The Conversation – Canada – Page 55

November 26, 2025

Peace in Ukraine? Believe it when you see it, especially if Russian demands are prioritized

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Oleksa Drachewych, Assistant Professor in History, Western University

The United States recently — and suddenly — announced a 28-point peace plan to end Russia’s war in Ukraine, seemingly jointly written with Russian delegates, and presented it to Ukraine.

The leaked contents of the peace plan caused concerns for Ukrainian representatives, European leaders and some American politicians.

Yet it has nonetheless led to “meaningful progress”, according to the White House, on a revised peace proposal drafted by Ukrainian and American delegates in Geneva. Ukraine has reportedly agreed to the deal, with minor tweaks, while Russia says it’s premature to say a resolution is close, even as Russian representatives met with U.S. delegates in Abu Dhabi to discuss the revised plan.

What was in the first plan?

The leaked initial 28-point plan was criticized for asserting many Russian demands that date back to the initial peace negotiations of March and April 2022:

It placed a limit of 600,000 troops on Ukraine’s military;
It prevented Ukraine from having long-range missiles;
It placed a permanent ban on Ukrainian membership in NATO;
It included protections of Russian language and the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine.

It also explicitly gave the entire Donbas region of eastern Ukraine to Russia, and called on the international community to recognize full Russian control of the Donbas and Crimea and control of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia on the front lines.

In return, there would be “reliable security guarantees” envisioned by U.S. President Donald Trump: a NATO-style “Article 5” for Ukraine. This would mean if Ukraine was purposefully attacked by Russia in the future, the U.S. and other parties involved would come to Ukraine’s defence through sanctions, diplomatic pressure and military support, if necessary.

In many of the economic and security arrangements that could emerge from the agreement, Russia and the United States would manage them together under the terms of the 28-point plan.

The original plan also offered amnesty to all parties for any crimes and atrocities committed during the war, meaning Russia would not be brought to justice for war crimes. It also called for Russia’s return to European and global affairs, ending its political isolation with the West by reforming the G8. In short, the agreement would essentially act as if the war in Ukraine never happened.

Was this a joint U.S.-Russia plan?

The origins of the peace plan have been widely debated. The stilted language in the English version has led some to speculate it was translated from Russian).

American senators said U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, when briefing them, called the deal a “Russian wish list.” The draft reportedly came as a result of meetings held in Florida between Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, special envoy Steve Witkoff and Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev, a noted Putin supporter.

Rubio has insisted it was a U.S.-crafted document while Russian President Vladimir Putin said Russia could accept the peace plan.

The fact that the document tended to mirror many of Russia’s demands immediately put Ukraine, and Europe, on the defensive.

Trump declared that Ukraine would have until American Thanksgiving — Thursday, Nov. 27 — to agree to the plan. He has since softened his stance. But he’s also lambasted Ukraine’s leadership for not showing sufficient “gratitude” for American efforts to bring peace to Ukraine.

In response, European leaders offered their own peace plan. They largely removed some of Russia’s most egregious demands, keeping some of the 28 points, while placing sensitive issues like NATO membership as something to be determined by NATO members and Ukraine.

Details of Europe’s plan

But it also acceded to some Russian demands, including accepting a cap on Ukraine’s military and offering Russia re-entry into the G8. It included a provision for territorial swaps with negotiations starting from the current front lines instead of recognizing Russia’s annexations.

European proposals include using frozen Russian assets as reparations for Russia’s aggression, eliminating any of the amnesty clauses and making the European Union and NATO the key players in any future political, economic and military security arrangements.

The European deal also removes key qualifiers in the original 28-point plan that could be manipulated by Russian misinformation — namely that Ukraine would be forced to face Russia alone if it struck either St. Petersburg or Moscow with a missile or it failed to “de-Nazify”, a common and erroneous Russian line of attack against Ukraine.

The Kremlin rejected the European counter-plan outright.

Where does the deal stand now?

Ukrainian and American officials recently met in Geneva to discuss the peace plan. Emerging from the meeting, European leaders were cautiously optimistic while insisting a lot more work needed to be done. Trump stated that “something good just may be happening.”

So what resulted from that meeting? Few details have been leaked. Sources have shared that the 28-point plan has now been pared down to 19. It has also been suggested that key issues like territorial swaps and NATO accession have been left for Trump and Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy to discuss at a future meeting.

Ukrainian officials have said the plan has been substantially revised and reflects Ukraine’s concerns.

The Russian response has been cagey, to say the least. Since there’s been no formal presentation of any revised peace plan, they are electing to say nothing firm. But U.S. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll recently met with Russian delegates in Abu Dhabi.. Russian sources, meanwhile, have restated their preference for the original 28-point plan.

Seeing is believing

While this appears to be the most notable progress in the peace process in months, expectations should be tempered until there’s a presidential summit between Zelenskyy and Putin and until their signatures are on a treaty.

Such momentum for peace has happened in the past. And it has often been scuttled by the key sticking points of both nations. Ukraine has continued to demand extensive security guarantees, justice for Russian war crimes, and has rejected territorial swaps. Russia has wanted a pliable Ukraine and one that could remain in its orbit politically and economically. Fundamentally, these positions haven’t changed.

At this point, it appears the Ukrainians have managed to bring the Americans to their side in the latest peace talks, which reflects the importance Ukraine places on U.S. support in their fight against Russia. Russia has elected to say little, but if it was to agree to the revised deal, it would represent a seismic shift.

For those reasons, believe in the success in the peace process when you actually see it.

Oleksa Drachewych 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. Peace in Ukraine? Believe it when you see it, especially if Russian demands are prioritized – https://theconversation.com/peace-in-ukraine-believe-it-when-you-see-it-especially-if-russian-demands-are-prioritized-270436

November 26, 2025

Ontario’s Bill 33 expands policing in schools and will erode democratic oversight

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Salsabel Almanssori, Adjunct Assistant Professor, Faculty of Education, University of Windsor

Ontario’s new Bill 33, what the province calls the Supporting Children and Students Act, gives Education Minister Paul Calandra sweeping authority to take over boards. It also mandates boards to work with local police to implement school resource officer programs where they are available and opens the door to removing school board trustees entirely.

When Ontario passed Bill 33 last week, the government framed it as a necessary intervention to “put school boards back on track” and strengthen “our ability to keep our schools safe” and “students’ ability to succeed.”

Earlier this year, the education minister took over over five school boards using earlier versions of these powers, citing financial mismanagement. He’s now signalled more boards are in his sights under Bill 33.

As an education scholar, educator and parent with children in Ontario’s public schools, I am alarmed by the repercussions this bill will have on student safety and the future of equitable and democratic schooling in the province.

