The Conversation – Canada – Page 68

October 13, 2025

Why industry-standard labels for AI in music could change how we listen

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Gordon A. Gow, Director, Media & Technology Studies, University of Alberta

Earlier this year, a band called The Velvet Sundown racked up hundreds of thousands of streams on Spotify with retro-pop tracks, generating a million monthly listeners on Spotify.

But the band wasn’t real. Every song, image, and even its back story, had been generated by someone using generative AI.

For some, it was a clever experiment. For others, it revealed a troubling lack of transparency in music creation, even though the band’s Spotify descriptor was later updated to acknowledge it is composed with AI.

In September 2025, Spotify announced it is “helping develop and will support the new industry standard for AI disclosures in music credits developed through DDEX.” DDEX is a not-for-profit membership organization focused on the creation of digital music value chain standards.

The company also says it’s focusing work on improved enforcement of impersonation violations and a new spam-filtering system, and that updates are “the latest in a series of changes we’re making to support a more trustworthy music ecosystem for artists, for rights-holders and for listeners.”

As AI becomes more embedded in music creation, the challenge is balancing its legitimate creative use with the ethical and economic pressures it introduces. Disclosure is essential not just for accountability, but to give listeners transparent and user-friendly choices in the artists they support.

A patchwork of policies

The music industry’s response to AI has so far been a mix of ad hoc enforcement as platforms grapple with how to manage emerging uses and expectations of AI in music.

Apple Music took aim at impersonation when it pulled the viral track “Heart on My Sleeve” featuring AI-cloned vocals of Drake and The Weeknd. The removal was prompted by a copyright complaint reflecting concerns over misuse of artists’ likeness and voice.

CBC News covers AI-generated band The Velvet Sundown.

The indie-facing song promotion platform SubmitHub has introduced measures to combate AI-generated spam. Artists must declare if AI played “a major role” in a track. The platform also has an “AI Song Checker” so playlist curators can scan files to detect AI use.

Spotify’s announcement adds another dimension to these efforts. By focusing on disclosure, it recognizes that artists use AI in many different ways across music creation and production. Rather than banning these practices, it opens the door to an AI labelling system that makes them more transparent.

Labelling creative content

Content labelling has long been used to help audiences make informed choices about their media consumption. Movies, TV and music come with parental advisories, for example.

Digital music files also include embedded information tags called metadata, which include details like genre, tempo and contributing artists that platforms use to categorize songs, calculate royalty payments and to suggest new songs to listeners.

Canada has relied on labelling for decades to strengthen its domestic music industry. The MAPL system requires radio stations to play a minimum percentage of Canadian music, using a set of criteria to determine whether a song qualifies as Canadian content based on music, artist, production and lyrics.

As more algorithmically generated AI music appears on streaming platforms, an AI disclosure label would give listeners a way to discover music that matches their preferences, whether they’re curious about AI collaboration or drawn to more traditional human-crafted approaches.

What could AI music labels address?

A disclosure standard will make AI music labelling possible. The next step is cultural: deciding how much information should be shared with listeners, and in what form.

According to Spotify, artists and rights-holders will be asked to specify where and how AI contributed to a track. For example, whether it was used for vocals, instrumentation or post-production work such as mixing or mastering.

For artists, these details better reflect how AI tools fit into a long tradition of creative use of new technologies. After all, the synthesizer, drum machines and samplers — even the electric guitar — were all once controversial.

But AI disclosure shouldn’t give streaming platforms a free pass to flood catalogues with algorithmically generated content. The point should also be to provide information to listeners to help them make more informed choices about what kind of music they want to support.

Information about AI use should be easy to see and quickly find. But on Spotify’s Velvet Sundown profile, for example, this is dubious: listeners have to dig down to actually read the band’s descriptor.

AI and creative tensions in music

AI in music raises pressing issues, including around labour and compensation, industry power dynamics, as well as licensing and rights.

One study commissioned by the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers has said that Gen AI outputs could put 24 per cent of music creators’ revenues at risk by 2028, at a time when many musician careers are already vulnerable to high costs of living and an unpredictable and unstable streaming music economy.

The most popular AI music platforms are controlled by major tech companies. Will AI further concentrate creative power, or are there tools that might cut production costs and become widely used by independent artists? Will artists be compensated if their labels are involved in deals for artists’ music to train AI platforms?

The cultural perception around musicians having their music train AI platforms or in using AI tools in music production is also a site of creative tension.

Enabling listener choice

Turning a disclosure standard into something visible — such as an intuitive label or icon that allows users to go deeper to show how AI was used — would let listeners see at a glance how human and algorithmic contributions combine in a track.

Embedded in the digital song file, it could also help fans and arts organizations discover and support music based on the kind of creativity behind it.

Ultimately, it’s about giving listeners a choice. A clear, well-designed labelling system could help audiences understand the many ways AI now shapes music, from subtle production tools to fully synthetic vocals.

Need for transparency

As influence of AI in music creation continues to expand, listeners deserve to know how the sounds they love are made — and artists deserve the chance to explain it.

Easy-to-understand AI music labels would turn disclosure into something beyond compliance: it might also invite listeners to think more deeply about the creative process behind the music they love.

Gordon A. Gow receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).

Brian Fauteux 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 industry-standard labels for AI in music could change how we listen – https://theconversation.com/why-industry-standard-labels-for-ai-in-music-could-change-how-we-listen-262840

October 13, 2025

In Guillermo Del Toro’s ‘Frankenstein,’ what makes us monstrous is refusing to care

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Billie Anderson, Lecturer, Disability Studies, King’s University College, Western University

In Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein, the true horror lies in scientist Victor Frankenstein’s hubris and refusal to care for The Creature he creates.

Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel Frankenstein gave The Creature an eloquent voice — but cinema has often silenced him, rendering him mute, groaning and monstrous in both appearance and behaviour.

Del Toro’s Frankenstein, which arrives in select theatres and on Netflix this fall, presents a Creature who thinks, feels, suffers and demands recognition.

The film, which I saw recently at its Toronto International Film Festival screening, restores to The Creature not only speech, but also, as some reviewers have noted, subjectivity.

Del Toro’s Frankenstein offers audiences a chance to reconsider how we regard “the monster,” not just in horror cinema, but in stories that reflect attitudes about difference — especially difference in embodiment.

Depictions of bodily difference

The tendency for film to punish difference has long persisted. From the silent era onward, films have used bodily difference as shorthand for inner corruption: the scarred face, the twisted body, the corrupt mind.

Disability studies scholar Angela Smith argues that the horror genre’s visual and narrative conventions were shaped by eugenic beliefs about bodily wholeness.

Another disability studies scholar, Rosemarie Garland-Thomson has noted that disabled figures are often trapped as spectacles: seen but not heard, as well as pitied or feared.

By giving The Creature an interior life, del Toro insists on humanity where cinema once imposed monstrosity.

