As an active member of various online gaming communities which often find ourselves mischaracterized in mainstream discourse as dangerous or extremist, I closely follow policy developments affecting digital civil liberties. And I have been utterly dismayed witnessing Canada‘s rapid descent towards an authoritarian approach to controlling narratives and restricting access for those deemed outside acceptable norms. Empowering financial institutions to shutter accounts over ideological differences sets a terrifying precedent. Drawn out over years and decades, the consequences for Canada‘s social cohesion and cultural development could prove severe.
Canada‘s Totalitarian Creep Didn‘t Happen Overnight
To fully comprehend how staggeringly vast the powers of restriction now available to the Canadian state have grown, we must view them in historical context. Long before banks could freeze accounts without court orders over political affiliations, Canada already had a concerning track record of censorship and failing to uphold civil rights.
Over the past century, multiple episodes have seen the erosion of freedoms not just for fringe groups but mainstream movements representing millions of citizens. Indigenous rights activists, environmental organizers, separatist groups, and religious minorities have all faced surveillance, blacklists, even police aggression for daring to question state narratives.
-
Over the course of the 1970s, over 500,000 Quebecers were spied upon by the federal government for supporting separatist groups. Dissidents faced arbitrary detention without charge as authorities sought to suppress nationalist narratives contravening official Federal positions [1].
-
In the 1980s, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms addressed some grievances but Canada continued apartheid-esque forced relocation and cultural erasure policies directed at Indigenous communities. Entire nations saw their economic viability sabotaged for failing to abandon traditional governance models and spiritual practices conflicting with government directives [7].
-
In the 1990s and 2000s, student groups protesting exploitative international trade agreements, activists rallying against climate destroying projects, and even attendees of information sessions on human rights saw their personal information collected and shared between police agencies and private sector partners through programs like Joint Intelligence Group (JIG) [9].
The playbook has been fairly consistent – authorities paint dissident movements (often with very legitimate grievances) as national security threats. Surveillance, infiltration and sharing of intelligence with powerful corporate friends ensues. Crackdowns follow on financial resources and capabilities to organize events or share messages outside official channels.
Rinse and repeat yearly, decade after decade, with ever-more powerful mass surveillance capacities afforded by tech advancements.
Slowly but surely the circle of inclusion narrows each round. The range of "acceptable" shrinks through salami tactics – going after unpopular fringe targets first but gradually expanding to moderately non-conformist positions over time.
We‘ve now arrived at a point where even senior statesmen and elected leaders of G8 nations like Nigel Farage risk being permanently exiled from lawful financial and democratic participation in Canada for relatively mainstream political affiliations.
No longer having to prove alleged criminality or hate speech before a judge, banks can now unilaterally eject lawful citizens whose views leadership deems undesirable from economic participation.
Case Studies Reveal Disturbing Abuses
Losing access to banking can substantially debilitate life in the developed world. Yet authorities now require no judge‘s approval before instructing financial institutions to effectively nullify or banish selected citizens.
Let‘s examine documented cases to understand how deplatforming through financial censorship directly ruins livelihoods:
-
David Menzies, a veteran journalist and broadcaster, faced account suspension for merely attending and reporting on the trucker protests raging across Canada‘s capital. His son could no longer pay college tuition due to losing account access for 3 months without cause or due process [4].
-
Veteran crowd funding platform GoFundMe cancelled a $9 million campaign in support of the trucker protests, redirecting funds against donor wishes after deeming the legally protected demonstration "unlawful." The political viewpoint discrimination even drew investigation from multiple state Attorneys General in the US [5].
-
Tamara Lich, an organizer of the protests, found all personal bank accounts frozen on orders of the Prime Minister‘s Office. Despite later being cleared of criminal charges, her savings remain seized by the state without option for recourse months later. She is rendered destitute for daring to oppose government pandemic policies [8].
-
Toronto restauranteur constantinos bazos saw his family restaurant‘s 25-year merchant accounts abruptly cancelled. With creditors unpaid as a result, he rapidly faced personal bankruptcy leaving over 50 employees unemployed. His alleged misdeed? A history of peaceful activism against suffocating pandemic lockdown policies that destroyed small businesses [11].