I am far from alone. Student trustees, advocacy groups and the NDP warn the bill will silence local voices and erode the democratic oversight that is central to public education.

Teacher unions criticize this legislation and the steps taken towards it as an attempt to centralize control while avoiding the real issues: chronic underfunding, understaffed classrooms, deteriorating infrastructure, poor mental health supports and cuts to special education.

Policing won’t improve safety

Despite government claims, there is no evidence that policing in schools improves safety. In decades of international research, studies have consistently shown that policing in schools does not prevent violence. Instead, it contributes to the school-to-prison nexus, a continuum through which punitive school practices increase young people’s contact with police, courts and long-term criminalization.

In mandating police access to school premises and other school-police collaboration, Bill 33 names no exception even in boards where “school resource officer” programs were ended after sustained grassroots advocacy and community consultation.

Policies that mandate sanctioned surveillance, control, punishment, violence or contribute to the threat of incarceration to preserve state interests — “carceral” approaches — predict lower achievement, higher dropout rates and increased likelihood of later arrest.

A 2025 study on mass incarceration and schools makes a similar point: tackling the over-representation of racialized people in prisons must be integrated with systemic responses to providing equitable opportunities through schooling and community-based resources. When schools rely on policing, they don’t solve the roots of harm.

The expansion of policing in schools disproportionately affects Black, Indigenous and racialized students, students with disabilities, immigrant and lower-income youth and otherwise marginalized communities. These groups are significantly more likely to be suspended, expelled or referred to police even when accounting for the severity of behaviours.

Criminalization inside schools also intensifies racial disparities in society.

Mandated policing will deepen student mistrust

Police presence also changes how students respond to harm. I study violence in schools and in my own research on what I call “the snitch factor,” I find a hidden layer of harm shapes how young people decide whether to disclose violence. Many students avoid reporting because they expect escalation, retaliation or being labelled as the problem rather than helped.

Students see disclosures leading to discipline and punishment, not support. When schools adopt carceral responses, students learn that reporting can bring more risk than resolution.

Bill 33’s policing provisions risk amplifying these dynamics. When students believe that disclosure will trigger police involvement or harsh punishment, they often stay silent. This undermines safety, particularly for youth who already mistrust institutional responses.

Local democracy is at stake

One of the most profound changes in Bill 33 is its weakening of local governance. Allowing the minister to appoint supervisors, it shifts power from elected trustees to political appointees who do not live in the communities they oversee.

Without trustees, communities lose a key mechanism for oversight, transparency and responsiveness. It also accelerates stakeholder concerns about increasing privatization and centralization in the education system, trends that have accompanied funding cuts and service erosion.

Policing Free Schools, which has led provincial advocacy to remove policing from schools, argues that Bill 33 is a top-down political intervention that ignores evidence. Their position is grounded in an international coalition and research showing that police presence increases harm.

Teacher unions have also warned that mandatory policing will worsen inequities and distract from the real issues of underfunding and staff shortages

Their voices are among concerned responses from communities across the province who understand what safety in schools requires.

An equitable path exists, backed by evidence

The research points toward effective, non-carceral approaches that improve safety and well-being in schools, including:

Restorative and relational approaches to harm reduction and trauma-informed mental health supports
Culturally responsive and anti-racist practices
Violence prevention programming
Smaller class sizes and improved staffing and teacher retention
Extracurricular programs and youth leadership opportunities
Family and community partnerships

Notably, none of these are part of Bill 33.

Safety through well-funded education

Safety is not created through policing; it is created through trust, support and well-funded public education. Bill 33 threatens all three.

Across Ontario, communities are already organizing to challenge the harms the bill will produce and to push for evidence-based approaches that support students.

Bill 33 will reshape the landscape, but it has also strengthened the resolve of those committed to safe, well-funded and democratic schools.

Salsabel Almanssori receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

– ref. Ontario’s Bill 33 expands policing in schools and will erode democratic oversight – https://theconversation.com/ontarios-bill-33-expands-policing-in-schools-and-will-erode-democratic-oversight-270345

November 26, 2025

Encouraging young people to vote requires understanding why they don’t

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Christopher Alcantara, Professor of Political Science, Western University

Around the world, political institutions are under threat and democracy hangs in the balance. Deepening political divisions, political apathy and the rise of opportunistic populist leaders have all contributed to widespread democratic backsliding and a rise in authoritarianism.

Meeting this challenge requires active and engaged citizens. In Canada, there’s a strong sense that civic engagement is on the decline, especially among young people. Recent research commissioned by the Max Bell Foundation — a charity that works to improve educational, health and environmental outcomes for Canadians — suggests that the real story may be more complex.

Our research on political engagement has found that while today’s young Canadians are participating less in conventional political activities, they are increasingly active in other less traditional ways. How do we encourage youth to engage in all forms of civic life?

Ballots versus boycotts

Our analyses of Elections Canada voting data and survey data, collected through the Canada Election Study and Democracy Checkup projects, clearly illustrate that young people differ from older Canadians in how they participate in civic and political life.

Canadians between the ages of 18 and 34 are less likely to vote than those in other age cohorts and had the steepest decline in turnout from 2015 to 2021, when fewer than half of eligible young Canadians voted.

Young people are generally less knowledgeable and politically informed than older adults.

A graph shows voter turnout numbers in recent Canadian federal elections by age — Voter turnout numbers in recent Canadian federal elections by age.
(Elections Canada)

At the same time, young Canadians are at the forefront of discussing politics online, following politicians on social media and mobilizing their peers through digital platforms. They are more likely to take part in protests, petitions and political consumerism — from boycotts to buycotts — and to volunteer with community organizations and political campaigns at higher rates than other age groups.

a graph shows levels of political participation by age — Data on levels of political participation by age.
(Democracy Checkup surveys)

The real story isn’t that youth don’t care or aren’t political. It’s that they are turning away from conventional, formal participation in favour of alternative ways of sharing and expressing their views.

Explaining changing participation norms

Our analysis suggests that younger Canadians differ from their older counterparts across key factors that shape whether and how they participate.

Many young Canadians cite a lack of time as a barrier to engagement, have lower levels of political knowledge, report slightly lower levels of interest in politics and struggle to make the connection between politics and the issues they care about.

Our work also suggests that youth are noticeably less likely to see civic participation like voting as a duty, and they’re much more likely to be influenced by whether they believe their participation will make a difference.

This presents a particular challenge, because youth also tend to express higher levels of skepticism that their participation matters.

One final surprising finding is that more attention may need to be paid to understanding how political polarization affects youth. Young people may be increasingly put off from politics by hostility and conflict that they want to avoid.

