Timothy Denton is a former CRTC national commissioner. Based in North Hatley, Que., he is chair of the Internet Society of Canada Chapter, which held its annual general meeting this week..In this message to its members he outlines the threats to freedom of expression and other liberties being posed by those who aspire to control the internet.."I will move to the issue that most concerns me. It is neither C-11 or C-18, the two laws recently passed that bring chaos and disorder to the Canadian Internet. Nor is it the power of the platforms and what to do about them which, I submit, were susceptible to much more discrete and limited remedies..I am concerned with a rising tide which is seeking after orthodoxy. I do not think C-18 or C-11 can be adequately explained without factoring in an illiberal tendency in government and in sectors of society that distrust free expression..A recent study for the CATO Institute showed that three in 10 Americans under 30 wanted government video surveillance in the home, and the link between younger age groups and this desire was strongly correlated. The distributed and anarchic features of the internet are proving intolerable to many. It would be difficult to say which factor threatens the internet more: established commercial interests facing oblivion, or the intolerant and anxious spirit of the age..The American social scientist Jonathan Haidt researched this issue. A generation of young people were protected from all harm and risk in the material world, but exposed to contention and turmoil in the digital. They have come to believe that debate is wrong, as debate implies doubt, and doubt produces anxiety. This has led to a demand people be protected from feeling “unsafe.”.Many people have come to expect the triumph of justice is impeded, but will not be prevented, by those of differing opinions or beliefs. If governments could just lean hard enough on the dissenting minorities, then the progress of society can be assured. Even if, as I believe, that these are not dissenting minorities, but dissenting majorities..The concerns of anxious safety seekers would be of no effect without government backing..For their own reasons, and in a separate stream of causation, the proponents of more government controls over thoughts and expressions arrived at the view the society we live in is fundamentally illegitimate. The attack on the liberal political order is broad and deep and proceeds on several fronts. The constitutional order, with its origins in European colonization of the American continent, is seen to be illegitimate. Worse, it is showing every sign of success. Where it ends or whether it ends is unclear, but do not be in doubt: its goal is the delegitimization of pre-existing Canadian society which was, and remains, a liberal one..By liberal I mean a society concerned with and founded on the rights of individuals. In principle the liberal order did not privilege one group or groups over others. It sought equality of opportunity and gradually recognized broader and broader classes of people for recognition and protections. It recognized groups, but not group rights. It was concerned with the quality of education but not with the establishment of orthodoxy..A liberal society assumes the legitimacy of actual debate. It is confident of its premises. It tolerates not knowing the truth, but actively seeks after it by processes of inquiry, which may well be combative in nature but which rest on the pillar of doubt, or skeptical inquiry if you prefer. A liberal society is extremely cautious about the dangers of dogmatic certainty..Doubt is the enemy of orthodoxy. Seekers after certainty resist free discussion. Hence they seek to control “the narrative.”.The measures I see being taken in bills like C-11 and C-18, and others to come, seek the institutionalization of orthodoxy, which is Greek for right opinion. The measures proposed and approved by government assume the truth cannot and must not be doubted, that a particular kind of knowledge (theirs) is certain, that differing opinions are a form of subversion, and that not merely are opinions to be combatted, but that measures ought to be taken to silence by any means available the expression of unorthodox views (dubbed misinformation, false narratives)..If this trend continues, we shall soon be back to the Spain and Portugal of the 17th century. The Office of Inquisition will be renamed to something akin to a Truth and Reconciliation Commission but some institution will be charged with maintaining truth by repression of speakers of untruth. I assure you the kindly inquisitors under whatever their new name will have no doubts they're doing what is right. It will help if the silencing is done by self censorship, but if that fails, other means are at hand. Targeting speakers is the most effective way of targeting speech. Hence the decision made to expand the extent of the Broadcasting Act to cover user generated content, even if only in principle, and not yet implemented, signals the direction in which Canadian society is heading..The idea these laws could have been improved by better “policy conversations” fails to engage the strength of the social forces that are ranged against freedom of speech. These laws, incoherently drafted as they are, emerge from profound intolerance for the ideas of the Enlightenment. Others besides the ISCC, such as Michael Geist and Peter Menzies, have written about the brutal processes that have marked the passage of these bills. The government was not remotely interested in conversing about its assumptions, methods or goals..My experience in government convinced me every cubic millimeter of jurisdiction will eventually be occupied, no matter how absurd it may seem at the time the legislation is written. People will follow the inner logic of the statutes they are assigned to administer, eventually..Once the decision was made that the totality of media policy was reducible to concerns for Canadian content, the conclusions flowed like a river in flood. All video content must be subject to regulation. Exemptions will be temporary..To conclude, governments in the western world are seeking greater control of the internet. In Canada a comprehensive scheme of governmental control was at hand, called “broadcasting.” We should not assume the efforts to control the internet — including the former entity called the press — were caused by obsolescent industries or those privileged by the existing regime, though they helped. Nor should we assume these measures came out of the minds of bureaucrats in Heritage Department, to the exclusion of deeper influences..What lends force to the flood of illiberal intolerance is the belief, strongly held, people ought to live in a world of safety, as felt by the most hypersensitive. The drive to emotional safetyism is powerful. Its end goal is orthodoxy. This is how I explain why things like C-11 and C-18, and the measures of control that will follow, have not aroused a revolt, and in fact may be approved of by many..The Internet Society, Canada Chapter, will continue its efforts to maintain a free and affordable Internet. But we must acknowledge that those who seek after enforced orthodoxy are in the ascendant. For the time being..My thanks to you all for your patient attention and for your efforts on behalf of the society. We have much yet to do."