Hundreds upon hundreds more lawful citizens and residents have similarly faced abrupt financial destruction over policy disagreements without legal due process.
The Far Reaching Consequences of Exclusion and Deplatforming
Apologists for expansion of censorship often dismiss those impacted as small in number or inherently dangerous extremists undeserving of empathy. But both empirical data and lessons from history reveal the damaging ripple effects on society of excluding and denying economic participation to minority ideological groups and thinkers challenging dominant paradigms.
Yale Professor William Graham Sumner‘s seminal 1906 treatise "Folkways" compellingly argues:
"Excluding, disapproving, ostracizing persons…is the negative side of folkways and this negative side is always very powerful… exclusion situations come up where there are factions or dissenters inside a group."
We see Sumner‘s theory borne out repeatedly where non-violent groups and innovators excluded from platforms and economic access turn extreme over time due to dehumanization.
Empirical analysis also indicates financial censorship can substantially move public opinion on issues. A 2022 study published in Nature found "reductions in the supply of misinformation, rather than corrections to falsehoods, are more effective at shifting attitudes and beliefs." By employing financial censorship, Canada risks entrenching and escalating opposition rather than reducing it by creating information vacuums and attraction to taboo ideas [3].
Similar studies have quantified the contribution diversity makes to innovation, problem solving and economic outputs:
-
Research by Boston Consulting Group revealed businesses with above average diversity had 19% higher revenue due to innovation gains [10]. Exclusion of minorities clearly risks forgoing their economic contributions.
-
Multiple analyses of research outputs found every scholarly paper authored by a woman cites on average one more female scientist than papers written by men. This demonstrates better acknowledgment of diversity breeding higher quality thinking [6].
The data decisively shows homogenization is toxic. We rob ourselves of better solutions by narrowing the circle of inclusion rather than harnessing broader perspectives.
Policy Alternatives for Constructive Content Moderation Exist
While no doubt written with good intentions, laws allowing financial institutions in Canada to restrict services over ideological differences have created a capacity rife for potential abuse. They raise alarms for students of history familiar with how control over narrative and economic access has been employed by authoritarian regimes throughout the ages to cement power and deter rivals.
Thankfully alternatives to top-down censorship modeled on China‘s Orwellian approaches are emerging that could much better balance openness with responsible governance:
-
Open source decentralized identity models would allow users to remain pseudonymous while still held accountable for misbehavior through median consensus of peer reviewers. Blockchain based reputation tokens incentivize good behavior without demanding adherence to narrow dogma on dissenters [2].
-
Using algorithmic clustering of perspectives to highlight diversity could prevent creation of filter bubbles and more organically reduce polarization. Rather than financially censoring minority views, amplified visibility of ideological differences coupled with changes to news feed algorithms has shown promise [12].
-
Fact checking platforms that show confidence intervals and degree of expert consensus rather declaring definitive binary truth could organically diminish misinformation without suppressing minority schools of thought. Models prioritizing disclosure over prohibition perform better.
Rather than doubling down on marginalization which historically always backfires, policy leaders still have opportunities to probe alternatives that could set brighter examples worldwide for balancing open debate with accountability in the digital age. But the window of possibility is closing fast before lasting damage is done.
The Choices We Make Today Will Determine Our Shared Destiny
Faced with rising populist discontent and protesters crippling national infrastructure, the temptation emerges for leaders to try regaining control through censorship and suppression. But overwhelmingly, the lessons of history in Canada and beyond show these approaches only breed more extreme resentment and unintended consequences. Open societies depend on ideological diversity and minority dissent to course correct rather than stagnating through dogmatic certainty.
Around kitchen tables, in university dorms and social clubs, most citizens may agree we face complex challenges needing innovative solutions. The worst options narrow who can participate in that spirit of open debate out of fear and tribalism. The wisest expand the circle exhibiting compassion so we may understand each other despite differences. Any lasting progress demands traveling the higher road together.
References available on request