Civic engagement beyond election day

Youth don’t seem to be tuning out but are instead finding different ways to engage. Nonetheless, declining interest in political engagement through formal institutions represents a real concern for democracy in Canada.

So how to build upon the areas where youth are already engaging, and bring young people back into conventional forms of civic engagement like voting?

Our conversations with civil society organizations suggest that civic engagement starts with effective civic education programs in schools, while highlighting the challenges these programs face — from educator training to curriculum design and sustainability over time.

They also highlight the challenge of reaching older youth, especially those referred to as NEET by statisticians — not in employment, education or training. Our interviewees shared their own successful strategies and emphasized the importance of reaching out to youth where they are and through the media and platforms that they prefer.

What comes next?

Democracies around the world are under pressure, and Canada is no exception. In this moment, it’s more critical than ever to pay attention to youth civic engagement.

Investing in civic education and encouraging civic participation early in life helps ensure young people have a voice in politics. But perhaps more importantly, it can also demonstrate how civic engagement can lead to change and challenge the feelings of powerlessness that drive disengagement. Youth participation helps build habits that last a lifetime and is essential to sustaining democracy for generations to come.

The future of Canadian democracy is in the hands of our youth. They must be equipped with the knowledge and the skills to shape it for the better.

Christopher Alcantara receives funding from Max Bell Foundation for this research report.

Craig Mutter receives funding from Max Bell Foundation for this research.

Laura Stephenson receives funding from Max Bell Foundation for this research.

– ref. Encouraging young people to vote requires understanding why they don’t – https://theconversation.com/encouraging-young-people-to-vote-requires-understanding-why-they-dont-270015

November 26, 2025

Online harassment is silencing Canada’s health experts — institutions need to do more to protect them

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Heidi J. S. Tworek, Professor of History and Public Policy, University of British Columbia

Canada has lost the measles elimination status it has held since 1998. To regain that status, one crucial factor is hearing from researchers who speak about vaccine safety in public.

Canada can’t afford to lose expert voices at a moment when the threat of vaccine-preventable diseases is rising. Yet our work suggests that online harassment is a growing deterrent that is driving researchers and scientists out of the conversations needed at this time.

Harassment is a long-standing problem in academia. While it occurs within different institutions and disciplines, it has increasingly taken the form of online attacks from people outside of academia. It’s a phenomenon that accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic, and one where health experts are left to cope alone.

Canadian institutions and research organizations need to create broad support for these individuals.

The harms of online harassment

Our recent study on prominent Canadian health communicators — including university researchers and public health officials — found that 94 per cent, or 33 of 35 interviewees, had faced online abuse during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Online harassment goes beyond vaccines and COVID-19; climate change, gender diversity, immigration and other topics have all triggered a backlash. But we found that vaccination was one of the topics most likely to trigger abuse, and it’s an issue that has become increasingly politicized in Canada.

As with many issues in Canada, developments in the United States have played a major role. For instance, a 2021 study on vaccine hesitancy in Canada showed how social media conversations on vaccinations were heavily influenced by discussions in the U.S. It turned out that Canadians followed a median of 32 Canadian accounts and 87 American accounts.

With such interconnected information ecosystems, anti-science harassment directed at American researchers routinely spills into Canadian online spaces. This is worsened when senior officials in the U.S. administration publicly express a lack of support for immunization and evidence-based health recommendations.

Canadian universities and academic institutions need to develop mitigation and support strategies to deal with online harassment fuelled by these realities.

We can learn from action plans by U.S.-based universities and coalitions. Canada can also learn from models in countries like the Netherlands that have created national initiatives to support researchers experiencing harassment.

Hostility that threatens public health

While academics should be comfortable having their ideas challenged, technology-facilitated harassment is very different. Online harassment is often linked with other forms of targeted abuse and includes acts of doxxing, reputation attacks or threatening and sexualized messaging, among others.

Though this hostility often targets individuals working on politically contested issues, researchers from equity-deserving groups face online abuse that builds on systemic inequities related to race, gender, sexuality and other identity factors.

Online abuse can harm mental health, provoke fears about employment or grants and undermine academic freedom, as the Canadian Association of University Teachers observes. Our research found that health communicators faced the “psychological toll” of reading hostile emails day after day, with several reporting fear, sadness or anxiety in response to threats of violence.

A racialized expert recounted how personal attacks on her appearance and background “take a toll,” while a health journalist said that messages like one wishing her “blood clots” sometimes kept her awake at night. Several interviewees described exhaustion, worry and depressive symptoms, highlighting the hidden burden of online harassment.

Besides having serious personal, institutional and societal consequences, this reality risks creating information gaps that could be quickly filled by conspiracy theories. Some health researchers decided to stop media interviews or social media posts on controversial issues. So should they simply avoid public engagement on contentious topics?

While this approach might lessen the risks, it would also dramatically reduce the impact of their expertise. Public engagement is not only a key part of research grants but it also ensures that Canadians benefit directly from research.

Currently, scholars and public health communicators targeted with online abuse mainly use individual coping strategies such as deleting social media accounts, withdrawing from public communication or accepting abuse as inevitable.

These strategies, however, leave individuals to address attacks in isolation. While such measures provide temporary relief, they reinforce self-censorship and hamper public access to expert knowledge.

The need for ‘wraparound’ support

Institutions need to adopt “wraparound” support. This approach acknowledges researcher agency and institutional responsibility through a rights-based framework. It also shifts responsibility from individuals to institutions.

Unlike many universities’ current siloed and inflexible approach, a wraparound approach co-ordinates and integrates multiple domains of support.

For instance, some targeted individuals may not face legal or safety risks but can benefit from psychological support. Others may need assistance with cybersecurity risks or removing online mentions of personal information like their home address or children’s school.

Our institution, the University of British Columbia, for example, offers cybersecurity assistance, mental health support and other key elements of a response.

However, when we consulted faculty and staff, we learned that people found it daunting to figure out all the supports available and how to access them. We created an online resource to help. York University solved that problem by creating a map.

Canadian universities can also turn to international models for inspiration. Fourteen universities in the Netherlands, for instance, participate in a joint SafeScience initiative, which offers guidance and a national helpline to report incidents. Germany’s SciComm-Support provides resources, training and free counselling to researchers.

If we expect scientists and health experts to speak out about issues like measles vaccination for the good of society, they must know that their employers and institutions will stand with them, that they will have their backs.

Canada cannot prepare for future public health emergencies, like another pandemic, without protecting the safety of researchers and their freedom to pursue their lines of inquiry without fear.

