April 11, 2024 • 48 mins
Michael Geist delves into the troubling rise of antisemitism in Canada, highlighting the challenges Jewish students encounter in academia and its broader societal effects. He also scrutinizes the Online Harms Act, assessing its ability to curb online hate while maintaining free expression, all discussed alongside host Aaron Pete.
Michael Geist is a prominent Internet and e-commerce law expert. He holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. An advocate for digital rights, Geist influences public policy on privacy, copyright, and access to information. His work, featured in national and international publications and his widely-read blog, positions him as a key figure in shaping discussions on internet governance and digital freedoms.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Aaron Pete (00:00):
Welcome back to another episode of the Bigger
Than Me podcast.
Here is your host, aaron P.
There's a rise in antisemitismin Canada and it concerns me.
I don't find that our politicalleaders are speaking out enough
against it.
I'm speaking with a prominentvoice on this issue and the
Online Harms Act.
My guest today is Michael Geist.
(00:21):
Michael, thank you so much forbeing willing to sit back down.
It was such an honor to speakwith you the first time.
Very briefly, would you mindreintroducing yourself for
people who might not beacquainted?
Michael Geist (00:34):
Yeah, sure, happy to, and thanks again for
having me on.
My name is Michael Geist.
I'm a law professor at theUniversity of Ottawa, where I
hold the Canada Research Chairin Internet and E-commerce Law,
which essentially means that Ifocus on, in many ways, the
intersection between law, policyand technology, and I've been
pretty active on especially someof the government's recent
(00:54):
proposals on trying to doexactly that.
Aaron Pete (00:57):
We have a lot to cover.
The first area that I'd like totalk to you about is what's
happened since October 7th andthe events that have been going
on.
You've been very vocal and I'vehad the opportunity to follow
your work, specifically onLinkedIn and the posts you make,
and I find that you have verythoughtful responses to what's
going on and you wrote a greatarticle about some of the events
(01:17):
that have taken place and theanti-Semitism.
Would you mind covering some ofthe work that's gone on since
October 7th?
Michael Geist (01:24):
Would you mind covering some of the work that's
gone on since October 7th?
Sure, and it's a challengingissue.
I have to say that you know,what we've witnessed on the
streets in Canada and, frankly,around the world, is something
that I never would have imagined.
I can appreciate that there aredifferent perspectives on
what's taking place in Israeland in Gaza right now.
I have my own.
(01:44):
I know others may have adifferent view, but to see the
spillover of anti-Semitism andhate onto the streets in Canada,
online in Canada, to see it inmany other places where I'm a
member of the Jewish community,and to see so many in the Jewish
community really put at riskwith the kinds of activities and
(02:04):
targets that we've seen atJewish community centers, at
schools, at Jewish-ownedbusinesses, at various
communities, at hospitals,sometimes disingenuously claim
that it's not the target,although it just certainly feels
like it's not random, and Idon't think we've seen leaders
step up in the way that we oughtto have seen.
(02:26):
And there seems to be.
Not only is there littlestopping it, but, if anything,
it continues to accelerate andwhat becomes seemingly for some
acceptable or normal justcontinues to escalate in a way
that, as I say I must admit Inever really thought would have
been imaginable in a countrylike ours.
Aaron Pete (02:48):
Can you help us understand this issue from your
perspective, because I look atit as a First Nations person and
if some of the things thatyou've posted about that have
been put out about Jewish peoplewere done about First Nations
people, we would be putting innew laws, we would be working
incredibly hard.
I feel like there would berallies, there would be protests
, there would be an overwhelmingresponse to some of the things
(03:10):
that have been said and it'sbeen shocking for me to watch
because, again, if I put myselfin that circumstance and if it
said a different name other thana Jewish person, I imagine that
the response would beincredibly, overwhelmingly
strong and politicians would becoming out.
What is going on?
Why is there this difference?
Michael Geist (03:28):
Yeah, I feel the same way you do.
I say that as a Jewish person,but I think back to.
