0:00

This episode is brought to you by

0:02

Rotman Executive Programs. Here in Canada, we

0:04

spell AI with an E-H. Get

0:08

it? A, no, I'm not gonna,

0:10

okay. This episode is brought to

0:12

you by Rotman Executive Programs. Canada is

0:14

where a lot of AI was pioneered, and

0:16

if you wanna know how to get

0:18

AI to work for you in your

0:20

business, in your organization, check

0:23

out Rotman's Generative AI

0:25

and Organizational Transformation Program,

0:28

future-proof your organization with

0:30

Rotman. Visit www.uft.me slash

0:32

Rotman AI to learn

0:34

more. Don't forget the

0:37

Ws, www.uft.me slash Rotman

0:39

AI to learn more. This

0:45

episode is also brought to you by Douglas.

0:48

Kurt Cobain once asked, but

0:50

wasn't it Leadbelly? That

0:53

was a Leadbelly cover. This episode is

0:55

also brought to you by Douglas. Kurt

0:57

Cobain covering Leadbelly once asked, tell

0:59

me my girl, where did you sleep last

1:01

night? For over 200,000 Canadians, the

1:04

answer would have been simple on their

1:06

Douglas. What, too soon? Come on. Join

1:09

them and discover Sleep Nirvana with the

1:11

affordable comfort of a Douglas mattress. Douglas

1:13

is giving our listeners a free sleep

1:15

bundle with each mattress purchase. Get the

1:18

sheets, pillows, mattress, and pillow protectors free

1:20

with your Douglas purchase today. Visit

1:23

douglas.ca/Canada Land to claim this offer.

1:25

That's douglas.ca slash Canada

1:27

Land. Senior

1:35

fellow and scholar in residence at

1:38

the Center for Free Expression, Professor

1:40

Emeritus at Toronto Metropolitan

1:42

University and author of

1:44

the disputed freedoms of a disrupted press,

1:47

Iver Shapiro. Jesse Bond. Good to have

1:49

you here, Iver. Today on the show,

1:52

Elon Makes Lemonade, Justin Gets Orwellian.

1:55

We will take a second look at

1:57

Canada's new speech laws. And

2:01

bring us your tired, your poor,

2:03

your huddled masses yearning to breathe

2:05

free will put them somewhere. I

2:08

guess the evolving conversation about immigration

2:11

in Canada welcome to Short Cuts

2:13

are we talk shit about the

2:15

news. Of

2:18

this episode is brought to

2:20

everybody by Rachel Gurney. Tony

2:22

Stark, Sean Van Wyk, Christina

2:25

for Looks Bright Manning Ruben

2:27

Sweet, Shiloh for yard and

2:29

Josh Hi. I'm Josh a music

2:31

teacher Calgary, I support capital and because

2:33

he covered stories does big media outlets

2:36

don't or won't like many? View: I

2:38

really enjoyed the work being done by

2:40

the team with Commons. Can't wait for

2:43

the new seasons! The perspectives on Canada

2:45

land and shortcuts often give me something

2:47

new to consider. but remember Jesse Novel

2:50

Conservatives: Who the Devil's. Ah

2:54

sucks. But.

3:00

Don't you love censorship is worse than night

3:02

or less censorship. Yes he wants us to

3:04

been. I don't know. I don't want censorship

3:07

issue. Know I bought responsibility. I think there

3:09

is. I think they're your desk for the

3:11

was as of know if I want to

3:13

censor. She says it absorb adjectives that novices

3:15

truth so that high level debate over was

3:18

are. You on musk. Who

3:20

bought Twitter and then band journalists that

3:22

he does not like from it? demonstrating.

3:25

His passion for free speech, In.

3:28

A train wreck of an interview with

3:30

Don Lemon. I was the first episode

3:32

of Done Lemons new show on Twitter

3:35

X platform and his last because Elon

3:37

Musk promptly fired him. After.

3:39

That interviewed did not go his way. You

3:42

are Musk. Absurdly has been presenting himself

3:44

as an outspoken champion for free speech.

3:47

As global calls for increased regulation

3:49

on hate speech and other forms

3:51

of are harmful speech and gone

3:53

louder and louder and as new

3:56

laws have been introduced around the

3:58

world. musk called

4:00

Canada's new online harms

4:02

act insane with

4:04

specific reference to the fact that hate

4:06

speech under our new proposed laws will

4:09

carry a maximum sentence of life

4:11

in prison. Which I

4:13

gotta say, like fair enough, that is pretty wild.

4:16

And that was what we talked about when we first talked about

4:18

the online harms act on this show. However,

4:21

what I want to talk with you about today is how

4:25

the conversation about this bill and the coverage

4:27

of this bill is evolving because it sort

4:29

of migrated from news stories trying to get their heads,

4:31

a very large piece of legislation that covers a lot of

4:33

ground. And the early stories and our early

4:35

conversation about it was like looking at things like that life

4:37

sentence, which was like that stuck out like a red flag.