Shift is more than aesthetic

The shift matters for how popular culture links monstrosity and disability. For nearly a century, films like the 1931 Frankenstein, directed by James Whale, encoded the monster as “deformed,” “broken,” or pathologically violent.

A colour film poster says 'Frankenstein,' and 'the man who made a monster' and shows a creature with green skin, two men in discussion and a woman in a long white dress. — Poster for the 1931 ‘Frankenstein’ directed by James Whale.
(Universal Pictures/Wikipedia)

Whale’s Frankenstein is a landmark of horror cinema, but it also cemented some of the most troubling tropes about disability on screen.

The Creature (played by Boris Karloff) was made grotesque through design choices: a flat head, sunken eyes, heavy gait. These features mark him as visibly other, a body built for the audience to recoil from.

The film doubles down with plot devices: instead of receiving a “normal” brain, the monster is mistakenly given a “criminal brain.” Violence, the story suggests, is not the result of isolation or trauma but the natural consequence of defective biology. The message is clear: difference equals danger.

Difference as innate fault

From a disability studies perspective, this is called pathologization — the act of treating difference as if it were a medical defect that explains everything about a person. Whale’s Creature’s strangeness is presented as something built into his body. His scars, his staggered walk, his inability to communicate in words — all of these are framed as signs of an innate fault.

This is what theorists mean when they talk about “otherness.” Otherness refers to the way societies define who counts as normal, human or acceptable by pushing certain groups outside those boundaries. The Creature’s stitched, scarred body signals that he is not simply different but a threatening body to fear and control.

Over time, these representations cemented a cultural shorthand: to be visibly different, to bear scars, to move awkwardly or speak strangely, was to embody danger. The monster on screen taught viewers to associate disability with deviance and fear.

Rotten Tomatoes Classic Trailer for the 1931 ‘Frankenstein.’

Looking ‘wrong’ and being ‘dangerous’

The story tells us if someone looks or moves “wrong,” then violence or danger must be lurking inside them.

That way of thinking didn’t come out of nowhere. It echoes early 20th-century ideas of eugenics, which tried to link disability and criminality. When you watch Whale’s Frankenstein through this lens, The Creature is a cautionary tale about why difference itself must be feared, controlled or even eliminated.

Mary Shelley’s original 1818 novel tells a much more complicated story. Her Creature is eloquent, self-aware and painfully conscious of how he is rejected by every human being he meets.

As noted by literary critic Harold Bloom, Shelley’s narrative insists humans “can live only through communion with others; solitude, for her, represents death.” Shelley shows us the social roots of monstrosity: rejection and isolation, not biological fate.

But the 1931 film stripped that complexity away. Over time, audiences learned to read disability-coded traits — a limp, a scarred face, halting speech — as cinematic signs of danger.

Trailer for Guillermo del Toro’s ‘Frankenstein.’

A Creature with soul

Del Toro’s narrative follows Shelley more closely than the 1931 film. The Creature learns to speak, contemplates justice and articulates the pain of being abandoned. His violence, when it occurs, is not framed as the inevitable product of a defective brain but as the consequence of rejection, loneliness and abuse.

Del Toro’s version feels like a correction. Rather than leaning into horror, the film prioritizes tenderness, existentialism, love and understanding.

The design of The Creature reflects a shift in perspective. While his stitched body is unmistakably scarred, the makeup emphasizes vulnerability as much as grotesquerie. The Creature is unsettling because he is both human and not — beautiful, wounded and deeply present. The stitching and scars become traces of experience, history and survival.

From monstrosity to humanity

Movingly, the question becomes not “what is wrong with him?” but “why does society fail him?” This reorientation:

Rejects the idea of defect as destiny. The Creature’s tragedy comes from rejection, not innate flaw.
Restores voice and agency. In del Toro’s hands, The Creature is eloquent, thoughtful and capable of moral reasoning. That matters for audiences used to seeing disability-coded figures as voiceless.
Shifts monstrosity onto society. The true horror is Victor Frankenstein’s hubris and refusal to care for what he made. The violence arises from abandonment, not deformity.

This is a disability-affirming move. Rather than imagining disability as pathology, or the monster as metaphor for disability, the film asks audiences to look at the structures of exclusion. Representations shape perception. If difference is always framed as frightening or tragic, those ideas seep into how we treat real people.

The Creature becomes legible as disabled because he shows us what it is like to live in a body that others cannot accept. His tragedy mirrors the lived reality of many disabled people: not inherent brokenness, but the pain of exclusion.

Monsters, disability and empathy

Frankenstein stories endure because they dramatize the question: What do we owe each other?

Whale’s 1931 version presented the monster as proof that boundaries must be enforced because the abnormal body is a threat.

Del Toro answers differently. His Creature reveals that what makes us monstrous is not our difference but our refusal to accept others as fully human. We are asked to fear the consequences of our own failure to care.

Billie Anderson 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. In Guillermo Del Toro’s ‘Frankenstein,’ what makes us monstrous is refusing to care – https://theconversation.com/in-guillermo-del-toros-frankenstein-what-makes-us-monstrous-is-refusing-to-care-265829

October 13, 2025

Why Russia’s provocations in Europe actually signal a weakened strategic position

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By James Horncastle, Assistant Professor and Edward and Emily McWhinney Professor in International Relations, Simon Fraser University

There’s recently been a significant uptick in Russian incursions into Europe. They started in mid-September with Russian drones violating Polish airspace, resulting in Poland being forced to deploy its air force to protect its sovereignty.

Subsequently, a Russian drone violated Romanian airspace. Perhaps most disconcerting, three Russian MiG-31s deliberately violated Estonian airspace in a clearly provocative act.

But these known Russian incursions are being overtaken by a troubling phenomenon. Airports in Europe, including but not limited to Copenhagen and Munich, have seen their operations disrupted by unknown drones.

Analysts increasingly believe these mysterious drones are operated by Russian agents to sow fear and tension in Europe. Whether that’s true remains to be seen.

Russian offensive weakening

While these incidents may appear designed to escalate the conflict by threatening to draw the European Union and NATO into the conflict, they instead reflect Russian strategic weakness as winter approaches.

Throughout 2025, Russia had several advantages over Ukraine. Russian superiority in arms production and mobilization, supplemented by direct and indirect aid from states like North Korea and China put it in a favourable strategic position compared to Ukraine.

Russia has hit Ukraine on multiple fronts.

While Russian frontline forces advance against Ukrainian positions, Russia increased the tempo and volume of its drone and missile strikes against Ukrainian cities. Nonetheless, even though Russian drones and missiles have inflicted considerable destruction and casualties on Ukraine in 2025, Ukrainians have yet to lose their will to resist.

Russian forces took advantage of this strategic imbalance against Ukraine to seize Ukrainian territory. Critically, however, while Russian forces have made gains, they have not achieved a decisive breakthrough against Ukraine. Russia’s minimal gains in September, furthermore, indicate that its offensive is stalling.