You know the kinds of issuesthat have arisen where different
communities have felt targetedand needed support over the
years, whether that was BlackLives Matter, whether that was
issues around reconciliationthat we've seen and what we
learned about broadly for manyof us around residential schools
(03:52):
and the desire to step up,whether it's some of the
misogyny that we've seen takeplace at times where women have
been targets and it feels likecommunities have come together.
And in this instance, almostfrom day one, almost from
October 8th, the Jewishcommunity has felt targeted.
I realize that there aredifferences of opinion about
(04:14):
Israel's response to what wasthe worst massacre since the
Holocaust for the Jewishcommunity and I don't think it
should surprise anyone that theJewish community, still reeling
from that, israel, still reelingfrom that, has responded and,
as I say, there are differentviews about that response.
But regardless, the targetingof the community at times simply
(04:38):
using the term Zionist for thekind of language that frankly
would have never been acceptableI mean to talk about Jewish
doctors and Jewish lawyers orJewish politicians in ways that
you know has strong anti-Semiticnotions and connotations,
oftentimes directly anti-Semiticand to think that it's okay but
I called them a Zionist instead, I personally think is wrong.
(05:02):
And you know, for years there'sbeen debate around what's known
as the IRA definition, adefinition dealing with
anti-Semitism, and one of theconcerns was that it might limit
the ability to criticize Israeleven as one does not intend to
be anti-Semitic.
And the IRA definition, you know, sought to make the case that
at times that some of thosecriticisms do go over the line
(05:23):
anti-Semitic and the IRAdefinition, you know, sought to
make the case that at that timesthat some of those criticisms
do go over the line.
And you know, I must admit,there were times where I wasn't
really sure where I would fallon that.
But to see what I've seen overthe last number of months
highlights that I actually thinkthat the concerns that were
expressed through thatdefinition, I think actually
were entirely accurate.
And, as I say, we see speech,we see threats, we see
(05:47):
activities that I think you'reright, targeted at any other
community would have been bothunacceptable.
Leaders would not be afraid tospeak out, they would be kind of
lining up at the podium tospeak out, and I think we would
see law enforcement and othercommunity leaders being far more
aggressive in seeking to ensurethat, frankly, that all
(06:08):
Canadians, regardless of theirperspectives on these kinds of
issues, feel safe, and that's,frankly, something where we are
not at right now in Canada.
Aaron Pete (06:16):
I'm sorry to ask you to do this, but I do imagine
that some of my listeners don'tkeep up with the news to the
same extent.
They may not have a full graspof what took place on October
7th.
Would you feel comfortablesomewhat summarizing the events
that took place that day?
You mentioned that it's rightup there with the Holocaust,
would you mind, just for thoseindividuals who might not have
kept up with it or understoodthe gravity of the situation?
Michael Geist (06:39):
Right.
Well, to be clear, it is notright up there with the
Holocaust.
The Holocaust involved the massmurder of six million Jews and
another million or more of otherethnicities, but it was the
Jewish community that was themost targeted and in my case it
was quite literally.
Many members of my family werewiped out.
(06:59):
This was not that to beabsolutely clear, but it was the
largest number of Jews thatwere killed in a single day
since the Holocaust.
And in that instance, hamas, aknown terrorist organization
registered as a terroristorganization in Canada, came in
(07:20):
from the Gaza Strip into Israeland engaged, frankly, in
activities, in barbaricactivities that remain
unimaginable Killing wholefamilies, killing children in
front of the parents and thenkilling the parents, burning
many of those individualsengaging in, now confirmed yet
(07:42):
again by a UN official engagingin sexual assault, rape of some
of the very worst kind,targeting both Kibbutzim these
communities that were locatednear the Gaza Strip targeting a
music festival, the Nova MusicFestival, and there were victims
(08:03):
from many, many different partsof the world.
It wasn't just people fromIsrael and then, alongside that,
taking several hundred hostages, and there are still over a
hundred hostages that are stillthere, and when we're talking
about hostages.
We're, in some instances, quiteliterally talking about babies,
talking about elderly women and, to you know, under any
(08:27):
circumstance we would see thatas just an act of terror.
That is almost without parallelin terms of our thinking.