Immunity and Society is a new series from The Conversation Canada that presents new vaccine discoveries and immune-based innovations that are changing how we understand and protect human health. Through a partnership with the Bridge Research Consortium, these articles — written by academics in Canada at the forefront of immunology and biomanufacturing — explore the latest developments and their social impacts.

Heidi J. S. Tworek receives funding from the Bridge Research Consortium (BRC), part of Canada’s Immuno-Engineering and Biomanufacturing Hub, which in turn is funded by the Canada Biomedical Research Fund, Canada Foundation for Innovation and the BC Knowledge Development Fund. She also receives funding from the Canada Research Chair Programme and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

Chris Tenove receives funding from the Bridge Research Consortium (BRC), part of Canada’s Immuno-Engineering and
Biomanufacturing Hub, which in turn is funded by the Canada Biomedical Research Fund, Canada Foundation for Innovation and the BC Knowledge Development Fund.

Netheena Neena Mathews receives funding from the Bridge Research Consortium (BRC), part of Canada’s Immuno-Engineering and Biomanufacturing Hub, which in turn is funded by the Canada Biomedical Research Fund, Canada Foundation for Innovation and the BC Knowledge Development Fund.

– ref. Online harassment is silencing Canada’s health experts — institutions need to do more to protect them – https://theconversation.com/online-harassment-is-silencing-canadas-health-experts-institutions-need-to-do-more-to-protect-them-267532

November 25, 2025

Calls for grizzly hunts to return to Western Canada oversimplify a complex ecological issue

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Tandeep Sidhu, Assistant Professor, University of Manitoba

Highly publicized grizzly bear attacks have ignited calls to reopen grizzly trophy hunts across Western Canada. The most recent push came from the B.C. Wildlife Federation, a conservation and hunting advocacy organization that called for a hunting season on grizzlies after a bear attacked a group of schoolchildren in Bella Coola, B.C., leaving two people critically injured and two others seriously hurt.

The federation made the call while the circumstances of the attack were still unknown. Conservation officers now believe the attack involved a grizzly sow and her cubs. This does not dismiss or mitigate the traumatic nature of the incident, but it raises questions about why the federation would amplify this call during the early stages of an investigation.

Amid calls for British Columbia to revisit its grizzly hunting ban, Todd Loewen, Alberta’s minister for forestry and parks, has indicated he’s considering lifting his province’s ban in response to a growing number of grizzly attacks.

Alberta banned sport hunting of grizzlies in 2006. A similar ban was imposed in B.C. in 2018, drawing criticism from hunters and support from First Nations and the general public.

In 2024, Loewen introduced a framework allowing grizzlies to be killed by wildlife responders, rather than conservation officers, and some have questioned whether the right grizzly was euthanized in the program’s first kill.

The current debate about hunting grizzlies is being increasingly driven by emotion and political pressure.

Grizzly encounters are rare

A moral panic is a period marked by widespread, often exaggerated, concern about a perceived threat to a community. It relies on typically sensationalist media reporting echoing the claims of “moral entrepreneurs,” like advocacy groups, to induce public support for policy changes.

The recent grizzly attacks are already being used to fuel such a panic. Yet grizzly encounters are rare and often stem from surprise encounters, people encroaching on grizzly territory or sow grizzlies defending their cubs. The context of these incidents must be considered.

Every year, thousands of people encounter grizzly bears at national and provincial parks, including wildlife photographers, hikers and other naturalists, without incident.

Some people have expressed concerns that grizzlies are venturing away from their traditional habitats. But these observations may be the byproduct of a productive bumper crop season, which leads to a greater dispersion of berries that are crucial for hibernation foraging.

Predator control claims don’t match the evidence

Some hunters cite grizzlies and other predators as a contributor to declining elk populations across the Rockies. However, data from Alberta largely demonstrates that elk populations have trended upward, not downward.

Some evidence suggests elk population declines in mountainous hunting zones. It remains unclear as to why hunting interests would take precedence over natural ecological processes.

Hunting predatory animals is also a space that capitalizes on conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, despite the sector’s desired public image of science-based management and conservation.

For example, the B.C. Wildlife Federation has stated grizzly hunting was banned in B.C. with “no scientific rationale.”

This framing ignores substantial scientific evidence, including non-hunting-related mortalities, continued habitat loss, climate change that’s affecting denning patterns and increasing the risk of human conflict, and the fact that many grizzly populations are classified as “threatened.”

The claim there is no science to warrant a ban on grizzly hunting oversimplifies an inherently complex ecological issue.

Economic arguments miss the larger picture

The hunting industry has long claimed the economic value of trophy hunting. However, grizzly bear tourism creates more jobs and generates more revenue than trophy hunting. New research from the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem has found that a single grizzly bear generates US$46,000 annually for the local economy.

Beyond this, framing wildlife solely through economic value reproduces a colonial dynamic in which natural resources are assigned value based on their economic and extractive potential.

There is also growing and widespread concern that changes to hunting policies in Alberta are spearheaded at the behest of the hunting industry itself. Loewen’s portfolio involves making decisions surrounding wildlife management, and some critics have raised concerns about his previous ownership of an outfitting business.

Loewen’s family owns Red Willow Outfitters, a hunt-guiding business. While the minister has indicated he’s working with lawyers and the province’s ethics commissioner over potential conflicts of interest, he has implied he doesn’t see any cause for concern.

Colonial dimensions of wildlife management

Grizzly bears, like wolves and bison, have tremendous cultural significance to many First Nations, including the Blackfoot people.

This connection that many First Nations communities have to native wildlife and their knowledge structures was disrupted by settler-colonialism.

These knowledge structures and worldviews are re-emerging. Examples include Indigenous-led stewardship of grizzlies in the Great Bear Rainforest in B.C. and the signing of the Grizzly Bear Treaty, led by the Piikani First Nation, in Alberta.

Reopening grizzly hunting would result in substantial cultural harms to many Indigenous communities. A comparable case unfolded in Wisconsin in 2021, when hunters killed almost one-quarter of the wolf population. Beyond its ecological harms, the hunt caused tremendous sociocultural harms to the Ojibwe.

Conservation and safety are not at odds

Calls to reopen grizzly hunting overlook the need for greater investment in public education and conflict mitigation to protect a threatened species. They also ignore that poaching is a driving cause of grizzly mortality and is likely under-reported.

Many recent attacks have involved sows with cubs, raising questions about how killing grizzlies could bolster conservation when the species is one of the slowest reproducing mammals. While sow grizzlies with cubs would likely be exempt from any hunt, they are responsible for many recent attacks. It is unclear how a hunt could reduce these incidents when the bears most likely to be involved would not be targeted.

The argument for reopening grizzly hunts is not about conservation or public safety. Trophy hunting remains tied to longstanding colonial practices and ideas about establishing masculine dominance, rather than ecological necessity.