The fall weather and resulting cold and rain will further stall Russian offensive operations in Ukraine. The year 2025, initially looking like it would favour Russia, has resulted in Putin having little to show for it.

What’s more, Ukraine has not been passive during this period.

Exploiting Russian vulnerabilities

From a numbers and material standpoint, Ukraine is at a considerable disadvantage against Russia. But Putin’s government has two interrelated points that Ukraine seeks to undermine: domestic support for Putin and the Russian economy.

The extent of domestic support for Putin is a subject of debate among scholars and analysts. But Putin’s actions suggest he’s nervous enough about it that he’s seeking to insulate his support base against the effects of the war. To do so, he’s maintaining the illusion of a strong Russian economy.

But Elvira Nabiullina, Russia’s central bank governor, has warned the Russian economy is in trouble. Putin has ignored her warnings and has instead offered pithy retorts to criticisms of the Russian economy.

Despite Putin’s nonchalant reaction to the weakness of the Russian economy, Ukraine recognizes the fragility of his stance. In fact, Ukraine is now repeatedly striking the resource at the heart of Russia’s precarious prosperity: oil.

Oil and natural gas account for at least 30 per cent of the federal Russian budget. Ukrainian innovations in drone and missile technology has allowed Ukraine to repeatedly strike Russian oil and natural gas refining and logistical facilities.

This has resulted in Russia declaring a full moratorium on gasoline exports for the rest of the year. Furthermore, Russia was recently forced to partially extend an export ban to diesel as well.

Fuel shortages will only become more pronounced as energy demands increase over the cold Russian winter. Putin’s base, in short, could finally be forced to confront the consequences of his policies.

Escalate to de-escalate

Russian strategic failures in 2025, along with increased Ukrainian pressure, help explain Russia’s subversive efforts in Europe.

A misunderstood element of Russian strategic doctrine is the concept of escalating to de-escalate. Although this tactic is most commonly applied to nuclear strategy, it applies to all aspects of Russia’s strategic doctrine.

Russian politicians and generals are calculating that Europe is simultaneously unprepared and unwilling to wage war against Russia. Furthermore, Russian leaders are relying on the belief that European leaders, despite their rhetoric, will do whatever possible to eliminate the root cause of Russia’s recent incursions into European airspace: the Russia-Ukraine war.

Putin, after seemingly pushing Europeans to the brink of war, will likely pivot to a policy that encourages a diplomatic solution to Ukraine. Putin has followed a similar strategy of appearing to be more diplomatically inclined in the winters of 2024 and early 2025. World leaders, desperate for the war to end, have treated such proposals more seriously than warranted.

Russian drones and missiles may have proven devastating for Ukraine, but they haven’t altered the strategic balance.

Ukraine’s strikes, on the other hand, appear to be bearing strategic fruit at a critical moment of Russian vulnerability, forcing Putin to use unconventional means to try to secure victory against Ukraine.

James Horncastle 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 Russia’s provocations in Europe actually signal a weakened strategic position – https://theconversation.com/why-russias-provocations-in-europe-actually-signal-a-weakened-strategic-position-266883

October 13, 2025

The disasters we talk about shape our priorities and determine our preparedness

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Fatma Ozdogan, PhD Candidate & Researcher, Université de Montréal

In December 1989, the United Nations declared Oct. 13 International Day for Disaster Risk Reduction. At the time, the aim was to make disaster-risk reduction part of everyday thinking worldwide.

Today, this mission is more urgent than ever as disasters strike more often and with greater force.

And although substantial progress has been made, there is still much to achieve in reducing disaster risks and their impacts.

One of the main culprits for overlooking certain disasters is the way we talk about them. We tend to focus more on the narratives surrounding rapid-onset events — wildfires, earthquakes, hurricanes — versus long-term crises like climate change.

Punishment from the gods

Historically, people saw disasters as unpredictable forces beyond human control.

Earthquakes, floods and famines were often explained as punishment from the gods. Communities believed these events reflected moral failings or divine judgment, rooted in cultural and religious traditions.

For instance, the Epic of Gilgamesh tells of a great flood sent to cleanse humanity of its sins. Early Islamic traditions interpreted disasters as tests of faith or signs of divine displeasure, with references in the Qur’an. Other major religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism have similar divine-based interpretations.

The Lisbon earthquake of 1755, however, marked a turning point, prompting a shift towards human-centred explanations of disasters.

Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire, Rousseau and Kant challenged purely religious interpretations, advocating rational and scientific reasoning and a better understanding of nature, ushering in a new view of disasters as acts of nature.

Disasters as human-induced

This intellectual shift marked the beginning of a more secular and scientific understanding of disasters. It suggested that disasters could be studied, anticipated and potentially prevented through human action.

Building on this foundation, the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century introduced new risks associated directly with human activities, such as factory accidents and railway crashes. By statistically analyzing these incidents, experts identified predictable patterns, prompting the creation of specialized institutions to manage and mitigate these emerging hazards.

As the understanding of human influence on disasters evolved further in the early 20th century, scholars began exploring how social behaviours, industrial practices and preparedness levels shaped disaster outcomes.

This expanded perspective underscored the crucial role of societal structures and human decisions, demonstrating that disasters were not just natural events but deeply intertwined with human factors. Although religious interpretations still exist in some communities, the consensus has shifted toward viewing disasters as human-induced.

By the 1960s, research turned to the social, political and economic roots of disasters. Scholars showed that poverty, weak governance, poor infrastructure and inequality made communities far more vulnerable.

As a result, attention shifted from reacting after disasters to tackling their root causes in advance. This regarded disasters as acts of social systems and structures.

Politics and equity meet

More recently, vulnerability and resilience have become core concepts in disaster management practice and policy-making.

International frameworks such as the Hyogo Framework (2005–2015) and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015–2030) reflect this shift. These frameworks define disasters as a global issue requiring international collaboration, systematic risk management and proactive strategies.

Today, scholars widely recognize disasters not as purely natural events but as results of human actions, including negligence, poor planning and inadequate governance.

Defining what exactly constitutes a disaster, however, remains contested: Who decides what qualifies as a disaster, and according to which criteria? Which ones are more important and deserve more attention?

This distinction is especially clear in media and political discussions, which tend to highlight rapid-onset events like earthquakes, floods or hurricanes. In contrast, slower, long-term crises related to climate change or environmental degradation often receive far less attention

What media coverage misses

Our understanding and management of disasters is biased.

A recent analysis of Canadian media highlights a significant imbalance in the attention given to sudden and slow-onset disasters.

Sudden disasters like wildfires consistently receive far greater media coverage in comparison to slower-developing events like droughts or environmental degradation.

For example, CBC devoted up to eight hours in a single day to covering the immediate aftermath of the 2010 Haiti earthquake. In contrast, the 2011 Horn of Africa drought typically received less than two minutes of daily coverage. Yet the cumulative impacts of these slow-onset crises are substantial, often surpassing the effects of rapid-onset disasters.