4:40

But as it's gone from these factual accounts

4:42

and news reports to opinion

4:45

columns about it and

4:48

then reaction tweets to those opinion columns

4:50

by famous Canadian novelists,

4:53

the conversation has changed and it's really

4:56

lasered in, it's focused and gotten a

4:58

bit weird on one aspect that

5:00

actually escaped my attention of the online harms bill. Have you

5:02

been following this? Somewhat,

5:05

yes. I know that these issues,

5:07

free speech issues and free press issues are

5:09

very important to you. I'm

5:11

going to take our listeners through some of the coverage here. Here's

5:13

Bill C63, the online harms act, as

5:15

it spread through the world actually because

5:17

this has attracted global attention. In the

5:19

spectator UK, Trudeau's Orwellian online harms bill,

5:22

the Epoch Times, online harms act,

5:25

the latest manifestation of Canada's

5:27

new maternal fascism, the

5:29

times of India, no free

5:31

speech, new Orwellian law endorsed by

5:33

Trudeau government could imprison people for

5:35

life. Fox News, Canadians

5:38

were warned about doubling down on the

5:40

push to restrict free speech, not likely

5:42

to end there. The

5:44

Telegraph UK, Canada's descent into tyranny is

5:46

almost complete. It's not just often these

5:48

things get reduced when they're covered internationally,

5:51

but Canadian coverage has also focused

5:53

on this idea. Andrew

5:56

Coyne, the Globe and Mail, calls the

5:58

bill staggeringly reckless. what all of these

6:00

voices are focusing in on is again

6:03

a piece of i did not even

6:05

notice. And first, this idea that this

6:07

bill. Punish. His. Future

6:10

crimes. What this means is that hate

6:12

speech that you are likely to make

6:15

but have not yet made. Could.

6:18

Result. In you going to

6:20

jail And when I first read that I thought.

6:23

I. Think they got this wrong like that.

6:25

That was not my understanding of it. So

6:27

I thought that maybe this was like inflammatory

6:29

rhetoric and then. It

6:31

moves from like partisan criticism.

6:34

To. People like Margaret Atwood arguably Canada's

6:36

greatest living novelists. Echoing.

6:39

Fears. Are moving towards some sort

6:41

of a radical dystopia. You

6:44

know, when Margaret Atwood races Those years I pay

6:46

attention. What is this based

6:48

on where the getting this from?

6:50

So as you said, it's a

6:52

huge piece of legislation. Hundred and

6:54

five pages. My printer last night

6:56

cause my lawyer friends who is

6:58

print things out my printer last

7:01

night actually ran out of in

7:03

trying to print this what it's

7:05

trying to do effectively as three

7:07

things at once. It's not just

7:09

an online homes legislation a which

7:11

tries to really focuses hardy and

7:13

none protecting children. Mating platforms have

7:15

a duty to take. Revenge

7:18

Porn offline stuff like

7:20

that. literally online hum

7:22

content. Then. There is

7:24

a whole piece of it that amends

7:27

the criminal code provisions on hate speech

7:29

which your kind of talking about a

7:31

bit and then sometimes in the commentary

7:34

completely mixed up in it. Are.

7:37

Provisions which makes it

7:39

possible. A Again.

7:42

As it once was to take

7:44

hate speech as an active discrimination

7:46

to the Human Rights Commission and

7:48

say I'm being discriminated against because

7:51

I am. a member of

7:53

the of a marginalized group and been

7:55

discriminated against by this be safely sweet

7:57

completely different pieces of legislation And

8:00

then pages and pages of stuff that

8:02

I don't understand, I'm not a lawyer.

8:05

Legislation is written by lawyers, for lawyers,

8:07

for lawyers to argue, for lawyers to

8:09

adjudicate. It's a

8:11

big chunk of stuff to get your

8:14

head around. And

8:16

I think in some of the commentaries, there's

8:18

quite a bit of confusion between

8:20

one part and another between the human

8:23

rights stuff and the criminal stuff. There's

8:26

been some pretty good and

8:28

thoughtful commentary out there, and then

8:30

there's been some nonsense. Unfortunately,

8:33

the Margaret Atwood tweet that

8:35

you referred to, is this so-called tweets or

8:37

they called XEs now or something? I've

8:40

got to call them tweets. Okay, we've got

8:42

to call them tweets. So Margaret Atwood's tweet

8:44

was literally, I think she said something like,

8:47

if she was referring to a

8:50

spectator column... Huge if true. If this

8:52

column, which was a pretty out

8:55

there column, which made a lot of

8:57

allegations, which I think were big stretches...

9:00

I'll read from it. If this account of the

9:02

bill is true, it's Lettres de

9:04

Caché all over again, which I'll admit

9:06

is a reference that's lost on me.

9:09

The possibilities for revenge, false

9:11

accusations, and thought crime stuff

9:13

are so inviting. Trudeau's

9:15

Orwellian online harpist bill. Right, she's

9:17

referring to Louis XIV.

9:20

This is a king of

9:22

France before the

9:24

invention of democracy. Louis

9:27

XIV's right to

9:29

imprison people because he said so, technically. Crime

9:31

and punishment, but the punishment before the crime,

9:34

as the Wall Street Journal put it when

9:36

writing about this. We're right back there, right?

9:38

So it's all a

9:40

bit excessive. And I think people

9:42

who try to help people

9:45

understand what's going on in society,

9:47

which is actually what journalism is

9:49

supposed to do, both the news

9:51

reporting and the commentary, that's what journalism is

9:53

for. Have some kind

9:55

of duty to kind of glance at the structure of the

9:57

bill, at least, even if they don't want to read it.

10:00

it and I don't blame them if I don't want to read it. I

10:02

mean Margaret Atwood's tweet seems to have really had

10:05

an impact, as you said, even on you and

10:07

it's all based on basically surmise.

10:09

Is it though? Because I figure

10:12

that usually there's some kernel that

10:14

they're extrapolating from maybe in bad faith and maybe

10:16

other people in good faith or believing the people

10:19

in bad faith and so we

10:21

went into the bill and we tried to figure out

10:23

where they're getting this from. Let

10:25

me just read from the bill. It's not a large section of

10:27

the bill that it certainly escaped us the

10:29

first time but under the hate crime section here

10:32

there is 17. The act is amended

10:34

by adding the following fear

10:37

of hate propaganda offense or

10:39

hate crime. A person made

10:41

with the Attorney General's consent lay in

10:43

information before a provincial court judge if

10:46

the person fears on

10:48

reasonable grounds that another

10:50

person will commit hate

10:53

speech. You can go to a

10:55

judge and say that

10:57

we have reason to

10:59

believe that this person is going to

11:01

commit hate speech and then

11:04

adjudication if the judge is satisfied by

11:06

the evidence that people

11:08

have reasonable grounds for fear the

11:10

judge may order the defendant enter into a recognizance

11:13

to keep the peace and be of good behavior

11:15

for a period of not more than 12 months

11:19

and then if they refuse to enter into a

11:21

cognizance the judge may commit the defendant to prison

11:23

for a term of not more than 12 months.