I mean, we tend to think backto 9-11, and yet the scale,
particularly relative to thesize of Israel, was so much more
dramatic, the barbarism thattook place was so much more
dramatic, and so, from myperspective, unsurprisingly,
(08:51):
israel has taken a position thatthat simply can't happen again
and that the perpetrators ofthat Hamas, who embed themselves
within communities, withincivilians, has to be destroyed.
I mean, they simply can't havethat capability to do that again
.
Aaron Pete (09:10):
That is a lot to take in and I somewhat don't
want to get into thewhataboutisms about what's
actually going on in theconflict and I know that there's
more expert voices on thosetopics than I could ever provide
or questions that could beasked that I wouldn't be able to
go to those depths on.
So I don't really want to getinto the conflict.
But people here in Canada havereally nothing to do with what's
(09:31):
going on over there Jewishpeople living their life with
their families.
They're not involved in thatconflict in a direct way and so
they deserve peace, happiness,the pursuit of happiness.
They deserve to be able to livea normal life and it seems like
they're being targeted andthey're not involved.
Would you mind explaining whyCanadians are being targeted
(09:53):
when they're so far from theconflict here in Canada?
Michael Geist (09:56):
Right.
Well, listen, there are peopleboth of course, who were left
reeling from October 7th andresponded to that.
There are people who have seenthe response and obviously it's
been awful to see what has takenplace in Gaza, since it's
tragic to see the amount ofdeath that's taken place and
(10:18):
want that to stop.
I'd submit the way to make thatstop is for Hamas to stop, but
nevertheless I understand thereare strong perspectives on all
sides when it comes to thisparticular issue.
But rather than targeting withprotests and of course protests
are legit as long as they don'tbleed into violence and other
(10:42):
unlawful activities but makingone's views known to the Israeli
government via consulate or anembassy, to the Canadian
government via Parliament Hillor other places, to sort of try
to influence their views on thisstrike me as wholly legitimate.
But one of the things that wehave seen is targeting.
As I say, we've seen shots firedat Jewish schools, graffiti and
(11:05):
other violence at Jewishcommunity centers, targeted
vandalism at Jewish-ownedbusinesses really echoes of,
frankly, of the Holocaust ofNazi Germany when we saw some of
those take place.
I'm not saying this is NaziGermany, but there are certainly
echoes in terms of kind of howJews have been targeted in this
(11:25):
way.
I think that happens, of course, because Israel is identified
as the one state that has beenrepresentative of the Jewish
people, and so Jews are seen assomehow responsible for this.
It does seem to me that much ofwhat takes place is really
almost this flowering ofanti-Semitism.
(11:46):
That may have been latent, thatmay not have been as visible
for a long period of time, but Iguess I have a hard time
believing that.
Surely some of this must havebeen there before, and this has
provided, for some at least, aconvenient excuse to exercise
some of those views.
Aaron Pete (12:02):
What is anti-Semitism from your
perspective?
Michael Geist (12:06):
Well, anti-semitism to me, is really
understood right now astargeting Jews and Jewish
community as Jews.
It's in some instancestargeting, treating them in an
unfair or biased manner.
It is vilifying them, it isengaging frankly in hate towards
(12:27):
the community and, as I say, insome of the protests we see
some of that taking place inways that are, I know, for my
community, very scary.
Aaron Pete (12:37):
You mentioned that some of this didn't, not all of
this started after October 7th,that this somewhat existed prior
.
Why do you think that is?
How do you process that?
As a person Like, I again putmyself in the shoes of like.
I'm a First Nations person andso if people hated me, I'd be
like, well, like what?
Like, if there was this, this,this dislike, I just I can't
(12:59):
imagine it in any othercircumstance and it makes me
uncomfortable to think that thishas existed and continues to
exist.
It's just hard for my brain toeven wrap myself around this
concept.
Michael Geist (13:11):
Well, listen, I mean, anti-semitism is one of
the oldest forms of hatred inmany ways.
I mean, jews have been facingthis for literally millennia, as
we've gone through periodswhere, literally millennia, as
we've gone through periods where, gone from community to
community, rarely having a spacethat was a protected space, and
(13:34):
oftentimes being driven fromdifferent kinds of communities,
viewed as the other and you know, obviously there's many
communities that face some ofthat.