According to a report by the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, although droughts accounted for only 15 per cent of natural hazard-induced disasters from 1970 to 2019, they exacted the highest human toll, causing approximately 650,000 deaths globally.

During this period, weather-, climate- and water-related hazards comprised half of all disasters and 45 per cent of disaster-related deaths, disproportionately affecting developing countries. Additionally, between 1998 and 2017 alone, droughts led to economic losses roughly US$124 billion.

The World Bank further underscores this critical issue, estimating that climate-related, slow-onset disasters could displace about 216 million people globally by 2050. Such displacement carries extensive humanitarian and geopolitical consequences.

Recent events highlight the serious consequences of slow-onset disasters. Global soil degradation, for example, currently affects nearly 3.2 billion people. Between 2015 and 2019, 100 million hectares of land were lost each year, cutting food production and worsening hunger.

Rising sea levels threaten nearly 900 million people globally in low-lying coastal areas. Flooding, saltwater intrusion and soil salinization are damaging homes, farmland and public health.

Building a better future

Addressing what we pay attention to requires a fundamental shift in approaches to disasters.

This involves critically recognizing human accountability in exacerbating hazards and scrutinizing structural vulnerabilities — poverty, inadequate infrastructure, ineffective governance — which increase disaster impacts.

As a society, we need to re-evaluate our priorities and adopt a holistic perspective that equally acknowledges all disaster forms.

With sustained investment in prevention, stronger infrastructure and greater social equity, communities in Canada and around the world can strengthen their capacity to face the future.

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. The disasters we talk about shape our priorities and determine our preparedness – https://theconversation.com/the-disasters-we-talk-about-shape-our-priorities-and-determine-our-preparedness-266200

October 10, 2025

A pro-democracy Venezuelan politician wins this year’s Nobel Peace Prize. Is it a rebuke to Trump?

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By James Horncastle, Assistant Professor and Edward and Emily McWhinney Professor in International Relations, Simon Fraser University

The Nobel Committee has ended months of speculation over the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize winner in selecting Venezuelan politician and activist María Corina Machado. With no obvious candidate this year, analysts spent months debating who should win the prestigious award.

In the end, however, the committee signalled its efforts to uphold the increasingly threatened liberal international order by selecting Machado, one of Venezuela’s key opposition figures and a proponent of democracy.

The politics of the prize

The Nobel Peace Prize, like most international awards, is highly subjective. In some years the winners may appear obvious, such as in 1994 when Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres shared the award for the Oslo Accord, but in other years, it’s not so clear; 2025 is one such year.

This ambiguity has given rise to many people and organizations angling for the award.

In 2025, United States President Donald Trump made a concerted and high-profile push for the award to cement his dubious legacy. Although many people found his demands for the award laughable, there is precedent for politics overstepping the reality of an individual’s contribution.

U.S. President Barack Obama received the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples.” But in reality, Obama had accomplished little to justify the award at that point of his political career just a year into his historic presidency.

Instead, the best justification that the committee chairman could offer was “we want to embrace the message that he stands for.”

In the case of Machado, the Nobel Committee chose to endorse both a message as well as actions.

Declining democracy in Venezuela

Democratic rights in Venezuela have declined significantly over the last two decades. Initially, people greeted the election of Hugo Chávez in 1998 as a significant break from the corruption and economic crisis that defined Venezuelan politics in the 1990s. They were wrong.

Once Chávez rose to power, his regime became increasingly authoritarian over time. The complete pivot to authoritarianism in Venezuela, however, happened after Chavez’s death under his successor, Nicolás Maduro, who assumed the presidency in 2013.

By 2016, outside observers argued that Maduro’s efforts to centralize power for himself constituted a “full-on dictatorship.” Despite several nominal elections since that time, Maduro has used a variety of tactics in order to guarantee he and his regime remain in power.

The Maduro regime’s tactics range from digital censorship to threats in the face of protests and outright violence. The people of Venezuela, in short, are far from free.

A champion for democracy

The tactics used by Maduro’s government to suppress the opposition means it requires considerable personal bravery and integrity to challenge the regime. Machado possesses such traits.

She’s faced considerable threats to her life throughout her political career. Starting in 2011, Machado was physically attacked by Chavez supporters. These attacks have escalated since Maduro assumed power.

While many of her fellow politicians have fled the country fearing such threats of violence, Machado has remained in the country and become a symbol of defiance and democracy for the opposition. Even though her centre-right views are not in alignment with much of the Venezuelan opposition’s political stances, she was nevertheless chosen to be the unity candidate in the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election.

Maduro’s government, fearing her appeal as a candidate, ultimately barred her from holding office.

Champion of a failing order

Machado’s personal bravery in the face of threats from the Maduro regime also highlights another matter the Nobel Prize committee seeks to highlight: the declining state of democracy at an international level.

Democracy is regarded by many as a foundational pillar for peace. The Nobel Prize committee is among them.

In awarding the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, the committee noted:

“Democracy is a precondition for lasting peace. However, we live in a world where democracy is in retreat, where more and more authoritarian regimes are challenging norms and resorting to violence. The Venezuelan regime’s rigid hold on power and its repression of the population are not unique in the world.”

Most analyses suggest that liberal democracy is in decline at an international level. Whether through the development of hybrid regimes or outright authoritarian governments, democracy as both a concept and a practice is under threat.

Trump’s second stint in the Oval Office seems to vividly illustrate this decline. The U.S. president and his supporters have been quite explicit that their priority is “America First.” The U.S., which previously served as a champion of the liberal international order on the global stage, is anything but at the moment.

Furthermore, Trump’s domestic actions domestically that threaten the basis of democratic governance will undoubtedly embolden other politicians to pursue similar policies.

With the world’s traditional champion of democratic governance in retrenchment, other pro-democracy forces are stepping into the breach — including the Nobel Committee and its selection of Machado for the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize.

– ref. A pro-democracy Venezuelan politician wins this year’s Nobel Peace Prize. Is it a rebuke to Trump? – https://theconversation.com/a-pro-democracy-venezuelan-politician-wins-this-years-nobel-peace-prize-is-it-a-rebuke-to-trump-267189

October 10, 2025

Travelling to the U.S.? How the government shutdown will impact tourism

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Frédéric Dimanche, Professor and former Director (2015-2025), Ted Rogers School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Toronto Metropolitan University

A shutdown of the United States federal government started on Oct. 1 after President Donald Trump and Congress failed to reach an agreement on the funding legislation required to finance the government.

Tens of thousands of government employees will continue working without pay, and some may be furloughed, affecting many public services with interruptions or delays, depending on how long the shutdown lasts.

Politics and travel are very closely connected, and the current situation is likely to have a strong ripple effect far beyond Washington, D.C.

Although essential services such as border security and air traffic control continue to operate, the shutdown can still create disruptions, uncertainty and reduced service quality for travellers, while also causing significant economic stress for travel businesses.

