

---

What happens in the Canadian information environment has always been shaped by the U.S., a dependence that is even more precarious now that American politics has turned hostile to Canada.

TikTok concerns

TikTok is not the only digital media platform susceptible to worries about hostile influence. All major platforms introduce the same vulnerabilities. If the policy objective is to enhance the security of democracy, then a focus on TikTok is too narrow and divestment as a solution accomplishes little (especially because it appears China will retain control of the algorithm).

Worries about TikTok come down to two big fears. The first is that it functions as a spying machine, feeding data to the Chinese government. The spying concern isn’t just about espionage, learning about sensitive infrastructure and activities, but also personal — the software itself might be unsafe and can be used to track individuals.

---

Read more:
Canada’s decision to ban TikTok from government devices is bad news for the NDP’s election strategy

---

As a result, many countries have banned the app on government devices, and securing data along national borders may well address this.

The second fear, more vivid in the public and political imagination, is that TikTok functions as an influence machine. Its algorithm can be tweaked to push propaganda, sway opinion, censor views or even meddle in elections.

Such worries reached a fever pitch in America in 2023, when Osama bin Laden’s “Letter to America” suddenly went viral on TikTok. Lawmakers seized on this as evidence that TikTok could amplify extremist content, reinforcing fears that the platform can be weaponized.

These worries aren’t merely speculative. Investigations have shown that topics sensitive to China, such as Tiananmen Square and Tibet, are harder to find or conspicuously absent on TikTok compared to other platforms.

Social media is also used as a tool for influence by hostile groups, corporations and governments, and concerns about ownership are often a proxy for deeper anxieties about the platforms themselves.

As users, we know little about how our feeds work, what’s shaping them, what they might look if they were built differently and how they are affecting us.

There is a rational basis to be mistrustful, and this cuts both ways. It’s not just the fear that we could be manipulated without realizing it; it’s also the temptation to see our opponents as manipulated, too, as if every disagreement might be product of someone rigging the system.

Manipulated anxieties

Fear of TikTok as an influence machine continues to play a substantial role in politics, as “Washington has said that TikTok’s ownership by ByteDance makes it beholden to the Chinese government.”

U.S. Vice President JD Vance remarked that the executive order would “ensure that the algorithm is not being used as a propaganda tool by a foreign government… the American businesspeople … will make the determination about what’s actually happening with TikTok.”

Meanwhile, Trump ostensibly joked that he’d make TikTok “100 per cent MAGA” before adding “everyone’s going to be treated fairly.” And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience of content creators that “weapons change over time… the most important one is social media,” stressing the importance of divestment of TikTok to U.S. owners.

One implication of these comments is that divestment doesn’t change the threat of manipulation — it just changes who’s doing the manipulating. Divestment is framed as resisting foreign propaganda, but at the same time domestic manipulation is legitimized as politics as usual.

Collective dependence

This is a squandered opportunity for the U.S. By treating TikTok as a weapon to be seized, leaders have passed up the chance to model a more enduring form of soft power: building open, transparent, trustworthy information systems that others would want to emulate. Instead, what is gained is a temporary and possibly illusory sharp power advantage, at the expense of an enduring source of legitimacy.

The bigger problem is that the normalization of social media as a weapon is, to borrow a fear familiar to Trump, riggable. We know that social media can be manipulated, and yet we rely on it more and more as a source of news. And even if we ourselves don’t, we are influenced indirectly by those who do.

This collective dependence makes the platforms more powerful and their vulnerabilities more dangerous.

Protecting the public sphere

Canada has already had its own TikTok moment: the Online News Act (C-18), which required platforms to pay news outlets for sharing their content. This was intended to strengthen Canadian journalism, but in response, Meta banned news on its platforms (Facebook, Instagram) in Canada in August 2023, leading to an 85 per cent drop in engagement. Instead of strengthening Canadian journalism, Bill C-18 risks making it more fragile.

If we’re serious about protecting the public sphere from manipulation, what matters is the outsized power the platforms have, and the extent to which that power can be bought, sold or stolen. This power includes the surveillance power to know what we will like, the algorithmic power to curate our information diet and control of platform incentives, rules and features that affect who gains influence.