I think it's important torecognize Jewish communities
exist in communities around theworld.
This is not just sort ofEuropean white communities, but
more than half of Israel arepeople that are coming from
different parts of the Arabworld or the Middle East, from
(13:59):
Africa, from other parts in theworld.
It is a true melting pot inmany respects in terms of people
coming from a great manydifferent places, and the fact
that this has been somethingthat has recurred again and
again and again is also, I think, it is hard for me to wrap my
(14:19):
brain around and I feel, assomeone privileged to have been
born and raised in Canada,although the descendant of
Holocaust survivors, that I feltthat much of this was put
behind us, that there was asafety in Canada, that this was
gone.
But I must admit, post-october7th has been a wake-up call, I
(14:42):
think for many that in fact itseems that for each generation
the Jewish community will oftenface some of these issues, and
it feels like we're facing ityet again.
Aaron Pete (14:54):
You mentioned in one of your articles that
politicians have remainedrelatively silent on this issue.
Would you mind elaborating?
Michael Geist (15:02):
Sure it's.
You know, listen, and I thinkyou did a nice.
You know you made, I think,appropriate comment to say that
you know if this had targetedother communities, I think that
we would, that politicians wouldnot be reticent to speak out,
and I think too often they havebeen in this case.
I think in the early instancesthere was an attempt to sort of
(15:23):
just frame this broadly.
As you know, please don'tengage in hate, try to create
equivalencies that I don't thinkwere there, especially early on
, where I think the Jewishcommunity has been really the
target.
I think there's beenIslamophobia as well.
I think we need to speak outagainst that as well.
I think we need to speak outagainst that as well.
But I mean, the sheer numberstell us quite clearly that the
(15:46):
Jewish community, oftentimes avery, very small part of a
community, are often the mosttargeted community for hate
crimes in city after city acrossCanada.
And I think our federalpoliticians have often not
spoken clearly and unequivocallyin the way that they could and
should.
And I think the same is trueoften in our local communities.
(16:07):
You know it's often the mayors,chiefs of police that we look
to.
I mean, there are some laws onthe books.
We can debate about theapplication of those laws, but
what should be beyond debate isthat we require and need
community leaders to step up.
We need people who are notJewish to step up and speak out
as well, and there certainlyhave been many that have.
(16:30):
But I can tell you candidlythat I know that there are many
people that feel a sense ofbetrayal that they may have been
active, that Jewish communitiesstood side by side on other
issues and yet there has beenrelative silence at times when
it comes to this issue, andthat's certainly discouraging
and it's a little bit hard totake.
Aaron Pete (16:50):
David Eby, our premier here in British Columbia
, has just come out and saidthat he's going to end
anti-Semitism in.
It sounds like our province,which is ambitious to say the
least, but this is after one ofthe cabinet ministers just
stepped down saying that theprovincial government wasn't
doing enough.
Do you have any perspectives onkind of the response to the
(17:12):
lack of response?
Michael Geist (17:14):
Listen, you know Celina Robinson, who's, I know,
the cabinet minister formercabinet minister that you're
talking about, you knowacknowledged that what she had
said was wrong, apologized forit.
I think we have seen manyinstances where politicians say
things that that may have been amistake.
We've seen it in this, on theseissues, on a number of
(17:35):
occasions and those apologieshave you know when they've been
forthcoming.
They've often been accepted.
In the case of the one mostprominent active Jewish minister
in that government, itapparently wasn't enough and, um
, you know, I think she she wentand burned down the house a
little bit on her way out bymaking clear, um, how she had
(17:56):
felt, how she had felt how shehad been treated and the
challenges that she had faced asa Jewish member of cabinet.
And so I'm happy that thePremier Eby says he's going to
try going to addressanti-Semitism.
I don't think he is going toend it in the way that no one
else has been.
No one's been able to end it,but it does feel like it comes.
(18:16):
It comes late and it comeshaving failed to address what
was a recurring issue that wasclearly evident, at least to one
of his most notable members ofcabinet, and nothing happened
until it was, in a sense, toolate.