For Canadians, the shutdown presents risks that could affect travel experiences, safety and trip values to the U.S.

Border delays and processing challenges

The Canada-U.S. border, the world’s longest international boundary, is administered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, an agency whose employees are considered essential. This means ports of entry remain open. However, essential does not necessarily mean fully staffed.

During past shutdowns, U.S. Customs officers were required to work without pay until government funding resumed, leading to increased absenteeism, low morale and slower processing times. This turns into longer and more stressful travel experiences.

For Canadians travelling on the road, this can translate into longer waits at land crossings, particularly during weekends and holiday periods. Even air travellers face such risks.

At Canadian airports offering U.S. pre-clearance, U.S. customs officers perform entry inspections before departure. Any staff shortage or delay in pay could result in longer queues or flight delays at pre-clearance facilities. A further long-term risk could be the closure of pre-clearance at some airports.

Air travel disruptions

Airports are another critical pressure point. Both air traffic controllers and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents continue to work during a shutdown, yet without pay.

As seen in previous government shutdowns, absenteeism tends to rise when employees struggle with financial uncertainty. The result can be longer security lines, flight delays and even cancellations.

The Federal Aviation Administration also halts non-essential activities, such as training new controllers or performing certain maintenance and safety inspections. The U.S. already faces a significant shortage of air traffic controllers. A shutdown freezes recruitment and training, worsening the shortage and magnifying safety risks.

Disruptions at U.S. airports typically begin to appear after about a week, but the longer the shutdown continues, the more likely these disruptions become.

For travellers, this means a greater likelihood of delayed flights at major U.S. hubs like New York, Chicago or Los Angeles, which serve as major gateways for connecting flights. A shutdown may also disrupt smaller regional airports, which have less staffing flexibility.

People flying to the U.S. should build extra buffer time into their itineraries and avoid tight connecting flights. The safety of air travel will only be assured through further ground delays at airports and flight cancellations.

Federal attractions closed but private ones open

Canadians visiting the U.S. for leisure could face disappointment when federal attractions and parks close. The National Park Service, Smithsonian museums and numerous monuments depend on federal funding and staffing.

In past shutdowns, parks like Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon closed their visitor centres, limited maintenance and suspended ranger programs. Although some parks may initially use “carry-over” funds to stay open, those reserves will run out. Visitors might find roads unmaintained, restrooms locked and emergency services unavailable.

Even if the gates remain open, safety and cleanliness often deteriorate, making the experience less enjoyable and potentially hazardous. In addition, National Park websites and social media accounts will not be maintained, and updates will not be provided to visitors.

Although the public sector shutdown affects travel to and within the U.S., the good news for travellers is that private operators in the tourism sector are less directly impacted. Hotels, private museums, restaurants and tour operators will continue to operate, but they may also suffer from delays, cancellations or border frictions.

The economic impact of a shutdown

The shutdown adds to the woes of the U.S. travel and tourism sector, which continues to suffer from a drop in the number of visitors from Canada — its largest international market — and other countries.

The US Travel and Tourism Association has warned that inbound visits are projected to decrease by 6.3 per cent, from 72.4 million in 2024 to 67.9 million in 2025 — a decline not seen since COVID-19. The association also estimates that the travel economy is at risk of losing US$1 billion a week due to the disruptions.

Additional financial pressures may further deter travellers. The cost of the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) rose from US$21 to US$40 on Sept. 30, and a new US$250 “visa integrity fee” for visitors from non–visa waiver countries like Mexico, China and India could contribute to fewer international visits.

For Canadians, the shutdown is yet another reason to avoid travelling to the U.S. Business travellers may delay a trip, and leisure tourists may also defer or cancel a trip across the border. This situation may continue to negatively impact the economy of border towns that depend on unrestricted mobility of travellers.

Know your risks before you travel

The concerns are growing, and likely will continue to grow if the shutdown extends for several weeks, as it did in 2018-19. The year 2025 has not been a good year for U.S. tourism and the Canadian market, and travellers continue to rethink travel plans.

In addition to the risks that travel to the U.S. presents for Canadians, there is now the added possibility of disrupted travel, closed national attractions like parks and museums and a general decline in service quality.

The U.S. government shutdown is just the latest in a series of crises that have impacted U.S.-Canada tourism since 9/11. Response and recovery are not enough when it comes to risk and disasters; businesses, but also travellers, must engage in contingency planning and risk and crisis management to avoid negative consequences.

– ref. Travelling to the U.S.? How the government shutdown will impact tourism – https://theconversation.com/travelling-to-the-u-s-how-the-government-shutdown-will-impact-tourism-266650

October 9, 2025

OpenAI’s newly launched Sora 2 makes AI’s environmental impact impossible to ignore

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Robert Diab, Professor, Faculty of Law, Thompson Rivers University

OpenAI’s recent rollout of its new video generator Sora 2 marks a watershed moment in AI. Its ability to generate minutes of hyper-realistic footage from a few lines of text is astonishing, and has raised immediate concerns about truth in politics and journalism.

But Sora 2 is rolling out slowly because of its enormous computational demands, which point to an equally pressing question about generative AI itself: What are its true environmental costs? Will video generation make them much worse?

The recent launch of the Stargate Project — a US$500 billion joint venture between OpenAI, Oracle, SoftBank and MGX — to build massive AI data centres in the United States underscores what’s at stake. As companies race to expand computing capacity on this scale, AI’s energy use is set to soar.

The debate over AI’s environment impact remains one of the most fraught in tech policy. Depending on what we read, AI is either an ecological crisis in the making or a rounding error in global energy use. As AI moves rapidly into video, clarity on its footprint is more urgent than ever.

OpenAI showcases Sora 2’s capabilities.

Two competing narratives

From one perspective, AI is rapidly becoming a major strain on the world’s energy and water systems.

Alex de Vries-Gao, a researcher who has long tracked the electricity use of bitcoin mining, noted in mid-2025 that AI was on track to surpass it. He estimated that AI already accounted for about 20 per cent of global data-center power consumption; this is likely to double by year’s end.

According to the International Energy Agency, data centres used up to 1.5 per cent of global electricity consumption last year, with consumption growing four times faster than total global demand. The IEA predicts that data centres will more than double their use by 2030, with AI processing the leading driver of growth.

Research cited by MIT’s Technology Review concurs, estimating that by 2028, AI’s power draw could exceed “all electricity currently used by US data centers” — enough to power 22 per cent of U.S. households each year.

‘Huge’ quantities

AI’s water use is also striking. Data centres rely on ultra-pure water to keep servers cool and free of impurities. Researchers estimated that training GPT-3 would have used up 700,000 litres of freshwater at Microsoft’s American facilities. They predict that global AI demand could reach four to six billion cubic metres annually by 2027.

