fbpx
Connect with us

Opinion

OUELLETTE & SHAW: Freedom of expression is under attack in Canada

“While Canada is a relatively free country, the pandemic has exacerbated our pre-existing shortcomings in terms of freedom of expression.”

mm

Published

on

Our freedom of expression is under attack. In recent years, there’s been a significant trend toward censorship in the media, in academia, and among the general population. The controversy at the University of Ottawa over the use of the N-word is one example among others. Why do we need to worry about this trend? For one thing, an attack on our freedom of expression is also an attack on our standard of living.

The virtues of freedom of expression are widely recognized: It improves the quality of our democratic institutions, facilitates the exchange of ideas, and leads to sounder, more transparent public policies.

But aside from these benefits, there is also a strong link between freedom of expression and economic growth. This is confirmed by the economic literature and by many academic papers from different researchers at Stanford UniversityDartmouth College, and the University of California, Berkeley, who all arrive at the same conclusion: The exchange of ideas stimulates innovation, and innovation is one of the main engines of economic growth and rising living standards.

Encouraging the exchange of ideas and the protection of freedom of expression is therefore intuitively beneficial, and this is confirmed by the scientific literature. But concretely, what would the average Canadian stand to gain if our governments put in place public policies encouraging greater freedom of expression?

According to our calculations and our econometric model, individual Canadians would be an average of $2,522 richer each year. Obviously, this amount wouldn’t be deposited directly into one’s bank account, but rather, a gradual increase in our living standards would result from the effects of more freedom of expression.

In the sample of 132 countries used in our study, Canada is among the top 15 per cent in terms of freedom of expression. But while it is true that we live in a relatively free society, taking this good ranking for granted would be a mistake.

Indeed, governments have a lot of room to grow when it comes to improving freedom of expression, especially if we compare ourselves to Norway, the top country in the ranking. There, it is standard practice for politicians to make constant efforts, encouraged by citizens, to better protect freedom of expression.

In contrast, in Canada, and especially in certain provinces like Quebec, the government can arbitrarily decide to subsidize one media outlet rather than another, which can potentially hinder media independence and lead to biased and less reliable information. Not to mention that it is increasingly difficult to obtain information from our governments through requests for access to information, which hampers proper public debate. This situation should alarm us.

In order to improve the country’s performance in terms of freedom of expression, thereby also improving our standard of living, we have three recommendations:

  1. Favour media independence from government by limiting arbitrary subsidies and, in their place, creating a regulatory and fiscal framework favourable to all media;
  2. Encourage Canadian public universities to protect freedom of expression in order to truly allow their researchers, professors, and students to express themselves freely without risk of reprisals;
  3. Increase the information and data available to the population by reducing the need to make requests for access to information, in order to facilitate public debate.

While Canada is a relatively free country, the pandemic has exacerbated our pre-existing shortcomings in terms of freedom of expression. We must not allow the current situation to become the new normal. For the sake of our standard of living and the wealth of our country, we must do more to promote and protect the freedom of expression of all Canadians.

GUEST COLUMN: By Miguel Ouellette, Director of Operations and Economist, and Maria Lily Shaw, Economist, Montreal Economic Institute

Continue Reading
5 Comments

5 Comments

  1. That's Dr. #SAND to you...

    January 16, 2021 at 11:00 am

    Canadians have been made stupid by the education system.
    Too stupid to understand the values that this country was built on.

    Thank a teacher.

  2. ninetyninepct

    January 16, 2021 at 9:50 am

    Many Canadian Universities claim they need foreign students just to exist. It is obvious there are far too many Universities. They might want to take a look at the 6 figure salaries of the “professors” who do very little actual class time.

  3. That's Dr. #SAND to you...

    January 16, 2021 at 11:00 am

    Canadians have been made stupid by the education system.
    Too stupid to understand the values that this country was built on.

    Thank a teacher.