Rural communities have demonstrated that existence with grizzlies and wolves is possible. Therefore, the question is not whether coexistence is achievable, but whether there is the political will to facilitate 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. Calls for grizzly hunts to return to Western Canada oversimplify a complex ecological issue – https://theconversation.com/calls-for-grizzly-hunts-to-return-to-western-canada-oversimplify-a-complex-ecological-issue-270267

November 25, 2025

Reconciliation without accountability is just talk — especially when it comes to Indigenous health

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jamaica Cass, Director, Queen’s-Weeneebayko Health Education Partnership, Queen’s University, Ontario

Canada’s latest auditor general’s report reveals an uncomfortable truth: billions of dollars and countless commitments later, the federal government still cannot demonstrate meaningful improvement in health services for First Nations.

As a family physician working in my First Nation, Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory in southern Ontario, I see the evidence of this failure not in spreadsheets but in people — patients navigating a health system that remains structurally unequal.

Nearly 10 years after the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (TRC) Calls to Action, it is clear that reconciliation without accountability delivers only rhetoric, not care.

The report states:

“Increasing First Nations’ capacity to deliver programs and services within their communities is critical to improving outcomes for First Nations people and supporting reconciliation.”

Yet the same report concludes that the department has taken a “passive and siloed approach” to supporting First Nations. It found unsatisfactory progress on five of 11 recommendations first issued in 2015 regarding access to health services for remote communities.

Encountering racism

A decade later, systemic barriers remain — geography may vary, but inequity is consistent.

Even in communities like mine, which sit within driving distance of tertiary care, accessing culturally safe services is far from guaranteed.

Patients still encounter racism in hospitals and clinics. Providers still rotate through Indigenous communities rather than build lasting relationships. And families still find themselves falling through the cracks between federal and provincial systems that debate who pays instead of who helps.

The auditor general’s report acknowledges some progress — more nurse practitioners and paramedics working in First Nations communities — but the average monthly vacancy rate remains 21 per cent. Constant turnover and short-term contracts erode trust, continuity and quality of care.

The auditor general also found no satisfactory progress on any previous recommendations to ensure that First Nations communities have ongoing access to safe drinking water. Clean water is the most basic determinant of health, yet its absence continues to expose the limits of Canada’s political will.

A decade later, inequity remains

The TRC Calls to Action related to health — numbers 18 through 24 — called for eliminating inequities, recognizing Indigenous healing practices, increasing Indigenous professionals in health care and ensuring Indigenous leadership in governance.

But the Yellowhead Institute’s September 2025 report, Braiding Accountability, shows that Canada remains mired in performative progress. Institutions have reached the “strengthen” phase — hiring Indigenous staff or creating advisory councils — but rarely the “change” phase, where Indigenous Nations co-develop priorities, indicators and accountability measures.

Under Call 19, the report notes, the goal of measurable progress toward health equity is undermined by the “absence of Indigenous data sovereignty.” Instead, “institutions report on activities, not results, using settler-defined metrics that obscure ongoing inequities.”

As a medical educator, I see this mirrored in our training systems. Under Call 23, governments were urged to increase Indigenous representation in health professions.

Yet, Braiding Accountability points to ongoing gaps in representation and a lack of meaningful data on whether Indigenous professionals are actually being retained or advancing into leadership. It notes that recruitment efforts often amount to a revolving door: institutions bring Indigenous staff into environments that remain unwelcoming, and then attribute their departures to supposed cultural issues rather than addressing the systemic problems that drove them away.

And perhaps the sharpest critique of all: Failing to shift authority and decision-making to Indigenous communities simply continues the very colonial dynamics that made the push for Indigenous health professionals necessary in the first place.

At Queen’s, through the Queen’s-Weeneebayko Health Education Program — which I lead — we are trying to do things differently by building pathways for Indigenous learners to study in their own regions, guided by Indigenous leadership and values.

The goal of this program is to transform who holds power in the health system.

A moment of possibility

There is, however, a reason for cautious optimism. With recent cabinet appointments, Canada now has its first Indigenous minister of Indigenous Services Canada (ISC). Mandy Gull-Masty’s appointment represents the first time an Indigenous woman leads the very department responsible for addressing these systemic failures.

Her lived experience as an Indigenous woman positions her to see what others have not: that reconciliation cannot be achieved through bureaucratic procedure, but through the transfer of decision-making power to Indigenous governments and communities.

Real progress will mean dismantling silos, resourcing First Nations to design and deliver their own health systems and holding all levels of government accountable to measurable outcomes.

It will mean embedding Indigenous data sovereignty and governance into every facet of health planning so Indigenous Peoples can finally define what success looks like on their own terms.

The human cost — and the hope

Every audit finding has a face. For me, it’s the patient who avoids seeking hospital care after a racist encounter, the Elder who still boils her water each morning and the young Indigenous medical student who tells me she wonders if she truly belongs.

These stories are a reminder that inequity does not end where the roads begin. Reconciliation will never be achieved through rhetoric or reports alone. It demands courage — the courage to transfer power, to embrace accountability and to care enough to change.

The appointment of an Indigenous minister offers a moment of possibility. If Gull-Masty can insist that reconciliation be measured in lives improved, systems restructured and trust rebuilt, then perhaps Canada will see real transformation.

Jamaica Cass works for Queen’s University. She receives funding from the National Circle on Indigenous Medical Education, the CPFC and the CMA. She is a board member of the Indigenous Physicians’ Association of Canada and the Medical Council of Canada.

– ref. Reconciliation without accountability is just talk — especially when it comes to Indigenous health – https://theconversation.com/reconciliation-without-accountability-is-just-talk-especially-when-it-comes-to-indigenous-health-268140

November 25, 2025

Growing pains: An Ontario city’s urban agriculture efforts show good policy requires real capacity

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Richard Bloomfield, Assistant Professor in Management and Organizational Studies at Huron University College, Western University

Staff members sharing their harvest at Urban Roots, an urban farm in London, Ontario. Urban agriculture can improve access to fresh food, especially for low-income communities, immigrants and seniors. (Urban Roots London)

Canadians are paying more for food than ever. Canada’s Food Price Report 2025 estimates that a family of four will spend up to $801 more on food this year, with overall prices expected to rise three to five per cent.

In response, more people are growing their own food. A 2022 national survey found that just over half of respondents were growing fruits or vegetables at home, and nearly one in five started during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Municipal governments have taken note, developing food and urban agriculture strategies that promise more green space, better access to fresh food, stronger communities and sometimes climate benefits. But do they actually change conditions on the ground?