Bargaining with this power, as Canada tried with Bill C-18 — and as the U.S. is now doing with China and TikTok — only concedes to it. If we want to protect democratic information systems, we need to focus on reducing the vulnerabilities in our relationship with media platforms and support domestic journalism that can compete for influence.

The biggest challenge is to make platforms less riggable, and thus less weaponizable, if only for the reason that motivated the TikTok ban: we don’t want our adversaries, foreign or domestic, to have power over us.

Andrew Buzzell 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 American TikTok deal doesn’t address the platform’s potential for manipulation, only who profits – https://theconversation.com/the-american-tiktok-deal-doesnt-address-the-platforms-potential-for-manipulation-only-who-profits-266441

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jeremie Molho, Senior Research Associate, Canada Excellence Chair in Migration and Integration Program, Toronto Metropolitan University

Settling in a new country is often imagined as a sequential process, built on a supposed hierarchy of needs. You accomplish one priority, then another, and another and then you’re integrated into the country and economy.

Material and essential matters — housing, employment, language classes — come first. Cultural or spiritual matters — a sense of belonging, community connections, civic participation — come second.

The recently released research I conducted with Toronto Arts Council (TAC) on its Program for Newcomers and Refugees (PNR), however, suggests this logic needs to be challenged.

What does art have to do with settlement?

Founded in 1974, TAC is an independent funding organization that operates at arm’s length from the City of Toronto. Its mission is to enrich the quality of life in the city by supporting the arts. The decision to create a program specifically for newcomers was driven by research highlighting the barriers newcomer artists faced in finding work and navigating the Canadian arts landscape.

The PNR launched in 2017 and has allocated about $2.92 million between its inception and 2023. Forty organizations received support through the Newcomer and Refugee Arts Engagement stream, while 176 individual artists received Newcomer and Refugee Artist Mentorship grants.

Two years ago, along with TAC, I began researching to learn about who benefited from this support and how. We held focus groups with newcomer artists, arts managers and settlement organizations, analyzed program data and produced film portraits of two artists.

Our goal was to understand what the arts contribute to integration and what challenges newcomer artists face. Our findings show that the divide between settlement and the arts should be reconsidered.

Instead of being treated as separate domains, they can complement each other in ways that strengthen integration.

The arts as holistic settlement support

The Newcomer and Refugee Arts Engagement stream provides grants to organizations — including settlement agencies, community arts organizations and artistic institutions — with experience serving newcomers through artistic activities. Beneficiaries of the engagement stream showed that arts projects are not cosmetic add-ons.

Community arts professionals work hand in hand with settlement workers to address practical barriers from the outset.

Child care is arranged so mothers can attend. Interpreters support multilingual workshops. Programs offer snacks and Toronto Transit Commission fare. Schedules are adapted to hospitality and shift-work hours. These small design choices make participation possible.

The outcomes are multidimensional. Arts programs support language learning in low-pressure, confidence-building settings. They open pathways to employment through the acquisition of digital skills, production experience and access to professional networks. They reduce isolation and support mental health by creating safe, culturally sensitive spaces.

Newcomers Dance Too!, a free dance class for refugee-background women and girls in Flemington Park run by dancers from Fusion Cardio Toronto — which was promoted in Arabic, Urdu, Punjabi and other languages — is one example.

StoryCentre Canada, a non-profit that empowers short multimedia first-person narratives, set up digital storytelling workshops that taught photography and video editing while letting participants share their stories in the language of their choice, building both technical and communication skills. Hinprov, a collective of South Asian improvisers, created spaces where expression was possible even for those still learning English.

Arts projects also spark civic conversations. At Matthew House, which offers transitional housing settlement assistance, a mural led by a refugee artist-in-residence prompted neighbours to ask questions about refugees, opening dialogue that challenged stereotypes. Another PNR project collaborated with LGBTQ+ newcomers, using photography and film to counter stigma and create networks of care.