  4. Charles Martell III

    January 15, 2021 at 6:13 pm

    Canadians have been losing their freedoms since the 70s . . .
    Today after decades of far-left indoctrination . . . our Public Education system is a joke. Marxist Teachers’ Unions want to Indoctrinate your children and turning out zombies . . .
    Universities have become “Snoflake” Factories . . .
    The “Media” . . . Echo Chamber Media, ALL reading from the same script, Journalism died in the 80s!
    And today the CCP is taking over Canada . . . hey China just won the Election Nov. 3 in the USA.

    Dominion Voting machines made in China & adjustable with an Iphone, mail in ballots printed in China . . . the Fraud was so obvious even 25% of Dems agreed.

    • Mars Hill

      January 16, 2021 at 12:28 am

      the ccp and anybody or country involved with the USA election fraud will pay big time very shortly, I’ve heard the QC lockdown has nothing to do with covid and everything to do with the fraud down south, pedo’s going down with them, many one and the same.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

WAGNER: The prominent Toronto political scientist who called Communism ‘democratic’

As it turns out, some members of Canada’s Left have a fairly positive view of communism.

mm

Published

on

Some commentators have noted the silence of Canada’s Left in the face of anti-government protests in Cuba. Why the reluctance to condemn a communist dictatorship?

Well, as it turns out, some members of Canada’s Left have a fairly positive view of communism. One such prominent Canadian leftist was C.B. Macpherson (1911-1987), an internationally-renowned political scientist who taught political theory at the University of Toronto. Among other things, he was especially known for his critiques of capitalism and individualism.

Interestingly, Macpherson also defended Soviet Communism as genuine democracy in action. This can be seen in a series of CBC radio messages he delivered in 1965 that were subsequently published as a book entitled The Real World of Democracy. These lectures argued there were three forms of government that could be legitimately called democracies: the liberal democracies of the West, the Soviet bloc countries, and the one-party states of the Third World. 

As Macpherson put it, “democracy is not properly to be equated with our unique Western liberal-democracy.” Instead, “the clearly non-liberal systems which prevail in the Soviet countries, and the somewhat different non-liberal systems of most of the underdeveloped countries of Asia and Africa, have a genuine historical claim to the title democracy.”

Macpherson explained the meaning of democracy has undergone some change over time. It hasn’t always referred to the kind of constitutional system common in the Western countries: “Democracy originally meant rule by the common people, the plebeians. It was very much a class affair: it meant the sway of the lowest and largest class.” Thus, Macpherson argued Soviet Communism and other one-party states can legitimately be called democracies, based on this definition. That is, he used this conception of “democracy” to describe some of the world’s most brutal and repressive regimes. 

Karl Marx’s proposed “dictatorship of the proletariat” was an expression of genuine democracy in Macpherson’s view. He noted many people would find it outrageous to consider the dictatorship of the proletariat to be a form of democracy. “But,” he wrote, “to call it democracy was not outrageous at all: it was simply to use the word in its original and then normal sense.”

Macpherson’s analysis gets even worse. Lenin extended Marx’s theory by arguing a revolution would need to be undertaken by a relatively small group of class-conscious people he called the vanguard, which is to say, the Communist Party. 

From the Communist perspective, since the vast majority of people in any society are debased by the structures of capitalism, they cannot be trusted to participate in political decision-making. To allow their participation would just perpetuate the problems of the old, capitalist society. Only the vanguard could bring about the necessary reforms. As Macpherson explains: “Lenin, building on Marx, came out for a seizure of power by a vanguard who would forcibly transform the basic relations of society in such a way that the people would become undebased and capable of a fully human existence, at which point compulsive government would no longer be needed.” 

In Macpherson’s view, this rule of the vanguard to “forcibly transform” society is democracy in action, despite the fact that it involves politically motivated executions and concentration camps. Democracy, it seems, becomes indistinguishable from dictatorship.