11:26

I don't know that these

11:28

terrifying stories are extrapolating that far from

11:31

what's actually in the bill and I'm

11:33

trying to get my head around what

11:36

the hell is this in here for? What

11:38

is the circumstance under which this

11:41

would occur? Okay three things first of all

11:43

I don't know what the

11:45

circumstances is that the lawyers have in mind

11:47

in putting that into the bill that's the

11:49

first thing. Secondly I want to

11:51

be clear I'm not a fan of

11:54

restrictions on speech okay

11:57

and I'm not an advocate for the bill.

12:00

What we primarily talk about here is the

12:02

media in shortcut. You got

12:04

it. Right. And what

12:06

I'm also not a fan of is

12:08

the media failing to

12:10

do justice to complexity, which we do,

12:13

you and I and all our colleagues

12:15

do, again and again and again,

12:18

because of all the rituals and

12:21

kind of exigencies that are

12:23

in the business, we continually fail

12:25

to do justice to complexity. So

12:28

for example, you know, what you just

12:30

read, you read accurately. But what was it that

12:33

you were reading? It wasn't

12:35

actually about criminal behavior

12:38

being punished. It was about

12:41

people having a right to go to

12:43

court to ask for protection against

12:46

something they fear, which is

12:48

very old law. If

12:50

you think your ex-partner, you

12:54

know, has armed themselves with a

12:56

gun and has, you have a

12:59

reasonable reason to fear that they

13:01

intend using it on you, you

13:03

have a right to go to court and say,

13:07

I want them kept away from

13:09

my street. And

13:12

if the court thinks that's reasonable, that's

13:14

what the recognizance is. This

13:17

is an order saying keep away from her

13:19

street or sometimes even just don't

13:22

go near her or don't attack her. Just

13:25

leave her alone. We have peace bonds, which in the

13:27

States are known as restraining orders. And usually it's, you

13:29

know, how do you determine reasonable grounds if you're going

13:31

to limit somebody's freedom? It's because

13:33

they have made threats or they have been

13:36

violent in the past. As aberrant as it

13:38

sounds to have like future crimes, you know,

13:40

like if you have reasonable fear that a

13:42

crime is going to be committed, then the

13:44

court can step in preventatively. If

13:46

you're going to accept that hate speech is a

13:49

crime that harms people, then I guess the same

13:51

rules apply, you know, whether it's

13:53

right or wrong, no one's making

13:55

that up. So the Minister responsible,

13:57

Arif Varani, has answered this question.

13:59

criticism and tried to explain himself.

14:02

And here's what he is quoted as saying in the Globe and Mail. He

14:05

said that this new power could

14:08

prove very, very important to restrain the behavior

14:10

of somebody with a track record of hateful

14:12

behavior who may be targeting certain people or

14:14

groups. Here's the quote, if there's

14:16

a genuine fear of an escalation, then an

14:18

individual or group could come forward and seek

14:21

a peace bond against them

14:23

to prevent them from doing certain things. So

14:26

that might mean not allowing the person to

14:28

be close to a synagogue or a mosque.