These initiatives show how the arts allow creative newcomers to assert their voices and identities on their own terms, positioning them not simply as guests but as active shapers of the cultural fabric of their new country.

Newcomer artists face systemic barriers

Newcomer artists design and deliver effective arts-based projects. Their ability to contribute, however, is limited by systemic obstacles.

General settlement services rarely provide tailored guidance for creative careers. Newcomer artists are directed toward generic job markets or told to pursue “Canadian credentials,” with little information about arts funding, networks or sector norms.

Discrimination compounds these hurdles: accents and linguistic differences become barriers to casting and collaboration; racial bias and expectations about “ethnic” content narrow opportunities; western-centrism and unfamiliarity with certain artistic traditions from outside the West devalue skills gained abroad. For instance, an Indian musician criticized the tendency to classify Indian classical music as “world music” rather than recognizing it as a classical form, limiting its appropriate recognition and funding.

Administrative rules add further exclusions. Temporary residents may be ineligible for public arts funding. Artists living in the Toronto area but outside the city proper can be excluded by residency requirements, even when they exhibit and perform in Toronto. These policies limit access to precisely the resources that help artists integrate into local scenes.

As part of our project, we worked with filmmaker Ogo Eze to produce two short portraits of newcomer artists: Iranian artist Aitak Sorahitalab and Palestinian-Syrian musician Tarek Ghriri.

Both stories illustrate how, despite formidable challenges, newcomers can become community leaders, using their art to support other newcomers while enriching Toronto’s cultural scene. Their stories show resilience but also underline how much potential is lost when systemic barriers remain in place.

Mending the arts and settlement divide

We have too often treated settlement and the arts as separate and incompatible worlds. Bridging them requires a shift on both sides.

On the settlement side, we must move away from sequential-needs thinking that relegates the arts to the bottom of the priority list or treats cultural activities as communications window dressing. This underestimates the concrete, multifaceted support community arts professionals can provide and sidelines newcomer artists.

On the arts side, TAC’s program is a promising template. By offering targeted support to newcomers, the PNR acknowledges the particular challenges they face when starting out, while avoiding the trap of permanently labelling them as “migrant artists.”

Given that only two per cent of Canadian arts funders offer targeted support for newcomers, lessons from this program can guide similar initiatives across Canada and beyond.

Jeremie Molho received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Partnership Engage Grant for the project Fostering Integration through the Arts: Learning from Toronto Arts Council’s Program for Newcomers and Refugees’, conducted in partnership with Toronto Arts Council

– ref. How the arts strengthen newcomer settlement in Canada – https://theconversation.com/how-the-arts-strengthen-newcomer-settlement-in-canada-265462

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Debra M Haak, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen’s University, Ontario

Canada recently introduced the Combatting Hate Act, legislation that will create three new criminal offences intended to strengthen protections against hate.

The first new offence targets hate crimes directly for the first time in Canada. The second targets intimidation and obstruction. The third expands an existing criminal law targeting wilful promotion of hatred.

Canada’s hate crime laws apply to acts of hatred towards identifiable groups, those distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.

Hate crimes are under-reported, under-recorded and under-prosecuted in most jurisdictions where legislation exists.

Data from Statistics Canada shows that in 2019, nearly 250,000 people reported they were victims of hate-motivated incidents, but fewer than one per cent were investigated as hate crimes.

Sex-motivated violence is common

Acts of hatred towards women and girls regularly occur in Canada. Some involve violence. Femicide is defined as the killing of women and girls because of their sex or gender. However, sex-motivated violence is rarely treated as hate crime.

The Montréal Massacre is the best known example of sex-motivated killing in Canada. On Dec. 6, 1989, a lone white male, armed with a gun, entered École Polytechnique at the Université of Montréal and killed 14 women. He killed them because they were women and, in his view, feminists, towards whom he expressed hatred.

---

Read more:
Montréal Massacre anniversary: The media must play a key role in fighting femicide

---

This mass femicide has never been officially recognized as a hate-motivated crime in Canada.

Other mass killings of women also reveal sex-motivated hatred. The Toronto van attack in 2018 was perpetrated by a male who admitted he drew inspiration from the so-called incel online subculture of men united by sexual frustration and a hatred of women.