That question sits at the centre of our new study published in the Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development.

London, Ont., adopted Canada’s first stand-alone Urban Agriculture Strategy in 2017. It was a hopeful signal that food and urban agriculture finally had a place on the municipal agenda. Yet, almost eight years later, many of the strategy’s goals remain unrealized.

Based on interviews and a workshop with 56 urban growers, community organizations and city staff in London, we found how a promising strategy can stall without clear leadership, resources and follow-through.

Why urban agriculture matters

Urban agriculture encompasses everything from backyard and balcony gardens to community gardens, small commercial operations, rooftop farms and community projects that process and distribute food.

Research links these activities to better mental health, stronger social connections and improved access to fresh food, especially for low-income communities, immigrants and seniors.

In London, demand for local food and garden space surged during the pandemic. The London Food Bank reported a 92 per cent increase in demand for food donations from 2021 to 2023. Community gardens across the city have long waiting lists. There is no shortage of interest or need for local food; the question is whether city policies support it.

What the strategy changed — and what it didn’t

We found that the city’s urban agriculture strategy helped advance urban agriculture in meaningful ways. Research participants told us it helped “put food on the agenda” at city hall, supporting updates to zoning and bylaws that make it easier to grow food in the city.

But when we asked urban growers and community organizations how much the strategy shaped their day-to-day work, the picture became more complicated. Roughly one-third of the people we spoke with had never heard of the strategy at all, despite actively participating in urban agriculture.

Others knew it existed but were unsure which actions had actually been implemented. Several described it as a “good starting point” that had not been backed by the staffing or funding needed for full implementation.

The strategy came with no dedicated position or budget. Responsibility was scattered across city departments, with no one tracking progress. Supportive staff helped where they could, but limited capacity meant they relied on the community to drive change.

Common challenges mentioned by urban growers and community organizations were unclear zoning and permitting processes, a lack of available land for long-term gardening and minimal financial support, leading to over-reliance on volunteers. The strategy helped normalize urban agriculture in London and opened some doors, but didn’t transform the system.

One of the strongest themes in our research was the strain on community capacity. Like many cities, London’s urban agriculture is powered by volunteers, small non-profit organizations and social enterprises. These groups are deeply committed but face rising demand, complex social needs and unstable funding. Asking them to carry a municipal strategy without matching support is unrealistic.

This echoes findings from other cities. Reviews of urban agriculture policies in Canada and the United States show that local enthusiasm often runs ahead of institutional support.

Strategies tend to celebrate urban agriculture’s potential but pay less attention to equitable land access, labour conditions and the economic realities of growing food in cities.

How cities can help urban agriculture

If other cities want to avoid London’s growing pains, our research points to several concrete steps they can take:

Assign clear responsibility. Task a specific department, name a lead staff person and allocate ongoing funding. Without this, actions are likely to be delayed, forgotten or handled piecemeal.

Simplify the rules and centralize information. Create accessible one-stop web pages and guidance documents that spell out what’s allowed, what permits are needed, how to access land and who to contact.

Secure space for growing. Map under-utilized land, integrate food production into parks and use long-term leases or land trusts to provide more security for community-led projects.

Treat community partners as co-planners. Develop strategies alongside practitioners, including those from under-represented and marginalized communities. Bring them into the process early and support their full participation, rather than seeking their feedback after decisions are set.

Urban agriculture won’t fix food insecurity — the biggest determinants remain income, housing, social supports and broader food-system policy. But our findings from London indicate that it can still deliver public value.

By committing to implementation and treating food growing as a key piece of urban infrastructure, municipalities can build healthier, better connected and more sustainable cities.

The research in this article was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Richard Bloomfield served as a board member before 2023 of Urban Roots, a participating organization in this study that did not benefit in any way from this research.

Kassie Miedema and Rebecca Ellis 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. Growing pains: An Ontario city’s urban agriculture efforts show good policy requires real capacity – https://theconversation.com/growing-pains-an-ontario-citys-urban-agriculture-efforts-show-good-policy-requires-real-capacity-269804

November 25, 2025

An art historian looks at the origins of the Indigenous arts collection at the Vatican Museums

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Gloria Bell, Associate Professor of Art History, McGill University

Image showing ‘Hall of North America’ at the 1925 Vatican Missionary Exhibition in Rome.

Pope Leo XIV met with the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops on Nov. 15 to, in the words of the Vatican, “gift” the return of 62 Indigenous “artifacts” held in the Anima Mundi collection of the Vatican Museums.

The papal narrative that these belongings are “gifts” needs correction. The Vatican says the artifacts are “part of the patrimony received on the occasion of the Vatican Missionary Exhibition (VME) of 1925.” However, as I document in my book Eternal Sovereigns: Indigenous Artists, Activists, and Travelers Reframing Rome the majority of the Indigenous belongings in the Vatican Museums were stolen from Indigenous communities during the 1920s and displayed at this exhibition.

The study divulges an important story, examining the history of the 1925 Vatican exhibit alongside destruction of Indigenous cultures, communities and lives through the Indian Act and residential schools in Canada, and genocidal activities by missionaries in partnership with the government carried out in residential schools. The book includes details of my encounters with artists, curators and archives.

As a scholar of art history and communication studies concerned with a broader anti-colonial approach to understanding Indigenous heritage, I use the terms “belongings,” “ancestral art” and “ancestors” instead of speaking of Indigenous artifacts at the Vatican.

My research aims to unpack the sovereignty of Indigenous art and ancestors held at the Vatican Museums. Currently I am tracing the life of Anthony Martin Fernando, an Aboriginal protester with Dharug ancestry. As I document in the book, Fernando handed leaflets to visitors outside the VME in 1925 about the ongoing genocide of First Peoples and the need to recognize Indigenous sovereignty.

Indigenous communities, government officials, scholars and artists have advocated for the return of Indigenous ancestors from the Vatican Museums as part of wider calls for truth, reconciliation and justice.

A joint statement from the Vatican and CCCB said Pope Leo “desires that this gift represent a concrete sign of dialogue, respect and fraternity,” and the CCCB says it will “transfer these artifacts” to Indigenous organizations that will “ensure that the artifacts are reunited with their communities of origin.”

Culture of conquest

Indigenous belongings from nations including Cree, Lakota, Anishinaabe, Nipissing, Kanien’kehá:ka, Wolastoqiyik and Kwakwaka’wakw have remained in the Anima Mundi collection without Indigenous care for 100 years.

Now some of them will be returned home.

As I discuss in my book, thousands of Indigenous ancestors were stolen from Indigenous communities by the Catholic Church. Beyond what the Vatican has now committed to repatriating, many more belongings also need to be returned home and brought back into Indigenous care and hands.