Hardware turnover adds further strain. A 2023 study found that chip fabrication requires “huge quantities” of ultra-pure water, energy-intensive chemical processes and rare minerals such as cobalt and tantalum. Manufacturing the high-end graphics processing units — the engines that drive AI boom — has a much larger carbon footprint than most consumer electronics.

Generating an image uses the electricity of a microwave running for five seconds, while making a five-second video clip takes up as much as a microwave running for over an hour.

The next leap from text and image to high-definition video could dramatically increase AI’s impact. Early testing bears this out — finding that energy use for text-to-video models quadruples when video length doubles.

The case for perspective

Others see the alarm as overstated. Analysts at the Center for Data Innovation, a technology and policy think tank, argue that many estimates about AI energy use rely on faulty extrapolations. GPU hardware is becoming more efficient each year, and much of the electricity in new data centres will come from renewables.

Recent benchmarking puts AI’s footprint in context. Producing a typical chatbot Q&A consumes about 2.9 watt-hours (Wh) — roughly 10 times a Google search. Google recently claimed that a typical Gemini prompt uses only 0.24 Wh and 0.25 mL of water, though independent experts note those numbers omit indirect energy and water used in power generation.

Context is key. An hour of high-definition video streaming on Netflix uses roughly 100 times more energy than generating a text response. An AI query’s footprint is tiny, yet data centres now process billions daily, and more demanding video queries are on the horizon.

Jevons paradox

It helps to distinguish between training and use of AI. Training frontier models such as GPT-4 or Claude Opus 3 required thousands of graphics chips running for months, consuming gigawatt-hours of power.

Using a model takes up a tiny amount of energy per query, but this happens billions of times a day. Eventually, energy from using AI will likely surpass training.

The least visible cost may come from hardware production. Each new generation of chips demands new fabrication lines, heavy mineral inputs and advanced cooling. Italian economist Marcello Ruberti observes that “each upgrade cycle effectively resets the carbon clock” as fabs rebuild highly purified equipment from scratch.

And even if AI models become more efficient, total energy keeps climbing. In economics, this is known as the Jevons paradox: in 19th-century Britain, the consumption of coal increased as the cost of extracting it decreased. As AI researchers have noted, as costs per-query fall, developers are incentivized to find new ways to embed AI into every product. The result is more data centres, chips and total resource use.

A problem of scale

Is AI an ecological menace or a manageable risk? The truth lies somewhere in between.

A single prompt uses negligible energy, but the systems enabling it — vast data centres, constant chip manufacturing, round-the-clock cooling — are reshaping global energy and water patterns.

The International Energy Agency’s latest outlook projects that data-centre power demand could reach 1,400 terawatt-hours by 2030. This is the equivalent of adding several mid-sized countries to the world’s grid. AI will count for a quarter of that growth.

Transparency is vital

Many of the figures circulating about AI energy use are unreliable because AI firms disclose so little. The limited data they release often employ inconsistent metrics or offset accounting that obscures real impacts.

One obvious fix would be to mandate disclosure rules: standardized, location-based reporting of the energy and water used to train and operate models. Europe’s Artificial Intelligence Act requires developers of “high-impact” systems to document computation and energy use.

Similar measures elsewhere could guide where new data centres are built, favouring regions with abundant renewables and water — this could encourage longer hardware lifecycles instead of annual chip refreshes.

Balancing creativity and cost

Generative AI can help unlock extraordinary creativity and provide real utility. But each “free” image, paragraph or video has hidden material and energy costs.

Acknowledging those costs doesn’t mean we need to halt innovation. It means we should demand transparency about how great the environmental cost is, and who pays it, in order to address AI’s environmental impacts.

As Sora 2 begins to fill social feeds with highly realistic visuals, the question won’t be whether AI uses more energy than Netflix, but whether we can expand our digital infrastructure responsibly enough to make room for both.

Robert Diab 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. OpenAI’s newly launched Sora 2 makes AI’s environmental impact impossible to ignore – https://theconversation.com/openais-newly-launched-sora-2-makes-ais-environmental-impact-impossible-to-ignore-266867

October 9, 2025

The evidence is clear: National pharmacare for contraception can’t wait

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Elizabeth Nethery, Postdoctoral research fellow, University of British Columbia

Why should women in British Columbia, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and the Yukon have access to free contraception while the rest of Canadians do not? Our new research, published in the British Medical Journal and JAMA Pediatrics, underscores the urgent need for universal prescription contraception coverage nationwide. Spoiler alert: cost matters.

When B.C. launched universal coverage for prescription contraception in April 2023, more people used contraceptives, and importantly, more chose the most effective methods. When Ontario introduced universal coverage for those younger than age 25 in January 2017, we found a similar jump in the most effective contraceptive methods.

In October 2024, the National Pharmacare Act received royal assent, establishing a framework for a national, universal, single-payer pharmacare program, beginning with free access to contraception and diabetes medications. Now, almost a year later, only four provinces and territories (B.C., Manitoba, P.E.I. and the Yukon) have bilateral agreements to implement this legislation on the ground.

On Sept. 10, Prime Minister Mark Carney said the federal government is “committed to signing pharmacare deals with all provinces and territories.” This is welcome news given previous statements in July by Health Minister Marjorie Michel indicating wavering commitment or that “all options are on the table” for implementing Bill C-64 nationally.

Why affordable birth control is essential

As reproductive health policy researchers (including two health-care providers), we know that universal coverage for contraception is essential to uphold reproductive population health and to achieve gender equity in Canada. We have recently published evidence demonstrating the effect of universal contraception funding policies on contraception use, which reaffirm how critical this policy is in the Canadian context.

Everyone in Canada, regardless of income or postal code, deserves access to the contraception that is right for them, without cost standing in the way. As former Federal Health Minister Mark Holland stated when announcing national pharmacare on Feb. 29, 2024: “Waking up in a country where every single woman has access to the contraception she needs to control her future is an absolutely critical part of having a just society.” He added: “This is about health equity.”

When women can’t afford contraception, the risk of unplanned pregnancy increases. When contraception is accessible without financial or logistical barriers, women are more likely to plan pregnancies around their health, education, career and family goals. This benefits not only the individual but also children, families and society overall by improving gender equity in education and workforce participation, reducing poverty and supporting better health outcomes.

Beyond this, free contraception is a cost-effective policy, expected to save our health systems money in the long term by reducing health-care costs linked with unplanned pregnancies.

Private and public drug plans

Some critics argue that many Canadians already have drug insurance and plans that cover contraceptive costs. But that doesn’t tell the whole story.

Most private and public plans do not cover 100 per cent of prescription drug costs. Deductibles and co-pays leave patients paying at least a portion out-of-pocket, and some private plans exclude contraception altogether. The most effective contraceptives (intrauterine devices (IUDs) and subdermal implants) can cost up to $450 up front, even with coverage.