The fact that the attack was motivated by hatred towards women does not appear to have been considered at sentencing.

---

Read more:
Toronto van attack: Guilty verdict, but Canada still needs to tackle ideological violence

---

Hatred based on sex

In June 2022, the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario held an inquest into one of the worst instances of intimate partner femicide in Canadian history. It involved the killings of three women by one man in eastern Ontario in 2015.

In that case, the sentencing judge said the perpetrator was “a violent, vindictive, calculating abuser of women” who “took his hatred to its ultimate climax and committed triple murders.”

Sex-motivated violence is not limited to mass killings. A woman or girl is killed every other day in Canada. A significant number of these deaths are also motivated by hatred based on sex.

In many cases, violence against women and girls is not only sex-motivated. It is well-documented that many of the disappearances and deaths of Indigenous women and girls also involve racially motivated hatred as well as systemic misogyny and racism, particularly by police.

Sex-motivated violence not treated as hate

Yet our research has revealed that violence motivated by hatred of women and girls is relatively invisible in crime reporting data, sentencing and public discourse.

Sex-motivated violence against women and girls is seldom recorded as hate crime. Sex has never comprised more than three per cent of police-reported hate crime in Canada, despite self-reported data showing at least 22 per cent of Canadians — mostly women — have experienced hate.

Sex-motivated hate, in fact, was the most under-reported category of hate crime when comparing self-reported data to police data.

Neither is sex-motivated violence sentenced as a hate crime, despite the fact that the Criminal Code already provides for increased sentences when there is evidence an offence was motivated by hate.

Canada’s Department of Justice has found that sex-motivated hatred was one of the least commonly addressed grounds when applying hate as an aggravating factor at sentencing. Based on a review of more than 40 years of case law up to 2020, only seven cases were found to focus on sex. Two of these cases were unsuccessful.

Male violence against women, girls is hate

Hate-motivated crime is significant in Canada. In 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, overall hate crimes reported to police increased by 37 per cent compared to 2019.

The first pillar of Canada’s Action Plan on Combatting Hate is empowering communities to identify hate. That currently does not happen in cases of male violence against women, even though sex is an identified group in Canadian criminal laws targeting hate.

Here are three ways it could happen:

• Canada should enhance monitoring of hate-motivated gender-based violence.
• To increase responsiveness to sex-motivated violence, existing and proposed laws targeting sex-motivated hate must be implemented and enforced.
• Canada should promote an understanding of male violence against women and girls as a form of hate. The new laws and the focus they bring to this issue could help.

For hate crime legislation to be more than symbolic, crimes motivated by hatred must be reported, recorded, prosecuted and sentenced as hate crimes for all identifiable groups — not just some of them.

Debra M Haak receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Canadian Bar Association Law for the Future Fund.

Myrna Dawson received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and British Columbia’s Office of the Human Rights Commissioner.

– ref. Sex-motivated violence should be treated as a hate crime – https://theconversation.com/sex-motivated-violence-should-be-treated-as-a-hate-crime-265927

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Steve Granger, Assistant Professor, John Molson School of Business, Concordia University

Consider two teenagers searching for summer work. One is offered an opportunity to assist a project manager at their uncle’s construction company. The other submits a dozen retail applications, hoping for a call back. Who is more likely to hold a formal leadership position in their 20s?

Stories like this play out across families of different economic backgrounds every day. Our recent research shows that pathways to leadership often begin much earlier than many assume, and are shaped by social capital that accumulates throughout childhood and adolescence.

We studied more than 6,700 people born in the same week in April 1970 across Great Britain, tracked from birth to age 26 through the British Cohort Study.

Rather than measuring socioeconomic status at just one point in time, we were able to capture it repeatedly: at birth, and ages 5, 10 and 16. This gave us a rare opportunity to see how persistent exposure to either wealth or adversity shaped who went on to take up formal leadership roles as young adults and who did not.

Affluence versus adversity

Our findings revealed a striking pattern. Children who grew up in persistent wealth — whose parents consistently held managerial or professional occupations — were more likely to occupy leadership roles by their mid-20s.