Timothy Denton is a former CRTC national commissioner. Based in North Hatley, Que., he is chair of the Internet Society of Canada Chapter, which held its annual general meeting this week..In this message to its members he outlines the threats to freedom of expression and other liberties being posed by those who aspire to control the internet.."I will move to the issue that most concerns me. It is neither C-11 or C-18, the two laws recently passed that bring chaos and disorder to the Canadian Internet. Nor is it the power of the platforms and what to do about them which, I submit, were susceptible to much more discrete and limited remedies..I am concerned with a rising tide which is seeking after orthodoxy. I do not think C-18 or C-11 can be adequately explained without factoring in an illiberal tendency in government and in sectors of society that distrust free expression..A recent study for the CATO Institute showed that three in 10 Americans under 30 wanted government video surveillance in the home, and the link between younger age groups and this desire was strongly correlated. The distributed and anarchic features of the internet are proving intolerable to many. It would be difficult to say which factor threatens the internet more: established commercial interests facing oblivion, or the intolerant and anxious spirit of the age..The American social scientist Jonathan Haidt researched this issue. A generation of young people were protected from all harm and risk in the material world, but exposed to contention and turmoil in the digital. They have come to believe that debate is wrong, as debate implies doubt, and doubt produces anxiety. This has led to a demand people be protected from feeling “unsafe.”.Many people have come to expect the triumph of justice is impeded, but will not be prevented, by those of differing opinions or beliefs. If governments could just lean hard enough on the dissenting minorities, then the progress of society can be assured. Even if, as I believe, that these are not dissenting minorities, but dissenting majorities..The concerns of anxious safety seekers would be of no effect without government backing..For their own reasons, and in a separate stream of causation, the proponents of more government controls over thoughts and expressions arrived at the view the society we live in is fundamentally illegitimate. The attack on the liberal political order is broad and deep and proceeds on several fronts. The constitutional order, with its origins in European colonization of the American continent, is seen to be illegitimate. Worse, it is showing every sign of success. Where it ends or whether it ends is unclear, but do not be in doubt: its goal is the delegitimization of pre-existing Canadian society which was, and remains, a liberal one..By liberal I mean a society concerned with and founded on the rights of individuals. In principle the liberal order did not privilege one group or groups over others. It sought equality of opportunity and gradually recognized broader and broader classes of people for recognition and protections. It recognized groups, but not group rights. It was concerned with the quality of education but not with the establishment of orthodoxy..A liberal society assumes the legitimacy of actual debate. It is confident of its premises. It tolerates not knowing the truth, but actively seeks after it by processes of inquiry, which may well be combative in nature but which rest on the pillar of doubt, or skeptical inquiry if you prefer. A liberal society is extremely cautious about the dangers of dogmatic certainty..Doubt is the enemy of orthodoxy. Seekers after certainty resist free discussion. Hence they seek to control “the narrative.”.The measures I see being taken in bills like C-11 and C-18, and others to come, seek the institutionalization of orthodoxy, which is Greek for right opinion. The measures proposed and approved by government assume the truth cannot and must not be doubted, that a particular kind of knowledge (theirs) is certain, that differing opinions are a form of subversion, and that not merely are opinions to be combatted, but that measures ought to be taken to silence by any means available the expression of unorthodox views (dubbed misinformation, false narratives)..If this trend continues, we shall soon be back to the Spain and Portugal of the 17th century. The Office of Inquisition will be renamed to something akin to a Truth and Reconciliation Commission but some institution will be charged with maintaining truth by repression of speakers of untruth. I assure you the kindly inquisitors under whatever their new name will have no doubts they're doing what is right. It will help if the silencing is done by self censorship, but if that fails, other means are at hand. Targeting speakers is the most effective way of targeting speech. Hence the decision made to expand the extent of the Broadcasting Act to cover user generated content, even if only in principle, and not yet implemented, signals the direction in which Canadian society is heading..The idea these laws could have been improved by better “policy conversations” fails to engage the strength of the social forces that are ranged against freedom of speech. These laws, incoherently drafted as they are, emerge from profound intolerance for the ideas of the Enlightenment. Others besides the ISCC, such as Michael Geist and Peter Menzies, have written about the brutal processes that have marked the passage of these bills. The government was not remotely interested in conversing about its assumptions, methods or goals..My experience in government convinced me every cubic millimeter of jurisdiction will eventually be occupied, no matter how absurd it may seem at the time the legislation is written. People will follow the inner logic of the statutes they are assigned to administer, eventually..Once the decision was made that the totality of media policy was reducible to concerns for Canadian content, the conclusions flowed like a river in flood. All video content must be subject to regulation. Exemptions will be temporary..To conclude, governments in the western world are seeking greater control of the internet. In Canada a comprehensive scheme of governmental control was at hand, called “broadcasting.” We should not assume the efforts to control the internet — including the former entity called the press — were caused by obsolescent industries or those privileged by the existing regime, though they helped. Nor should we assume these measures came out of the minds of bureaucrats in Heritage Department, to the exclusion of deeper influences..What lends force to the flood of illiberal intolerance is the belief, strongly held, people ought to live in a world of safety, as felt by the most hypersensitive. The drive to emotional safetyism is powerful. Its end goal is orthodoxy. This is how I explain why things like C-11 and C-18, and the measures of control that will follow, have not aroused a revolt, and in fact may be approved of by many..The Internet Society, Canada Chapter, will continue its efforts to maintain a free and affordable Internet. But we must acknowledge that those who seek after enforced orthodoxy are in the ascendant. For the time being..My thanks to you all for your patient attention and for your efforts on behalf of the society. We have much yet to do."