Many young people or those working in seasonal or temporary jobs don’t have drug insurance at all. Others choose to pay out-of-pocket to avoid having birth control charges show up on a shared plan with a partner, spouse or parent — to preserve privacy. That is why first-dollar, universal coverage for contraception — as outlined in federal pharmacare — is essential. It guarantees access free from financial strain, coercion, loss of privacy or compromise.

If Canada’s pre-existing mix of public and private insurance provided sufficient access to contraception, we would have seen little or no change when contraception became free in B.C. But we did see change. Our research showed a 49 per cent increase in the use of the most effective contraceptive methods when they were available at no cost.

Clear evidence for pharmacare

This provides clear evidence that cost has been a barrier for individuals in B.C. and highlights a critical point: without universal coverage, many Canadians simply cannot afford their preferred method of birth control. When costs are taken out of the equation, more people choose the most effective contraception methods.

Similarly, when Ontario provided universal prescription coverage for youth 24 years old or younger in 2018, we found that prescriptions for IUDs and oral contraceptive pills jumped, with the greatest increases for those in low-income areas.

When this coverage was revised to exclude those with private insurance, use declined. This shows us that private insurance is inadequate to cover gaps in contraception needs, especially for youth.

All Canadians seeking to manage their reproductive futures deserve equitable access to safe, effective and affordable contraception. Our new findings show just how strongly cost influences these choices.

The federal government has promised to implement national pharmacare, starting with contraception (and diabetes medication). On Sept. 2, Michel said “we are tracking those [agreements] that have already been done to see how it works.”

The evidence is now available and is clear: pharmacare works. Our analysis of B.C.’s policy shows the clear public health benefits that could result from expanding pharmacare and making no-cost contraception a reality for all Canadians. Further, our analysis of Ontario’s experience show that a watered-down version of pharmacare policy (like Ontario’s policy for youth since 2019) does not suffice.

All Canadians, regardless of where they live, deserve access to the contraception that they need to control and plan their reproductive health futures. Now is the time to implement universal, first-payer coverage for contraception for all Canadians.

Elizabeth Nethery receives funding from Health Research BC.

Amanda Black has received research funding from CIHR. She sits on the Board of Directors of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. She has been on advisory boards for Bayer, Organon, Searchlight, and Pfizer.

Amanda K Downey works for Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. The company had no role in the development of this article. She receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Heath Research.

Laura Schummers receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the BC Ministry of Health, and the Canadian Foundation for Innovation. She consults for Canada’s Drug Agency.

Wendy V. Norman receives funding from the Canada Research Chairs program, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Health Canada, and The Public Health Agency of Canada. Professor Norman is affiliated with the Society of Family Planning Research Committee, and the board of directors for FIAPAC, a not for profit association of family planning professionals, based in Europe.

– ref. The evidence is clear: National pharmacare for contraception can’t wait – https://theconversation.com/the-evidence-is-clear-national-pharmacare-for-contraception-cant-wait-264967

October 9, 2025

‘Polite racism’ is the subtle form of racial exclusion — here’s how to move beyond it

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Karine Coen-Sanchez, PhD candidate, Sociological and Anthropological Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa

In Canadian society, the narrative of multiculturalism can lean toward a “colour-blind” ideology — a comforting idea that race doesn’t matter and everyone is treated the same — even though such narratives mask persistent inequalities. They may also undermine efforts to address structural racism.

Yet race is always present, regardless of whether it’s consciously acknowledged. It surfaces in questions like “Where are you really from?” or in the invitation to “represent diversity” that comes with no real influence.

This is polite racism: a form of exclusion hidden behind civility.

Polite racism doesn’t make headlines, but its message is clear — you are present, yet not fully accepted.

My recent peer-reviewed study explores how first- and second-generation Haitian and Jamaican Canadians navigate these exclusions.

What polite racism looks like

The study involved conducting interview focus groups with first- and second-generation Haitian and Jamaican Canadians (ages 25–45) in Ottawa, and Gatineau, Que.

Findings from my study show that polite racism manifests in academic and professional settings. Haitian and Jamaican participants recounted instances where their research interests were minimized, their accents scrutinized or their presence tokenized in “diversity” spaces without corresponding influence.

For example, participants described:

• A project on immigrant experiences dismissed as “more advocacy than scholarship.”

• An accent scrutinized while expertise is ignored.

• A racialized employee invited to every diversity panel, but passed over for promotion.

Resonance with broader patterns

These examples are grounded in participant narratives from my study, but they also resonate with broader patterns identified in research on race and exclusion. As interdisiplinary Black studies scholar Rinaldo Walcott argues in Black Like Who?, Canada’s multiculturalism often tolerates difference while simultaneously pushing racialized people to the margins.

Work on perception by psychologist and neurophysiologist Jacobo Grinberg
helps explain why polite racism endures. He argued that reality is filtered through “perceptual fields” shaped by cultural narratives and collective belief.

In Canada, these fields have been conditioned by false histories and omissions, training society to see racialized difference as threat rather than connection. Polite racism survives not only through institutions but also through these internalized ways of seeing, which make exclusion feel natural, even polite.

The unseen toll

One of the most corrosive effects of polite racism on Black and racialized people is what I call duplicity of consciousness, drawing on the work of sociologist and historian W.E.B. Du Bois. Du Bois wrote about the concept of double consciousness — the tension of seeing oneself through both Black and white lenses.

Duplicity of consciousness captures the rupture that occurs when the promise of belonging collides with the reality of exclusion dressed in civility. It is the burden of entering spaces that promise inclusion but only on conditional terms — acceptance often requires minimizing or reshaping one’s identity to conform to whiteness as the dominant norm.

The constant demand of code-switching, suppressing frustration and remaining silent to avoid backlash, exposes the painful divide between the illusion of belonging and the lived reality of exclusion.

Polite racism is real — and harmful

Until the fear that underpins polite racism is dismantled, inclusion will remain conditional and incomplete. For example, a 2024 KPMG survey of 1,000 Black professionals in Canada found that 81 per cent had experienced racism or microaggressions at work, with women disproportionately affected.

Research also shows that perceived discrimination — even when subtle or ambiguous — creates chronic stress that harms both mental and physical health.

Why this matters for Canada

The exclusions enacted through polite racism wastes talent Canada cannot afford to lose. It also erodes faith in our democratic and social systems, leaving all of us more divided and less able to live up to the Canadian ideals we hold dear.

As Black studies professor Andrea A. Davis reminds us in Horizon, Sea, Sound: Caribbean and African Women’s Cultural Critiques of Nation, Caribbean women’s intellectual and cultural work has long shaped Canada, yet it is routinely overlooked even as institutions profit from it.

This is not just about fairness. It’s about whether Canada is willing to recognize and harness the full contributions of all its people.

Turning acknowledgement into action

Based on my academic findings, together with broader Canadian research, and my work as a consultant, here are five priorities to dismantle polite racism:

1. Increasing awareness and reducing fear: Training must move beyond theory to practice, helping managers (or faculty) and peers recognize subtle forms of exclusion and aversive racism as well as confronting the programmed fear of the “other” that underpins exclusion.