14:31

It could lead to restrictions on internet use

14:33

and behavior. That

14:36

would help to deradicalize people, again a quote,

14:38

who are learning things online and acting out

14:40

in the real world violently, sometimes

14:43

fatally. I

14:45

don't know if this nuance calms

14:47

down the conversation for me or actually

14:51

makes me more concerned. I'm

14:53

also imagining a regime in

14:55

which not only can you go to

14:57

prison for life for things you've said,

14:59

but you could lose really fundamental civil

15:01

liberties for things you might say based

15:03

on things that you have said. I'm

15:06

also not a fan of criminalizing

15:08

speech, okay? I'm a senior fellow

15:11

at the Center for Free Expression,

15:13

which tells you something. Yeah, come

15:15

on. But again, because the discourse

15:17

has been so wildly kind of

15:20

wrong and decontextualized, I

15:23

think let's get the discourse back onto the

15:25

actual wording of the bill. So

15:28

life imprisonment for hate speech,

15:31

you're talking about. Well, life

15:33

imprisonment actually for advocating or

15:35

promoting genocide. Let's be

15:37

clear. Is that a good thing? Bad thing? Probably

15:41

bad thing, in my opinion. But

15:43

nevertheless, it's not just for anything

15:45

you say that somebody

15:47

can take offense at. Secondly,

15:50

what is hate speech anyway? Jesse,

15:53

have you ever received a C or been asked

15:55

to sign a legal contract with the words for

15:58

greater certainty? I

16:01

cannot answer that with any great certainty because

16:03

that would require me to actually read the

16:05

contract that I signed Well

16:07

for the record Jesse a lot of

16:09

contracts do have these words because in

16:11

the lawyers opinion One lawyer

16:14

or another's opinion something could be a

16:16

little bit ambiguous These

16:18

words matter and the rhetoric

16:20

about this hate speech stuff

16:24

Has been such that

16:26

it focuses on All

16:28

of the things that could be misinterpreted

16:31

by some judge or some prosecutor

16:33

or somebody threatening somebody in the

16:36

future and ignores

16:38

something which is worth

16:40

taking a look at which

16:42

is the actual definitions in the laws and I

16:45

say laws because it amends several laws or

16:47

creates new laws and Particularly

16:50

the clauses that say for

16:52

greater certainty and one such

16:54

clause says for greater certainty

16:57

And this is about content that for

16:59

men's hatred The kind

17:02

of content that the law has

17:04

in mind for greater certainty is

17:07

not Content that is problematic and

17:09

this is a quote Solely

17:11

because it expresses disdain

17:14

or dislike or

17:16

because it discredits Humiliates

17:18

hurts or offends

17:21

that's worth noting It is and I and I

17:23

think that I am familiar with with this distinction

17:25

and it's one that isn't widely Understood because hate

17:27

is just such a part of English language. It's

17:29

like little children. I hate it get it away

17:31

you know, we think we know what hate means

17:33

but hate under the law is Very

17:37

narrowly defined and rarely actually

17:39

does speech Meet

17:41

the standard of hate that the law defines

17:44

it as however Because

17:47

it's so widely misunderstood It

17:49

does have an impact on civil discourse and

17:52

people talk about the chill effect So

17:55

I I don't really

17:57

think there are some modifications in the

17:59

online to how we define hate

18:01

and the penalties thereof. And some

18:03

people are worried that this is actually going to like, you

18:05

know, greatly expand the definition and now we're actually going to

18:07

get our prisons filled with people for their tweets. I don't

18:10

think that's going to happen. I haven't

18:12

seen evidence to back that up. But I

18:14

do think that when

18:16

you introduce accurately into

18:19

the public discourse the fact

18:21

that we have hate speech laws in Canada,

18:24

they carry maximum sentences of life in prison,

18:27

and they include possible

18:30

jail time for things that you might

18:32

say that is going to have an impact

18:34

of some kind on the free press, free

18:36

expression. It is going to affect how we

18:38

communicate with each other. I

18:41

don't know. I'm not a legal expert either. But I think

18:43

a law that doesn't actually do what it's supposed to do but

18:45

does a bunch of other things that it's not supposed to do

18:47

is probably a bad law. Well,

18:49

I'm not a lawyer either, but I

18:51

do know that laws do frequently contain

18:53

clauses that don't have much to do

18:55

with their main sort of

18:57

published name. And there's a reason

18:59

for that. There's a limited number of laws that

19:01

people want to put through Parliament. So for example,

19:03

in this law, I don't know if you, when

19:05

you were scanning through it, there's a whole bunch

19:07

of stuff about bodily fluids. Did you notice that?

19:10

There's pages and pages and pages

19:12

of stuff about bodily fluids. What?

19:15

Yeah. I don't know. What

19:17

about bodily fluids and online harms intersect? Well, it's

19:19

some – Don't answer that question to anyone. My

19:21

point being, there's a bunch of stuff in this

19:23

bill that has nothing to do with the title

19:25

of it. But in the

19:27

real world, that's true a lot

19:30

of the time in legislation and people are

19:32

alarmed about it. Maybe it

19:34

should just chill. But talking

19:36

of chill, because you talked about the chilling

19:38

effect of this, I'm going

19:40

to push back a little. Because

19:44

I don't want the government to regulate speech,

19:46

nor does our society, nor does our constitution.

19:50

That argument about chilling of speech

19:52

can be overstated. I

19:54

mean, We do want Don't

19:56

We To Live In A Society where

19:58

people actually do hesitate. Pete before

20:01

they speak System Thoughts. People.

20:04

Might be moved by this year

20:06

old by their prejudice, so by

20:08

their background to say something that.

20:10

On reflection, they'd rather not

20:13

say. Oh. We'd rather

20:15

they didn't say. It's. Not

20:17

entirely a bad thing if.

20:20

Laws and cultural influences

20:22

actually make us since

20:24

before. This.

20:28

Episode has brought everybody by douglas over how did

20:30

you sleep at night. Rarely.

20:33

Not. Well well, that's because you know

20:36

what you've done. Listen

20:39

you're guilty conscience is gonna be a problem

20:41

matter what but your sleep when you do

20:44

finally lol yourself into sleep is gonna be

20:46

a lot better on a dog was mattress.

20:48

I've tried this mattress I apologize. I'm try

20:50

to Smashers and it's an excellent mattress at

20:53

a very affordable price points. Upgrading to a

20:55

Douglas is easy as a B C. First

20:57

you order online is is and ships to

20:59

your door and a handy box and you'll

21:02

be very surprised that got the. Mattress

21:04

into the Xbox When you open

21:06

it says you've got this beautiful

21:08

Douglas mattress. Very comfortable medium from

21:10

support, a layer of cooling gel

21:12

built right in. Does. Even a

21:14

mattress cover included in the deal which

21:16

are unaware anybody ever sell to mattress

21:19

and cover. Find out why? For over

21:21

two hundred and thousand Canadians, Douglas equals

21:23

a good night's sleep. Douglas is giving

21:25

our listeners a free sleep bundle with

21:28

each mattress purchase. Get the sheets, pillows,

21:30

mattress and pillow protectors free with your

21:32

dog. Was purchased today. Visit Douglas Rts

21:34

Last Canada and claimed this offer that

21:37

is Douglas.see a Slush Canada at. This

21:40

episode is brought to you by the

21:43

Douglas mattress which is trusted by more

21:45

than two hundred thousand Canadians from coast

21:47

to coast to coast. Let me tell

21:49

you, I have had the pleasure of

21:51

receiving a number of different mattresses in

21:54

a box at my front door. that

21:56

douglas a quality product and it is

21:58

really affordable given how. Good a

22:00

mattress. The says it has an eco

22:03

light cooling gel phone top layer. Most

22:05

of all, it's super comfortable and supportive

22:07

and you sleep well on it and

22:10

that makes a really big difference. Three

22:12

hundred and sixty five night trial on

22:14

the mattress, twenty year warranty. On.