I uncovered documents about the 1925 Vatican Missionary Exhibition through a lengthy process of research in archives across Rome and Turtle Island (North America).

The 1925 exhibit was a kind of ground zero for residential schools in Canada, as it celebrated missionary labour following amendments to the Indian Act in 1920 that made attending residential schools compulsory for children between the ages of seven and 15.

This scholarship involved tracing the provenance of many Indigenous belongings and linking them with different missionary orders. It also probes religious imperialism that continues to this day in the form of the current museum display of Indigenous belongings.

The Vatican Museums now has an online database, not available even five years ago. This can be used to do research on Indigenous belongings held in its collections, in a step towards more transparency.

Origins of ‘Anima Mundi’

In December 1924, pope Pius XI opened the holy doors to the Vatican Missionary Exposition. Standing in the Hall of North America, one of the main exhibition spaces, he welcomed tourists and pilgrims to view First Nations, Métis and Inuit material, cultural and sacred belongings sent in especially for the exhibition.

The exhibition celebrated missionaries as noble and heroic labourers, but positioned Indigenous Peoples as needing redemption. The global exhibition, was unique in that it was the largest Catholic missionary exhibition of its time, competing with Protestant exhibitions in a race to convert souls.

Pope Pius XI decreed that everything that could be sent in from missions — including sacred and secular cultural belongings, Indigenous language materials and living human beings — should be included.

Before the exhibit, in 1923, The New York Times ran an Associated Press report that “one of the most attractive features would be ‘Natives brought specially to Rome, showing the customs and modes of living.’”

One million visitors attended the exhibition, and more than 100,000 Indigenous belongings were sent in for the expo. About 40,000 belongings remain in the Vatican Museums and became part of the permanent collection that’s now called Anima Mundi.

Not inadvertently, the 1925 exhibition was created like an adventure game where visitors could encounter wax models of Indigenous people, missionary children’s games, cultural belongings and touch materials. Missionary orders including the Jesuits, Verbites, Grey Nuns, Oblates and Cappucins all sent displays.

Indigenous ancestors put on display included beaded octopus bags, sacred masks, Cree moccasins, ledger art, photographs, potlatch regalia and an Inuvialuit sealskin kayak.

Parallel removal of children from communities

At the same time, missionaries acting under the Indian Act were forcibly removing Indigenous children from their communities across Canada and the United States.

Some missionaries sent materials made by these Indigenous children to the exhibit. Evidence of this includes photographs in the Indian Sentinel of Očhéthi Šakówiŋ (Sioux) children at residential schools, alongside missionaries’ own commentary about material.

For example, Rev. Florentin Digman of St. Francis Mission, Rosebud Reservation of South Dakota, wrote in May 1925 in the summary of the photograph of young Očhéthi Šakówiŋ girls:

“Dear Father, many thanks for informing us that Indian articles have been sent to the Vatican Mission Exposition. I hope that the articles will be as welcome as dessert at the feast.”

One of the most chilling finds in my archival research was uncovering drawings made by Indigenous children held in residential schools in British Columbia displayed at the 1925 VME. The language many missionaries used to describe these and other Indigenous belongings were “trophies of the pope.”

The 1925 exhibition created a visual reminder of the Vatican’s celebration of Catholic conquest.

‘Anima Mundi’ exhibit today

Although the 1925 exhibition was a century ago, the same values of Indigenous erasure are present in current display techniques and the overall curatorial message.

In the Anima Mundi exhibit today, the curators don’t address the genocide of Indigenous children during the colonial era by missionaries in partnership with the state. Indigenous artists’ names, communities and languages are often not mentioned and Indigenous belongings are still described as gifts of the pope.

Pope Leo needs to acknowledge the harm caused by the patronizing and colonial narrative represented in Anima Mundi. The return of 62 Indigenous ancestors to Indigenous communities on Turtle Island is a first step, but much more needs to be done.

Gloria Bell receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

– ref. An art historian looks at the origins of the Indigenous arts collection at the Vatican Museums – https://theconversation.com/an-art-historian-looks-at-the-origins-of-the-indigenous-arts-collection-at-the-vatican-museums-270239

November 24, 2025

The gift that keeps on giving: How solar panels on farms can help increase crop yields

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Joshua M. Pearce, John M. Thompson Chair in Information Technology and Innovation and Professor, Western University

An agrivoltaic setup in southern Ontario. (U. Jamil), CC BY

Solar farm projects in the Canadian province of Alberta have been put on hold or cancelled because of a recent increase in regulations in the province. The new regulations ban solar panels from agricultural land and force solar developers to fully fund decommissioning upfront.

As a result, many originally profitable projects have been made unfeasible because of rules aimed at preventing a repeat of the orphaned oil and gas wells fiasco.

Agrivoltaics is the practice of purposefully shading agricultural crop lands with solar panels in order to enjoy the dual benefits of solar electricity and increased food production.

A new study I co-authored with my colleague, Uzair Jamil, found that partial shading to benefit crop production even works when the solar panels do not. This has interesting policy ramifications, particularly in Alberta.

How does shading crops make more food?

Studies from all over the world have shown crop yields increase when food crops are partially shaded with solar panels. Agrivoltaic yield increases are possible because of the microclimate created underneath the solar panels that conserves water and protects plants from excess sun, wind, hail and soil erosion. The temperatures are cooler, milder and all around more pleasant for plants.

Last year, we found that you could increase strawberry yield by 18 per cent under solar panels compared to strawberries in an open field. This agrivoltaic crop yield bump has been shown for dozens of other crops and solar panel combinations all over the world, including basil, broccoli, celery, corn, grapes, kale, lettuce, pasture grass, peppers, potatoes, tomatoes and more.

Agrivoltaics makes more food per acre, and could help bring down food prices while also supporting farmers in Canada. Such agrivoltaic farming can help meet Canada’s food and energy needs and reduce its fossil fuel reliance and greenhouse gas emissions as well as the rest of the world.

Our new study shows that the microclimate that benefits plants beneath agrivoltaics is maintained even when the solar is not generating any electricity.

We analyzed the lifespans of key agrivoltaic system components, experimentally measuring microclimate impacts of two agrivoltaic arrays. The results showed agrivoltaics still benefit crops even when unpowered.

What about Alberta?

Agrivoltaics also benefits renewable energy companies, farmers and everyone who eats food. However, to ensure “proper” site restoration after solar projects are complete, Alberta law demands land is returned to its original undisturbed state.

The newly passed Alberta’s Conservation and Reclamation Regulation makes it incumbent on the renewable energy developers to submit financial security. Specifically, new solar projects are required to post 30 per cent of the estimated security amount, while the projects already in operation are required to pay 15 per cent.