Conversely, those who grew up in persistent adversity — whose parents consistently worked in lower-skilled or semi-skilled occupations, such as routine service, manual or support roles as defined in the U.K. National Statistics Socio-economic Classification — were less likely to hold similar leadership positions.

But what makes these findings particularly revealing is that persistent exposure to wealth or adversity isn’t simply being on opposite ends of one continuum. Instead, they represent two very different paths that result in distinct socialization experiences.

On one hand, persistent wealth creates cumulative benefits by providing repeated access to resources, enriching experiences and better-connected social networks. On the other hand, persistent adversity can compound barriers, limiting opportunities for skill development, access to quality education and early exposure to professional environments.

Both paths land young people at very different career starting points that either open or close doors to leadership opportunities.

Pathways through social networks

For children from affluent families, leadership pathways often run through social networks. Access to what we call “nepotistic opportunities” — job connections through family and friends — partially explained why these children were more likely to emerge as leaders later on.

This isn’t always blatant favouritism. Instead, it reflects how affluent families more easily provide access to “weak ties” — the kinds of looser connections that open doors to new information and opportunities.

Consider again the teenager whose uncle arranges a summer job on a construction site. They don’t just earn money; they also learn about co-ordinating teams in professional environments and they form relationships. These encounters build social capital that can shape their path to leadership.

Not just a lack of connections

By contrast, we expected that children from disadvantaged backgrounds would show the mirror image of this pattern: that missing out on opportunities to build their social network would explain their lower odds of becoming leaders.

But our data told a different story.

Persistent early life adversity was linked to fewer leadership roles in adulthood, but not simply because of missed social opportunities. The teenager cold-applying to retail jobs does indeed face barriers to later leadership, but more complex and deeper-rooted factors are likely at play.

The disadvantages of growing up in persistent adversity may be rooted in other factors not measured in our study, such as reduced access to non-parental mentors, lower quality schooling or the toll of long-term economic stress on well-being.

What organizations can do

Addressing disadvantage requires tackling the deeper, systemic ways persistent economic wealth and adversity shape development. Employers can help level the playing field.

Acknowledging that social class differences exist in organizations is a crucial first step. This lays the groundwork for reducing bias in leadership recruitment, selection, retention efforts and improving access to leadership development.

Recruiting more widely through non-traditional networks and providing employer-sponsored preparation opportunities can make pathways into formal leadership positions more accessible. Dispelling myths about social class, for example through training, can also help reduce bias in selection and improve retention.

Finally, creating developmental networks and mentorship programs can provide the kind of career guidance and connections that affluent families often provide informally.

Leadership isn’t predetermined

The influence of childhood conditions can have lasting effects on career trajectories. In our study, the effects of early socioeconomic status conditions were still visible when participants reached their mid-20s, long after they had finished school and entered the workforce.

Addressing leadership diversity requires not just workplace interventions, but also early investment in supporting childhood development across all socioeconomic backgrounds.

Investments in quality education, mentorship programs and opportunities for young people to build professional networks is crucial for creating more equitable pathways to leadership.

While our findings highlight advantages for affluent youth and barriers for disadvantaged youth, they don’t dictate destiny. Among those who experienced at least some persistent adversity, 34 per cent still rose to leadership positions (compared to 46 per cent of those who experienced at least some persistent wealth).

What our research identifies is how socioeconomic status advantages and disadvantages compound over time, widening the disparity in social experiences that generate leadership opportunities.

Recognizing the distinction between these cumulative effects can help motivate us to create more equitable family and organizational systems where leadership potential is nurtured no matter where you start.

Steve Granger receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Julian Barling receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Borden Chair of Leadership.

Nick Turner receives research funding from Cenovus Energy Inc., Haskayne School of Business’s Future Fund, Mitacs, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

– ref. Childhood wealth and social status can help people get leadership roles in adulthood – https://theconversation.com/childhood-wealth-and-social-status-can-help-people-get-leadership-roles-in-adulthood-265457

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Robert Danisch, Professor, Department of Communication Arts, University of Waterloo

Cancellation, elimination, subtraction, removal, invalidation — these synonyms describe a core, pervasive principle in our current political moment.