22:16

All Douglas mattresses and a great deal.

22:19

Listen to it. They giving our listeners

22:21

a free sleep bundle valued at up

22:23

to six hundred and fifty dollars with

22:25

each mattress purchase. Get the sheets, pillows,

22:27

mattress and pillows protector free! With your

22:29

Douglas purchase today visit Douglas starts a

22:32

slush Canada land to claim this offer.

22:34

One. More time. It's. Douglas.see I

22:36

slashed Canada land. Over

22:40

Sparrow you are a long time listener

22:42

for some guess I'm sure Cut so

22:44

you know that one of the sacred

22:46

duties of appearing on the show is

22:49

and former listeners of news items. That.

22:51

They may have otherwise miss but which need to

22:53

be duly noted. What have you. This.

22:55

Happened this week to see a

22:58

jew and a Palestinian talked on

23:00

a zoom web in r about

23:02

Gaza. Hamas. The. Holocaust

23:04

Zionism Power Seer Anger, Hatred,

23:06

Violence, Resistance, Terrorism, Racism. How

23:09

people can learn to listen

23:11

deeply to people who feel

23:13

the opposite of what they

23:16

themselves here. all the stuff.

23:18

These. Two men talked and. The.

23:21

World didn't and. The. Two people

23:24

are Rise a Curry and Jeffrey

23:26

Wilkinson. There courses of. The.

23:28

War between what Jews and Palestinians

23:30

don't want to know about each

23:32

other? A book was published last

23:34

year and their recorded conversation which

23:37

was I am proud to say

23:39

it was did by the Center

23:41

for Free Expression, will be archived

23:43

on our website. Probably.

23:45

around now and I learnt a lot

23:47

from it and I'd be willing to

23:49

bet most other people will to. Work

23:52

people find this at the Center for

23:54

Free Expressions website that see a C.

23:57

Dot. To run to him you don't

23:59

see it. duly noted. I want

24:01

to duly note the latest bit of progress in

24:04

a story that we talked about recently, and that

24:06

is that this spy has been

24:08

located. This is a story people

24:10

will remember about the scientists in the Level 4 lab

24:12

in Winnipeg who turned out to have all kinds of

24:15

secret activity with the Chinese government,

24:17

and they were fired. Dr. Chu, most

24:20

notably, when last we spoke

24:22

about this, there was a bunch of new

24:24

revelations about just how in-depth their espionage and

24:26

collaboration with China was while they were working

24:28

at this lab,

24:30

and a question that we were

24:33

unable to answer, like there were signs pointing to,

24:35

like, well, where has she gone? Why was she

24:37

never charged or arrested with anything in Canada? And

24:39

where in the world is Dr. Chu? And

24:42

there was a reason to speculate that she

24:44

was in China, and

24:46

that has turned out to be the case. Fife

24:49

and Chase of the Globe and Mail have reported

24:51

that she's been located working in China, collaborating

24:53

with researchers from the People's

24:56

Liberation Army. This

24:58

is a hell of a story. I can't

25:00

wait until all of it is

25:02

put together and we get the whole thing. But

25:04

for some reason, some of our most interesting stories

25:06

seem to slip through the cracks here

25:09

in Canada. Dearly noted. I

25:11

understand you have one more for us. I do. Maybe

25:14

almost as surprising as the first,

25:16

I see. Donald Trump was misquoted,

25:18

or at least quoted out of

25:21

context, and somebody

25:23

cared. A

25:25

colleague sent me a sub-stat column by

25:28

a writer named Sam Kahn. He sent

25:30

me this because my colleague knows I've

25:32

been writing, thinking lately about whether journalists

25:34

might actually agree on

25:37

at least some minimal standards for

25:39

news reporting. So Sam

25:41

Kahn, you can tell from

25:43

reading the column, clearly far from a

25:45

sympathizer with Donald Trump. But

25:48

he funded up the coverage of a recent speech,

25:50

and I bet you and a lot of our

25:52

listeners heard about it, which got a

25:54

lot of press. And then

25:56

what he did, Sam Kahn did, was

25:58

he actually muscled up to... actually gasp,

26:01

listen to the speech. And

26:04

clearly he found it a pretty disturbing and unpleasant

26:06

way of spending his time listening to a speech,

26:08

a whole speech by Donald Trump. And

26:11

you'd want to read Kahn's piece for

26:13

the details. But bottom line, he found

26:15

a few places where Trump was widely

26:18

misquoted or quoted seriously out

26:20

of context. I guess people

26:22

can be forgiven for thinking that this

26:24

particular man deserves no better. And

26:27

I wouldn't argue with that, but what

26:29

made me think was the column's final

26:31

two sentences, which speak to

26:34

the deeper value of journalists actually

26:36

taking truthfulness seriously. And I just

26:38

thought these two sentences might be

26:40

worth noting. So here they are.

26:43

If Trump is to be defeated and

26:46

Trumpism overcome, the

26:48

mainstream will have to maintain its

26:50

realism and

26:52

its dignity. And the

26:55

adults in the room will need

26:57

to avoid being sucked into

26:59

loose play with the facts.

27:02

What Trump actually is, what

27:05

he actually stands for, is

27:07

bad enough. I have seen

27:09

this in a lot of coverage. I've seen

27:11

this in newsrooms that there is a sliding

27:13

scale whereby our responsibility

27:18

to portray somebody

27:20

fairly, to quote them

27:22

accurately, to seek comment is

27:25

contingent on what we think

27:27

of them and how they interact with the truth. And

27:30

when a source or subject

27:32

of coverage is just

27:34

mendacious and can't be trusted

27:36

and does not have credibility, journalists

27:39

start to excuse themselves for

27:42

not practicing our craft at the

27:44

standard that it should be upheld.