Aaron Pete (18:32):
How do you feel about the federal government's
response?
Justin Trudeau's response.
It does seem like it's veryhard to figure out where they
stand on the war right now andwhat their actual position is.
Michael Geist (18:43):
It is.
It's hard to.
It is hard.
It feels like, well, in someways it feels that it's easy, it
feels that it's drivenprimarily by electoral
calculations as opposed to coreprinciples, and I can appreciate
that the government may have,you know, is trying to balance a
number of perspectives when itcomes to the war, but I don't
think there's anything tobalance when it comes to dealing
with clear signs of hate.
(19:05):
And it's discouraging when youknow, when we see leaders and
includes the Prime Minister sortof fall back on the line that
you know this isn't us, thisisn't Canadians, it turns out it
is, it turns out that this ispart of what we see in Canada
and it requires real leadershipfrom all leaders, including the
Prime Minister, to try to dosomething about it.
Aaron Pete (19:27):
Brilliant.
Did you see the comments madeby Claudine Gay at the
congressional hearing?
Michael Geist (19:34):
Yes, I certainly did.
Aaron Pete (19:36):
Do you have any thoughts that you'd be able to
share on her response toquestions about anti-Semitism
and her leadership's response?
Michael Geist (19:44):
Yeah, I mean, I watched that clip, I think, over
and over and over again becauseI couldn't quite believe what I
was hearing.
You know, the seeming inabilityof university presidents rather
to take an unequivocal standagainst the calling for genocide
(20:06):
, which I believe is the gist ofthe question, was just
mind-boggling.
And you know, I know thatJewish community students,
jewish students on many campusesboth in the united states and
some in canada, have not feltsafe and at times the campuses
(20:27):
and university leaders have beenslow to respond as well.
And it's um, you know, ofcourse.
You know we see future leadersare coming out of there and
we're left to wonder a littlebit how there isn't the ability
to speak clearly on that issueas well.
To be clear, academic freedom isabsolutely essential and people
should be able to haveprotection in that regard.
(20:50):
But that doesn't always.
That doesn't extend necessarilyto say certainly anything you
like in a classroom environment.
That leaves people feelingunsafe and even more just.
Generally, it seems to me thatwe in the academic world, with
my own university, have made apoint of emphasizing the need
(21:11):
for robust discussion and debate, but within a safe space where
everyone feels comfortable andtreated with respect, and I feel
that that has at times.
I'm not going to say thatthat's at my institution, but I
will say that there's certainlybeen institutions where we know
that there are students, facultymembers, that don't feel safe.
Aaron Pete (21:30):
There's this incoherence that I'm having
trouble squaring in regards todiversity, equity and inclusion,
safe spaces, anti-bullyingrules, like all of these
initiatives that speak to thisidea that we need to be able to
do all of this work in a goodway.
Everybody deserves to berepresented, we should make
space for everyone in the room,and a lot of those initiatives
(21:53):
are pushed forward in theinterests of the Black community
, indigenous people, minoritygroups, and then it seems like
that all went out the windowwith Claudine Gay's testimony,
like it just did not seem, likeI couldn't see the consistency
among all of these initiativesthat I hear about all the time,
and then these comments seem tonot be consistent with any of
that.
Michael Geist (22:13):
All of a sudden, I must admit it feels that way
to me as well.
I'm a supporter of thoseinitiatives.
I feel that we have done and wecan continue to do more to
ensure it, certainly in my owninstitution, and I'm glad that
we have tried to make efforts toensure that we can include as
(22:44):
many different perspectives andvoices and try to have faculty
and student bodies that are morereflective of the diversity of
our country, which I think isone of the great things that we
have.
But at the same time, I am attimes left to wonder why, when
it comes to some of theinitiatives designed to ensure a
(23:05):
comfort level for all that,somehow Jews don't seem to count
, and I don't understand why.
Aaron Pete (23:12):
I don't understand why either, but you did make an
amazing post.
It didn't end up airing on theSuper Bowl, I don't't think, but
it was this amazing uh videoabout how this can be addressed.