2. Reforming policy: Updating curricula and hiring practices to address embedded inequities and implicit barriers is not about special treatment. It ensures Canadian institutions benefit from the best ideas and the full range of talent, rather than silencing valuable perspectives.

3. Inclusive representation: Integrating the histories and voices of racialized communities into education and public discourse strengthens Canada’s story. It allows our multiculturalism to becomes a true reflection of the people who built this country and continue to shape it.

4. Data and accountability: Just as Canadians expect transparency in economic or health data, we should also expect accountability in how inclusive our institutions truly are.

5. Well-being support: Mental health services attuned to the stress of polite racism support not only individuals but also organizational health. When people can thrive without carrying the extra burden of silent exclusion, institutions perform better, communities are stronger and society benefits.

These priorities are not “asks” from racialized communities — they are investments in Canada’s future.

Toward authentic inclusion

Polite racism persists because it is comfortable for those who benefit from it, and it allows institutions to maintain appearances while avoiding change.

Action begins with self-reflection — for everyone. For white Canadians, it means confronting the inherited assumptions and comforts of whiteness that sustain inequality. For racialized people, it involves acknowledging the exhaustion and internal conflicts that arise from navigating exclusion within spaces that claim inclusion.

For teachers, it means teaching in a way that is culturally responsive and that works to dismantle systemic barriers, including polite racism.

When inclusion makes us uncomfortable, that discomfort reveals our shared wounds — the psychic scars produced by living within a racial hierarchy. For some, these wounds stem from privilege unacknowledged; for others, from exclusion endured. Both must be faced if we are to build genuine connection and trust.

Until we face these fears, Canada’s multiculturalism will remain polite on the surface, but exclusionary at its core. The opposite of polite racism isn’t impolite confrontation — it’s courageous honesty. It’s choosing truth over comfort, unity over silence.

Karine Coen-Sanchez 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. ‘Polite racism’ is the subtle form of racial exclusion — here’s how to move beyond it – https://theconversation.com/polite-racism-is-the-subtle-form-of-racial-exclusion-heres-how-to-move-beyond-it-263585

October 9, 2025

Mark Carney’s climate inaction is at odds with his awareness of climate change’s existential threat

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Bruce Campbell, Senior Fellow, Centre for Free Expression, Toronto Metropolitan University; York University, Canada

Mark Carney has long been recognized as an authority on climate change. In 2015, as the governor of the Bank of England, he gave his famous “tragedy of the horizon” speech that introduced climate change to bankers as a threat to international financial stability.

In an interview shortly after he was appointed UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance in 2019, Carney described climate change as “the world’s greatest existential threat.”

Carney’s efforts to deal with the American-driven upheaval of the international order are critically important: strengthening the domestic economy by building international trade and security relationships. But climate doesn’t seem to be a priority for the prime minister.

His first actions cast seeds of doubt, including repealing the consumer carbon tax, delaying the implementation of the electric vehicle mandate on auto producers and the possible removal of the federal government’s emissions cap on petroleum producers.

‘Decarbonized’ oilsands?

The Carney government’s first five “nation-building” projects under review by its Major Projects Office included the doubling of production of a liquified natural gas facility in Kitimat, B.C.

It also included building small modular reactors (SMRs) at the Darlington, Ont., nuclear power generating plant. Apart from risks associated with its construction, it can take many years before SMRs can become fully operational, meaning they’re unlikely to play a significant role in reducing carbon emissions.

Under consideration for a second round of projects is carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) proposal from Pathways Alliance, a consortium of oilsands companies. The industry claims the project will allow the continued expansion of so-called decarbonized oilsands bitumen and natural gas.

But an Oxford University study concluded that regarding CCUS “as a way to compensate for ongoing fossil fuel burning is economically illiterate.”

In fact, the very term “decarbonized oil and gas” has been denounced as a falsehood by the co-chair of the federal Net-Zero Advisory Body (NZAB), climate scientist Simon Donner.

Canada’s GHG emissions reductions

Canada is the world’s 11th largest emitter of CO2 and the second largest emitter on a per capita basis.

Canada’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) represent its commitment under the Paris Agreement to reduce emissions by 45 to 50 per cent below 2005 levels by 2035, building on its emissions’ reduction plan of 40 to 45 per cent by 2030.

A report from Canada’s Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development found emissions have declined by just 7.1 per cent since 2005.

The fossil fuel industry has essentially guaranteed that Canada’s 2030 reduction targets will not be met due mainly to continued increases in oilsands production, now accounting for 31 per cent of the total Canadian emissions.

The 2025 climate change performance index ranks Canada among the worst — 62nd out of 67 countries — for its overall climate change performance, which involves a combination of emissions, renewable energy, energy use and policy.

Legal consequences

Canada’s commitment to reach net-zero by 2050 is codified by the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. The federal government could be held liable for failing to meet the 2050 net-zero target. But the act doesn’t include a legal commitment to meet its interim targets.

Numerous climate litigation cases against governments and corporations are underway in Canada.

In Ontario, a lawsuit brought by seven young applicants is claiming the provincial government’s weakened carbon emissions reduction targets are forcing them to bear the brunt of future climate impacts. They argue their rights to life and security of the person under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are under threat.

In response to a case initiated by climate-vulnerable small Pacific island states, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion in July on state obligations on climate change. It ruled that the 1.5C Paris Agreement target is legally binding on states.

It ruled that failure to take appropriate measures to prevent foreseeable harm — including through allowing new fossil fuel production projects, granting fossil fuel subsidies or inadequate regulation — can constitute a breach of international law.

The ICJ also confirmed that states violating their international obligations can face a full range of legal consequences under the law of state responsibility.

Where is Carney?

Heatwaves, hurricanes, floods, droughts, wildfires, rising sea levels, growing ocean acidity and biodiversity loss are ravaging the planet, causing starvation, sickness and death.

The world is on track to exceed the 1.5C Paris Agreement warming limit with temperatures set to rise by more than 3C beyond the pre-industrial average. Canada’s climate is warming at twice the global average.

Yet Carney is avoiding answering whether Canada will meet its 2030 Paris Agreement target. His attendance at the upcoming COP30 Climate Summit in Brazil has not been confirmed, and he unexpectedly withdrew from the UN Secretary General’s recent climate summit — all of which suggests he’s not prioritizing climate action.

In this disturbing development, it’s worth noting the late Jane Goodall’s remarks about hope in her The Book of Hope: A Survival Guide for Trying Times:

“People tend to think that hope is simply passive wishful thinking: ‘I hope something will happen but I’m not going to do anything about it.’ This is indeed the opposite of real hope, which requires action and engagement.”

Bruce Campbell 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. Mark Carney’s climate inaction is at odds with his awareness of climate change’s existential threat – https://theconversation.com/mark-carneys-climate-inaction-is-at-odds-with-his-awareness-of-climate-changes-existential-threat-266526