27:47

I think that there are nuances in this because you

27:49

do have to deal with when

27:52

people respond or they deny something, whether

27:55

or not they have credibility doesn't matter. And

27:57

there are times when you say, well, I'm not going to publish this. this

28:00

full, this is

28:02

so obviously untrue that

28:04

I'm not just going to give equal time and

28:06

here's when they denied it because you can't tell

28:08

me that it's raining out when I can put

28:11

up my hand and see that, that's still practicing

28:13

journaling. Well that human-made climate change isn't

28:15

a thing. Yeah, that's not fairness, just giving

28:17

somebody, your credibility does matter and

28:19

your relationship to the truth and how you've dealt with

28:21

the press in the past does matter and it is

28:24

going to factor into journalistic decisions. But

28:26

I have seen reporters say like, you

28:28

know, I'm not going to ask that person because they're just going to lie

28:30

to me. Well you know, like because

28:33

they have abandoned any kind of ethics

28:35

does not mean that we have permission to do the same.

28:38

Duly noted. This

28:40

episode is brought to everybody by Rotman Executive

28:42

Programs. Do you get nostalgic for the early

28:45

days of artificial intelligence ever when it was,

28:47

you know, AI was just curating our news

28:49

feeds, doing its thing? No, it keeps me

28:51

up at night. Oh,

28:53

those good old days. AI is now actually

28:56

generating the content, not just curating the news

28:58

feeds. It's like a big deal, it

29:00

is affecting everything. My

29:03

feeling is that we don't, and having

29:05

been a tech journalist is that it

29:07

is going to have a huge impact but it will be different than the impact

29:09

we think it's going to be. Organizations

29:12

have not made the leap to AI yet

29:14

but that is going to change pretty quickly. If

29:18

you are finding the prospect of generative AI

29:20

confusing or a bit unnerving, you're not alone,

29:22

probably your boss or management at your company

29:24

is wondering the same thing and they want

29:26

to get on top of it. And this

29:28

is why Rotman put together the Generative AI

29:30

and Organizational Transformation Program. Talking

29:32

about a three-day program designed to get you

29:35

up to speed on AI and give you

29:37

everything you need to create a strategic roadmap

29:39

for integrating this ever-evolving technology into your organization.

29:42

Three days of training and learning and then

29:44

you become an expert within your organization. It

29:47

looks great on your CV. Don't get left

29:49

behind. Go to www.u of

29:51

t dot me slash Rotman AI

29:53

to learn more. One

29:55

more time here, don't forget the W's. www.u

29:58

of t dot me. e

30:00

slash Rotman AI. Check

30:02

it out. 2023

30:06

was a record setting year for immigration. Statistics

30:08

Canada says the number of non permanent

30:10

residents grew by more than half a million

30:12

people in 2023. It's

30:15

an historic surge driven by international

30:17

students and temporary workers. There

30:19

are some people talking about whether the pace

30:21

of immigration should be slowed down largely because

30:23

of the pressure on infrastructure, housing

30:26

in particular. Canada's immigration minister says

30:28

the massive influx has stretched an

30:30

already strained housing market. To

30:33

ensure that there is no

30:35

further growth in the number of international students in

30:37

Canada for 2024, we are setting a national

30:41

application intake cap for a period of

30:43

two years. According to documents obtained by

30:45

the Canadian press, bureaucrats warned the government

30:47

two years ago, a spike in migration

30:49

would drive up home prices. The

30:52

Liberal government pushed ahead with its ambitious

30:54

plan. We need to make a

30:56

link between the number of homes built and

30:59

the number of people we invite as

31:02

new Canadians. Iver immigration, immigration,

31:04

immigration is everywhere right now. And

31:06

I guess the one staff

31:08

that popped out of me the most staff can't put

31:10

this out. Daily Hive reported on this under a year.

31:12

It's just been months since Canada hit the 40 million

31:15

mark in terms of population, and we're about

31:17

to hit 41 million. So

31:20

that's like, oh, that's a lot really

31:23

quick. That's a lot really quick. A lot

31:25

of people and you know, the Canadian population,

31:27

we don't replace ourselves. So

31:30

it's got to come from somewhere.

31:32

It's immigration. And

31:35

this is one of those issues that like,

31:37

I mean, I'm gonna get a little bit

31:39

tense when it gets brought up because it

31:41

plays into traditional left right divides.

31:44

But I don't know that that's what I'm seeing here looking at what's

31:46

in the press. Because the

31:49

reality of immigration, and

31:52

the nuance of dealing with that

31:54

reality is sort of right in front of everybody's

31:56

eyes. So Linking immigration to

31:58

the housing shortage may be. Missing the problem

32:01

experts say was a Cbc peace.

32:03

Know reliever. Examining some nuance in this

32:05

relationship between immigration housing here is a

32:08

National Post headline life and Canada is

32:10

more expensive than most immigrants. Expected new

32:12

poll finds as not consistent. sort of

32:14

like from the perspective of the new

32:16

immigrants you know finding a problems and

32:19

but live in Canada, not necessarily for

32:21

the prospective you'd expect National Post. Why?

32:23

The argument that immigration is the sole

32:25

cause of soaring home prices as flawed?

32:27

This is an the Financial Post. And.

32:30

Then if you would expect conservative rhetoric to be

32:32

sort of anti immigrant and we've seen that in

32:35

the past, and we've seen. Various.