Macpherson evokes what he calls the “broader concept of democracy” to legitimize the Marxist-Leninist state: “Wherever the circumstances are such that no motion towards this kind of society is possible except through the action of a vanguard, then the vanguard state, so long as it remains true to its purpose, may be called democratic.” Thus, in his view, an outright communist state can be legitimately called a democracy. Many of the most brutal, bloodthirsty, and repressive regimes in the 20th Century were democracies in this sense. Who knew?

Using a similar line of argumentation, the one-party dictatorships of the Third World can also be justified as democracies. Invoking Rousseau, Macpherson wrote one-party states can be legitimately called democracies because “there is in these countries a general will, which can express itself through, and probably only through, a single party.” As a result, “opposition to the dominant party appears to be, and sometimes actually is, destructive of the chances of nationhood. In such circumstances opposition appears as treason against the nation.” Thus, a one-party state, where opposition to the ruling party is punished as “treason,” can be a legitimate form of democracy. (Don’t tell Justin Trudeau.)

Macpherson was an internationally known and respected political scientist. The views he expressed were not the rantings of a black-clad activist running wild in the streets. Some elements of the intellectual Left truly believe that a Marxist-Leninist state (or any other Left-wing single-party state) is a genuine democracy. Despite the inescapably violent and murderous nature of communism, some Canadian leftists view it favourably. 

The lessons of the 20th Century have not been learned. Ideas that inspired inhuman tyranny – what C.B. Macpherson happily calls the “broader concept of democracy” – seem to be making a comeback.

Michael Wagner is a columnist for the Western Standard

Continue Reading

Opinion

MORGAN: COVID has shown the need to overhaul Canada’s health care system

“We need to stop pretending the American and Canadian models of health provision are the only ones on earth. In fact, only two other countries on the planet explicitly ban private health care insurance: Cuba and North Korea.”

mm

Published

on

After his retirement, Ralph Klein was quoted expressing regret for having backed down on his “third-way” health care reform plan. We are paying the price today for the government’s lack of will of yesteryear.

Canada’s health care system has long been considered a sacred cow. We have been taught since childhood that it’s the best health care system on the planet; it’s the very thing that defines what it means to be Canadian. Any efforts to reform the system are immediately framed as potentially moving us towards the dreaded American system.

The most politically expedient way to deal with health care challenges has been to blindly toss more money into the system without changing how anything is being done. Government reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic has devastated our finances and exposed massive shortcomings in the health care system. Both these problems are good cause to undertake a serious overhaul of the status quo.

Alberta has 11,120 physicians and 32,000 nurses. We have 161 hospitals and spend more per capita on health care than most other provinces. At the peak of the pandemic, the number of COVID-19 patients in hospital beds was just over 500 people. Why did this volume of patients seemingly bring our system to the brink of collapse? If we don’t ask ourselves some tough questions and begin to make some serious changes to our system, we could find ourselves vulnerable to a true systemic meltdown if a more serious pandemic hits us down the road.

In the event of a widespread medical crisis, a system needs to be able to pivot in order to meet sudden new pressures. Our socialized system has led us into centralizing our treatments and procedures into hospitals. Many services and procedures are being performed in hospitals when they could have been done in outside, specialized clinics. When something like a pandemic occurs, entire wings of hospitals can be closed off while large blocks of staff are placed under quarantine. This leads to procedures deemed as being non-essential being deferred which leads to long backlogs of medical procedures which could take months, or years, to catch up on. If we had more health facilities outside conventional hospitals, our hospitals could focus on acute health care needs while elective and non-urgent procedures continue unhindered in clinics.

In order to get these specialized clinics, we will need to allow more private investment into health care provision. We have to set aside that ingrained prejudice against profit-based models in health care provision. Private clinics for general practitioners haven’t crushed the system. Private facilities for everything from hip replacements to dialysis won’t either. This is not a matter of reinventing the wheel. Most European nations allow for private health provision within a publicly funded, universal model. Entire private hospitals are integrated within public systems. We need to stop pretending the American and Canadian models of health provision are the only ones on earth. In fact, only two other countries on the planet explicitly ban private health care insurance: Cuba and North Korea.