The comparison to orphaned oil and gas wells with a remediation cost estimates of $100 billion prompted preemptive legislation targeting solar farms, but is that fear justified?

Agrivoltaics could serve as a potential exception to solar photovoltaic development on agricultural land in Alberta, which is otherwise effectively not permitted.

Moving forward with agrivoltaics in Alberta

To ensure Agrivoltaics co-exist well with farming, Alberta mandates agricultural impact assessments before solar panels are installed, but it offers little guidance on how to optimize their co-use.

Some flexibility emerges through the assessment process, but it is not consistently built into infrastructure regulations.

In addition, Canadian zoning laws do not recognize agrivoltaics as a distinct land-use classification. That means that while provincial legislation might allow for agrivoltaics development, no explicit regulations are available.

To make things more clear for both farmers and financial backers, Canada could benefit from looking to other countries that have agrivoltaic legislation, such as France and Italy, to ensure land is being used in the most efficient way possible.

Experimental results from our research indicate that the shade provided by solar panels moderates soil temperatures and enhances soil moisture. Agrivoltaic systems, even when not used for power generation, can continue to deliver meaningful value for farmers through shading.

Government policy must adapt to this dual-use reality. Alberta’s current rules not only hurt the solar industry but also prevent farmers from making use of agrivoltaic infrastructure to help them grow more food for all of us.

Joshua M. Pearce has received funding for research from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, Mitacs, the U.S. Department of Energy and the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, the U.S. Department of Defense, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the National Science Foundation (NSF). In addition, his past and present consulting work and research are funded by the United Nations, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, many non-profits and for-profit companies in the energy and solar photovoltaic fields. He is a founding member of Agrivoltaics Canada. He does not directly work for any solar manufacturer and has no direct conflicts of interest.

– ref. The gift that keeps on giving: How solar panels on farms can help increase crop yields – https://theconversation.com/the-gift-that-keeps-on-giving-how-solar-panels-on-farms-can-help-increase-crop-yields-269264

November 24, 2025

How ‘relationship anarchy’ is changing the nature of connection for millennials and Gen Z

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Treena Orchard, Associate Professor, School of Health Studies, Western University

When the term anarchy pops up in everyday conversations, images of lawlessness and chaos after a government breakdown or catastrophic event come to mind. Think of the anti-hero comic character the Joker or the famed Sons of Anarchy series about an outlaw biker club that values family loyalty as much as violent crime.

Yet anarchy can also be understood as a belief system that emphasizes freedom and equality over authoritative rule, individuality over conformity.

These values are central to relationship anarchy, which is an approach to intimacy and human connection that’s becoming especially popular among millennials and Gen Z.

A recent survey from the Feeld dating app shows that 50 per cent of its members practise relationship anarchy, particularly those who are trans, non-binary, gender diverse or pansexual.

With an emphasis on relationships that decentre prescribed notions of love and power, relationship anarchy is a compelling new approach to interpersonal and communal connection. But what exactly is it and how can people use relationship anarchy to reinvent their relationships?

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

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

What is relationship anarchy?

First introduced in 2006 by Swedish tech developer, writer and producer Andie Nordgren, this approach to relating uses anarchic principles like anti-capitalism, anti-hierarchy and mutual aid to resist traditional relationship models.

Nordgren outlines four building blocks of relationship anarchy:

The rejection of interpersonal coercion
The importance of community
Mutual aid as essential support
Commitments as communication, not contract

The idea is that replacing the codependence of coupledom with more expansive and effective forms of interpersonal care can build stronger communities that emphasize interdependence among people, animals and the environment.

Relationship anarchy is a fundamentally queer and inclusive framework that is predicated upon creating relationships that suit what people really want versus adhering to social conventions, whether because of obligation, family pressure or fear of expressing true desires.

Doing relationship anarchy means giving equal importance to friends, lovers and companions, and most practitioners are in alternative relationship structures, such as non-monogamy.

Given the social embarrassment now attached to certain kinds of relationships — as a recent Vogue piece questioning whether “having a boyfriend is embarrassing” suggests — alongside the steady rise in the number of unmarried people, many may already be adopting these radical approaches without realizing it.

How to practice relationship anarchy

If you’re interested in exploring relationship anarchy in your own life, a great place to start is by reflecting on the kinds of relationships you have been in, and the ones you desire.

How do you want these connections to feel? Have you been pressured into a monogamous partnership but really want to try something else? Do you miss friends who often slip away when you’re in a long-term relationship? Do you want to reduce the rigid boundaries that define and differentiate your relationships with friends, lovers, colleagues and family members?

Maybe you’re struggling to navigate family commitments that feel overwhelming because they crowd out the time you want to devote to self-care routines.

There are multiple entry points for bringing relationship anarchy into your life. You could tell your partner that you’d like to learn more about it and see how they respond when you share resources. You could focus your relationship energies on fostering meaningful connections with people who make up your chosen family or live in a more communal way.

Because relationship anarchy rejects labels like “friends,” “lovers” or “life partners,” you might abandon these categories in favour of more integrated ways of connecting that revolve around customized connections.

Perhaps you want to re-evaluate your consumptive patterns, which are often linked to traditional relational structures, and live in less resource-intensive ways.

Is the future of love non-hierarchical?

Whether it’s the decline of dating apps, the rise of AI matchmakers, or books about celibacy, love is at the beating heart of countless conversations and debates.

Given the growing interest in non-traditional relationships and resisting political systems that continue to tap our Earth for depleted resources, it makes sense that relationship anarchy is on the ascent. A lot of us are eager for new ways of relating that we define and navigate in our own unique ways.

Relationship anarchy also offers a way of enriching our social networks and community bonds, both of which can go a long way to reduce the social isolation and disconnection many millennials and Gen Zers experience. No relationship can address all of the complex challenges and conditions impacting younger generations, but how you relate evolves over time and relationship anarchy might offer another way of connecting that appeals to you.

You can reinvent your ideas about love and relationships so that they align with what you actually want. No, it’s not easy or straightforward — welcome to life and love — but it is possible.

In a media-saturated world that often prioritizes profit over meaningful connection, we can create alternate ways of relating that feel kinder, more collaborative and fun. Relationship anarchy might just offer the non-hierarchical antidote a lot of us are looking for.

Treena Orchard has received funding from CIHR, SSHRC, and Western Ontario but no research monies were used in the creation of this article.

– ref. How ‘relationship anarchy’ is changing the nature of connection for millennials and Gen Z – https://theconversation.com/how-relationship-anarchy-is-changing-the-nature-of-connection-for-millennials-and-gen-z-268640