32:37

Concerted leaders talking about how we don't want people

32:39

from this country because they're going to bring in

32:41

bad values were that's not really what we're hearing

32:43

right now. We're hearing more of a policy based.

32:46

Complaint. From poly of and proposed

32:48

policy solutions to this is just been

32:50

mismanaged. We're going to continue with immigration.

32:52

This plan of his that we discuss

32:54

recently to tie immigration levels to homebuilding.

32:56

Some there's a relationship between him out

32:58

of housing that we have any money

33:00

people we bring in where we do

33:03

get that traditional. Resistance. To

33:05

newcomers because they're going to dilute

33:07

our culture while back. But. You.

33:09

Know tobacco asks Ottawa for full power

33:12

over immigration. Trudeau says no. I can't

33:14

really find fault with. Like there's a

33:16

flurry of stories that I think really

33:18

looking at everything from. should we be

33:20

continuing to fill our schools with international

33:22

students in what what problems is that

33:24

creating not only on housing or for

33:27

the students themselves For saw stories earlier

33:29

out of the Atlantic Provinces are some

33:31

of these like small college towns were

33:33

like. Serves. As a terrible

33:35

situation where there are a the streets

33:37

are filled with homeless kids from overseas

33:40

not you start temperatures and like. grandparents.

33:43

And New Brunswick like say like just come

33:45

in and sleep in the basement as like

33:47

the other somebody died and install New Brunswick

33:49

town from exposure on the streets like. I

33:52

think. We are. Getting

33:55

away from rhetoric in our conversation

33:57

about this getting away from ideology.

34:00

And dealing with reality. And.

34:04

Of is what I mean play with my have I ever is

34:06

that you could look at like. The whole

34:08

Justin Trudeau era leadership in

34:10

Canada. As. A Reckoning. Between.

34:14

The. Happy miss the Canada license hell

34:16

itself and the reality of the application

34:19

of those myths. And so when we

34:21

look at Trudeau it is a packs

34:23

in the early moments embracing this kind

34:25

of dog. Saunders Maximum Canada Like. And.

34:27

This is. this is an ethic of Canada that I'm

34:30

really bought into. I'm not super bitter out a guy,

34:32

but the idea that we welcome people here. Who.

34:34

Need a place to be greeting

34:36

the Syrian refugees at the airport.

34:39

Like. As many as we can take him, let's take

34:41

them in. I. Get emotional about

34:43

those. I believe in that vision

34:45

of Canada. And

34:47

then you fast forward to this point.

34:50

Which. I think is probably the end of

34:52

the Trudeau years and we're seeing that if

34:54

you do not. Match. That

34:56

ambition. And that ideology. With.

34:58

Good policy, You.

35:00

Can create a. A. Number of

35:03

knock on effects. That can.

35:05

Be bad for everything from housing prices to

35:07

to to almost as bad. Bad for the

35:09

people coming here, Bad for us, It's

35:11

It's not super interesting to have a segment about how the

35:13

media doing a good job or something. But

35:16

I have to give credit where

35:18

it's do It seems like this

35:20

topic is making in the amount

35:22

of coverage it's getting and in

35:24

like interesting and thought always my

35:26

pajamas Seen tomorrow's additional return A

35:28

Stone has it's have you know

35:30

if you've seen tomorrow's this of

35:32

the Toronto Star we have you

35:34

on the show more often. find

35:36

being when she to said sounds

35:38

really positive and I echo a

35:40

brief respite from rhetoric that isn't

35:42

rooted in. At. So consideration

35:45

of it affects. It.

35:48

may just be that it's too soon

35:50

to tell but i hope that

35:52

might be a whole new trend for

35:55

media in this country that we're gonna

35:57

stop tamping down on ill considered overstayed

36:00

exaggerated stuff about government doing

36:02

the job that we actually

36:04

elect governments to do, which

36:06

is manage the economy. It's

36:09

one of the prime duties of the of the government.