Many other systems are outperforming Canada’s in both outcomes and in cost. It does not deserve the status of sacred cow.

We will also need to take on the public sector unions. Organized labour has traditionally battled every form of health care reform every step of the way. How many years have we battled back and forth over something as simple as the outsourcing of hospital laundry services?

How many stories have we heard about nurses who game an incredibly generous overtime system to the point where some have earned over $200,000 per year? Alberta’s nurses are the highest paid in Canada yet they immediately started rumbling about striking when the Kenney government proposed a modest 3% pay reduction. We are in an economic crisis as well as a pandemic. If we can’t even get modest concessions from unions in times like these, we won’t be able to sustain our service levels for much longer. Seniority systems and contract clauses make it difficult to schedule staff based on surges leading to sporadic shortages and over staffing at times. It’s going to take some strong will and it will take some labour disruptions, but the union stranglehold on health care provision needs to be ended.

We need to look beyond the politics of envy and let people pay out of pocket for enhanced services. They wouldn’t be jumping the queue. They should be jumping out of one queue, and into another, allowing both to receive quality services faster.

Let’s face it, people have been leaving the country in order to “jump the queue” for decades. These people aren’t always rich, but they are desperate. If a person is given a choice between suffering or potentially dying on a waiting list for treatment or selling their home and seeking treatment in another country, most will sell the house. Let’s keep those dollars here and have regulated pay-for-service models that allow for private insurance. It will lead to shorter wait times for all. Don’t look at it as if it is a person cutting the line ahead of you, look at it as if a person wants to spend their own money in order to shorten the line for all of us.

Canada’s health care system is rigid and obsolete. The pandemic has shown us we are always teetering on the brink of overrunning our capacity despite constant increases in health care spending. Our economy is in shambles and government deficits are unsustainable. If we want to have a strong, universal health care system we can rely upon during times of crisis, we need to dramatically reform our current one. There’s no better time than right now to begin that process. Let’s hope our political leadership can find the will and courage to take on this difficult but essential task.

If they can’t stand their ground on a modest wage reduction for nurses, they won’t be able to do what really needs to be done in the long term.

Cory Morgan is the Alberta Political Columnist for the Western Standard and Host of the Cory Morgan Show

Continue Reading

Opinion

CONROY: Biles did the best she could under the circumstances

Simone Biles has just as much of a right to take a break, step back, or make any other choice for her career which she sees fit.

mm

Published

on

Simone Biles’ choice to withdraw from the remaining Olympic events is respectable when you look at her reasoning.

Characters like bombastic TV personality Piers Morgan would disagree, but Biles’ choice to withdraw from the remaining gymnastics competitions in this year’s Olympics is not only honourable but, sadly, predictable. The lives of professional athletes have always been caught up in a sporting culture that has only grown more and more toxic with the years.

The modern world of competitive athletics places values of unachievable proportions onto its athletes. Theories have been offered pointing to the rampant doping in athletes being largely because of unrealistically high expectations for their performance. These unrealistic expectations can lead people on both sides to do crazy things.

It’s no secret larger organizations like the International Olympic Committee (IOC) — an entity historically known for openly partaking in corruption — not only allow these smaller entities to get away with abusing their athletes, but go so far as to create a culture encouraging it. The IOC has long since been turned from an organization valuing athletics over all else into a business seeking profit.

In 2018, Biles bravely came forward saying she had suffered abuse at the hands of Larry Nasser, the former doctor for the American women’s national gymnastics team. Biles was among dozens of other gymnasts who accused Nasser of sexual abuse. He later pleaded guilty and is currently serving a 60-year prison sentence.

Biles said the abuse she suffered under Nasser during her teen years left her with trauma and thoughts of suicide. The athlete was told by her coaches and superiors at USA Gymnastics to trust Nasser, which is why she rightfully places the blame on USA Gymnastics for the suffering she went through.