A common fantasy from those on all positions of the ideological spectrum is the belief that if one group, or several groups, of people were simply removed from public discourse, problems would be solved and politics would become functional.

Whether it’s United States President Donald Trump insisting the homeless population of Washington D.C., should be removed or Jimmy Kimmel and other late-night comedians should be taken off the air, the goal is to practise politics by subtraction.

Many on the left got caught up in stories about Trump’s declining health and the possibility that illness would remove him from office. Others, like American author and professor Roxanne Gay, argue that liberals cannot, and should not, engage with or be civil to conservatives, who are simply terrible people.

The animating belief of a politics of cancellation is that a functional society just beneath the surface will emerge if only the right people are removed.

Cancellation at odds with democracy

In the United States, cancellation is everywhere right now: there are calls to remove trans people from public life, to label the opposition party a “domestic, extremist organization,” to impeach Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

But this is largely political theatre, not a constructive form of collective problem-solving.

Removing homeless people from Washington, D.C., or any other city may make urban streets appear “clean” or “safe” to some, but the structural and moral issues represented by homelessness will persist and metastasize out of sight. The unhoused still won’t have homes.

Remove Trump, and J.D. Vance becomes president, amplifying the hard right turn of the last year in the U.S. In politics, collective problems cannot be solved by cancellation or removal.

Perhaps even more importantly, democracy cannot survive the practice of cancellation, nor will it produce the stability imagined once one group of people is eliminated from public discourse.

The work of democracy is always inclusion. Effective, collective decision-making rests on the possibility of persuasion to change minds and create consensus from disagreement.

Cancellation or subtraction are moves to eliminate the possibility of persuasion in favour of silence. To eliminate the practice of persuasion is to transform a society from democracy to authoritarianism.

Reconciling differences

In interpersonal communication, we know that when partners stonewall, silence or turn away from their significant other, the relationship runs into deep trouble.

The same is true for the kinds of constructive relationships between strangers required by democracy — when we turn away from our fellow citizens or silence them, functional communication processes and the possibility of persuasion are no longer available.

Even if we managed to cancel or subtract some group, the challenge of collective decision-making remains. There is no utopia just beyond successful cancellation, nor could there be given the requirements of democracy to reconcile differences in productive ways.

In interpersonal relationships, we know how damaging the Ziegarnik effect can be, which is the way unprocessed negative interactions stick with people and gradually erode trust. In other words, a problem unresolved is like a pebble stuck in our shoe, digging at us and causing additional problems.

The ideas and perspectives of people who face cancellation continue to circulate, stuck in our collective public discourse, causing deeper, future problems. Inclusion is a prerequisite for persuasion, transformation and change because it allows us to deal squarely with the problems we confront instead of leaving them unresolved.

Cancellation is a primary tool of fascism and authoritarianism. To blame and demonize one group of people for society’s ills is an easy way to explain away problems and consolidate power.

But the antidote to cancellation cannot be more cancellation. Jimmy Kimmel actively showed the way in his monologue upon returning from temporary cancellation. He offered a sophisticated defence of free speech that practised the inclusion of voices he usually criticized. Kimmel was civil in a deep way that is essential for democracy.

The importance of comedy

Comedy itself is a mode of criticism that can preserve the social order and resist the urge to cancel. This is why comedy is woven into the social fabric of democracies and not into authoritarian governments.

We poke fun to let others know we disagree, sometimes vehemently, but that kind of engagement keeps the conversation going and opens possibilities for change.

Those on the left, the remaining defenders of democracy, make a mistake when they attempt to practise a politics of cancellation, as do those on the right. A politics of inclusion is always the antidote and the best method of problem-solving.

Societies flourish and prosperity grows through inclusion not subtraction. Historians of democracy know this.

Robert Danisch receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

– ref. Why the politics of cancellation never works – https://theconversation.com/why-the-politics-of-cancellation-never-works-266034