36:12

Housing is part of

36:14

the economy. Immigration targets are part of the

36:16

economy. Nobody on any side of the political

36:18

spectrum, as far as I know, is talking

36:21

about stopping immigration or

36:24

accelerating immigration by 100%. People are

36:28

talking about what should drive the

36:30

policy decision year to year of

36:33

how many permanent residents we are

36:35

targeting for Canada in

36:37

the coming year. It's an

36:39

economic number and the idea

36:41

of matching that number with the

36:43

rest of one's economic policy, including

36:46

where we're gonna put him, sounds

36:48

like a good idea. It is literally the first

36:50

time in about, oh

36:53

God, perhaps ever that I've heard this leader

36:55

of the opposition say something that sounds actually

36:57

quite sensible. Yeah, I

36:59

mean the overall housing policies put forth

37:02

by Polly have do not withstand a

37:04

whole lot of scrutiny, but

37:06

if you look at his immigration

37:08

policy, he is running on

37:11

a platform which is sort of like a return

37:13

to just reasonable thinking. Wouldn't

37:15

it be nice to believe him? Right

37:18

now, I don't mind the the tenor of the conversation. There

37:20

are some things in the media that stick out like a

37:22

sore thumb, and I think this was actually probably just like

37:24

a little error, but I like

37:26

to live in a Canada where these

37:29

things are ugly anomalies. I'm talking here

37:31

about a weird CBC story. Here's

37:33

the headline, international student

37:35

charged after alleged

37:38

voyeurism involving cell phone at U

37:40

of T residents. A friend of mine pointed this

37:42

out to me like, why are they identifying him

37:44

as an international student? That is weird. You know,

37:46

like we stopped for a long time ago, you

37:49

know, like black Torontonian arrested

37:51

on, like we stopped doing these

37:53

these identifiers. So why is

37:55

it like a very strange thing? And we

37:57

tracked it back and it's like okay to

37:59

CBC, DC are actually, they got that information from

38:01

the cops. The cops said, this

38:04

guy peeping Tom at a U of

38:06

T residence was an international student. Okay,

38:08

but headline writing is not

38:11

the same function as reporting. That's

38:13

right. Well, first, like our best

38:15

guess at the cops is that there's a

38:17

very strict formula for when they put out

38:19

these releases about who they arrested. And usually

38:22

that's the part where they say, Thornhill

38:24

resident arrested. And my guess is because

38:26

he's an international student, some cop looking

38:28

at a blank field on

38:30

the press release form is like, well, we don't know where he

38:33

lives. So I can't say, you know, U of T

38:35

resident resident. So we'll say

38:37

international student. And maybe it's the responsibility of

38:39

the CBC headline or to be like, you

38:41

know what, leading with the word international student

38:43

in an environment where international students are under

38:45

so much scrutiny right now. And

38:48

they could easily become the ones who were blamed

38:50

for situations that they were, you know, we've done

38:52

a lot of coverage of how they're enticed to

38:54

come here, promise that it's a past residency dumped

38:57

in like the, you know, suburban campus of some

38:59

affiliated college where there's just not even proper services.

39:01

And in some cases, like in Cape Breton, you

39:04

know, housing shortage, like, you know, they're not

39:06

the bad guys in this story. I don't

39:08

think the CBC intended to make them the

39:10

bad guys, but this is a headline in

39:12

which international student is the bad guy. Right.

39:15

You know, since we're talking shit about the media,

39:17

one of the things that I think is worth

39:19

talking shit about is headline

39:21

writing. The standard of headline writing

39:23

in the media has fallen

39:26

because there are far fewer people

39:29

employed to think about writing headlines.

39:32

I was recently asked by someone who works for a

39:35

publication in Canada about,

39:37

you know, the publication's use of

39:40

the headlines that are written by wire

39:42

services on their stories. And

39:45

somebody said, well, you know, we just

39:47

don't have the resources to edit wire

39:49

copy anymore and, you know, times

39:51

are tough. Get with it. Let

39:54

the wire service write the headline. And

39:56

I'm like, you know, if you don't have the

39:58

resources to think about the headline writing in

40:01

a day and age when the headline

40:03

is usually the only thing people see

40:05

on their newsfeeds, you

40:08

probably don't have the resources to be

40:10

in the news business at all. It's

40:13

a tremendous abdication of the basic responsibility.

40:15

You're actually saying, we

40:17

cannot be held responsible for what we publish, right?

40:20

Like, you know, it's become just such industry practice, like,

40:22

yeah, like a lot of what we publish is fed

40:24

to us by wire services, just like everybody else. What

40:27

do you expect us to do, times or times? Like,

40:29

I couldn't make that case here. People were like, what

40:32

was that audacious thing you published? Like, I didn't listen

40:34

to it. I just published it.

40:36

Who has the resources to listen to what

40:38

we publish? It takes us right back to

40:40

Elon Musk saying, you know, you're advocating censorship

40:43

because you want us to edit what goes

40:45

on our platform. Well, you

40:47

know, we do edit what goes on our platform.

40:49

At Elon, you do. Of course you edit. You're

40:51

a publisher. And the algorithm is itself a form

40:54

of an editor. Absolutely. And

40:56

that's the algorithm people employed by

40:58

you. Ira

41:05

Shapiro, that is shortcuts for this week. Thank you

41:07

for joining me. So welcome. It is a

41:09

pleasure to be with you. I can be

41:12

emailed about anything you heard today at

41:14

jessie at canadalland.com. I read everything you

41:16

send. And our website is canadalland.com.

41:18

Ira, where can people find you and remind

41:20

people what your book is called? My book

41:22

is called The Disputed

41:25

Freedoms of a Disrupted

41:27

Press. It's available from all the usual

41:29

places people get books and e-books. And

41:32

where can people find me at cfv.torontomu.ca.

41:38

This episode is produced by James Nicholson

41:41

with additional production by Caleb Thompson. Our

41:43

production coordinator is Andre Proulx. Our

41:46

editor-in-chief is Karen Puglaze. Your

41:48

theme music is by So-called, syndications by CFUV101.9 FM

41:50

in Victoria. You

41:53

can visit them online at cfuv.ca. If

41:57

you value this podcast, if you like listening to

41:59

us talk... about the news, if we help keep

42:01

you informed, if you like what my colleagues do

42:03

on our other shows, all of the stuff that

42:06

we provide to you for free, what I'm asking

42:08

you to do this month is

42:10

rate us, review us on Spotify or

42:12

Apple Podcasts, that really does help other

42:14

people find Canada Land, or

42:16

think of one person in your life who might not

42:19

know that we're here and tell

42:21

them. That is how you grow a

42:23

podcast audience and that would be an enormous help

42:25

to us. If you want to support us directly,

42:27

which is how we keep the lights on, go

42:29

to canadaland.com join.

42:31

There's a bunch of great stuff we give you when

42:34

you become a supporter of Canada

42:36

Land. Click on the link in the

42:38

show notes or once again go to

42:40

canadaland.com join. You can listen ad-free on

42:42

Amazon music included with Prime. Botox

42:58

Cosmetic, out of Botulinum Toxin A,

43:00

FDA approved for over 20 years. So,

43:03

talk to your specialist to see if Botox

43:05

Cosmetic is right for you. For

43:08

full prescribing information, including boxed

43:10

warning, visit botoxcosmetic.com or call

43:13

877-351-0300. Remember

43:17

Remember to ask for Botox Cosmetic

43:19

by name. To see for yourself and

43:21

learn more, visit botoxcosmetic.com.

43:24

That's botoxcosmetic.com.