It wasn’t Biles who let the team, the Games, America, or anyone else down, it was Biles who was abandoned by the establishments meant to protect her.

Simone has handled this situation with a level of grace and maturity very rarely seen in someone so young. It’s amazing to watching her take on criticism from the likes of Morgan and others who feel entitled to her and her career.

They seem to be taking it as a personal attack of sorts because Biles has chosen to put her mental health above her career for seemingly the first time ever. Biles has recently been open about her history of sexual and other forms of abuse during her athletic career.

With an autobiography already under her belt, word she will be attending virtual college soon for business administration, and even placing fourth on a season of Dancing with the Stars, Biles is already more accomplished at 24 than most of her critics can say at twice her age. She deserves to pursue whatever she wishes to, and while gymnastics maybe her passion it is healthy to maintain a sense of well-roundness.

Biles has competed in five gymnastics world championships and games already, and won four gold medals at the 2016 Rio Games alone. Biles holds an impressive portfolio and is objectively known as the most accomplished American gymnast in the world right now.

Achievement like that doesn’t come cheap. Athletes like Biles give up every other aspect of their life in order to put the full focus, energy, and time into their sport. She switched from public school to homeschooling in 2012, allowing her to up her training hours from 20 hours to 32 hours weekly.

She currently maintains a schedule of full seven-hour practices Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays and allows herself half practices on Thursdays and Saturdays.

Gymnastics is one of the most dangerous sports one can compete in. With increasingly intricate moves now being completely banned by many athletics organizations for their potential to cause damage to the person performing them, completing many of these tricks requires full mental engagement. When one’s head isn’t in a positive, stable enough place to engage fully, disaster can easily strike.

The vault routine incident many believe led to Biles’ withdrawal from the team and other remaining events have been described by those in the community as Biles “losing herself in midair.” This short drop in focus apparently almost ended tragically, she failed to complete a double and-a-half turn which could have left her with “career-ending” and “life-threatening” injuries according to former gymnast Andrea Orris.

Biles’ choice was probably one of the most difficult of her life, and for the world to weigh in and criticize what she believes is best for herself is entitled and ridiculous. For Biles to receive such aggressive backlash for openly choosing to honour her mental health and take what she believes is a needed step back from her career is disappointing in a day and age where mental health is touted as the latest buzz words.

At the end of the day, Biles’ gymnastics career is just that — a career, a job. Just because the general public has been let into her life to watch her perform and compete, she’s still completing a job which, like any other career, allows one to leave it if the situation becomes undesirable.

Biles has just as much of a right to take a break, step back, or make any other choice for her career which she sees fit. Perhaps social media has played a large part in allowing people to believe they do have the right to offer their opinions to someone they’ve never met before.

Is this what we as a society want? To watch someone for solely our own amusement — it’s not like any of us have stakes in Team USA — even if it means the person is mentally breaking herself just to perform?

Biles has obviously accomplished so much in gymnastics by her own volition and desire, but now it should be left in her very capable hands to decide what she’ll do next.

She doesn’t need career advice from anyone right now.

Jackie Conroy is a reporter for the Western Standard
jconroy@westernstandardonline.com

Continue Reading

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Share

Petition: No Media Bailouts

We the undersigned call on the Canadian government to immediately cease all payouts to media companies.

170 signatures

No Media Bailouts

The fourth estate is critical to a functioning democracy in holding the government to account. An objective media can't maintain editorial integrity when it accepts money from a government we expect it to be critical of.

We the undersigned call on the Canadian government to immediately cease all payouts to media companies.

**your signature**



The Western Standard will never accept government bailout money. By becoming a Western Standard member, you are supporting government bailout-free and proudly western media that is on your side. With your support, we can give Westerners a voice that doesn\'t need taxpayers money.

Share this with your friends:

Trending

Copyright © Western Standard New Media Corp.