And it was of this this womanwith her child heading out,
coming home and seeing ananti-semitic uh trope on their
garage wall, and then theirneighbor uh while they were out,
(23:36):
coming and cleaning off andrepainting and fixing it.
And it was that reminder for methat one person can make a
difference, that this isaddressable at the ground level
over time, if we come togetherand we start to work together to
be proud of all ethnicities,all cultures, all values and
work towards uplifting the bestof ourselves.
(23:57):
And I loved that, becausethat's really what this podcast
is about it's thinking biggerthan yourself and being proud of
other people and standing bythem and doing it when you might
not get the recognition, butmoving the world in that
direction.
What did that ad mean to you?
Michael Geist (24:11):
Yeah, no, thank you for that and thank you for
this podcast that you are takingthat perspective and airing
those issues.
I'm really grateful and I agreewith you that ad.
You know, I think for those inthe Jewish community this is a
lived experience, so theyrecognize it.
But you know, as I think thisconversation is highlighting,
you're doing a great job ofhighlighting the fact that there
are many that don't see thisand you know, the Super Bowl, I
(24:34):
suppose, provided an opportunityto bring this to attention of
obviously a large audience, oneof the largest television
audiences of the year and Ithink those kinds of initiatives
at trying to educate arecritically important.
And you know we're at a timethat feels, I must admit, pretty
dark.
Right now.
It's really difficult but atthe same time, seeing other
(24:58):
communities come forward to saythis is wrong and wishing to
speak out and to educate othersabout why it's wrong, provides a
bit of light about a potentialway forward.
Aaron Pete (25:08):
And just to share my personal perspective as, like
an Indigenous person to thisland, I feel like, when we're
having these conversations inCanada, when we talk about
reconciliation and coming backtogether, a I think we need to
appreciate that people have comeover to this country for a very
long time and we have beenwelcoming and I know people like
to take the trope that wedidn't want those outsiders or
(25:30):
there were those early issues.
We wouldn't have Métis peopleif there wasn't some camaraderie
among people coming here asimmigrants and moving here and
coming together.
We wouldn't have that distinctculture and I think they are a
symbol of us coming together,breaking bread and sharing the
best of ourselves and I thinkthat should be highlighted.
But we should also work towardsthat into the future that the
(25:52):
best of us come to this countryand we work hard and we share
our gifts and our uniqueness andthat's what enriches our
culture, it strengthens oursocial fabric, it makes it a
more interesting place and thisis one of my favorite places.
I've gotten to travel but I'm soproud to come from here and
when I see this news it'sfrustrating, and when I see a
leader not standing up againsthate, discrimination, disrespect
(26:16):
, anti-semitism, it's hard towatch because that's not my
Canada, that's not the valuesthat we stood on 100 years ago,
150 years ago, and that's notthe way forward that's going to
make us stronger.
It makes us more vulnerable.
It makes us more divisive, lessclear on issues and less
willing to trust each other inthe grocery store, and that's
just not a Canada that I want tolive in.
(26:36):
It's not a province I want tolive in.
It's not a community I want tolive in.
I want anybody to be able tocome forward on issues and us to
hear them out and work towardssolutions, no matter how small,
because that's what makes ustrust the system.
Other people, when you go inand you're doing your taxes or
you go into your account, youwant to know that you're going
to have that good rapport, andwhen people don't get that, that
makes them feel disconnectedfrom the community, and that's
(26:58):
not how you want people to feelwhen we're talking about mental
health, wellness and living afull and meaningful life.
And so having your post is aconstant reminder that I can
play a role in this, that I canbe a leader on these issues in
ways, small and big to try andpush issues forward and make
sure that we have constructiveconversations.
Michael Geist (27:23):
So I appreciate all of the posts you've made
about that.
Oh well, thank you for that andthank you for those thanks, but
even more thank you for whatyou just said.
You know, that's a vision ofCanada that I entirely agree
with this is.
You know, I too have traveled alot and I always come home.
And I come home because this isa country that has so much to
offer and I've long believedthat diversity truly is our
strength, perhaps the mostimportant strength that we have.
(27:46):
I see it in my classrooms, Isee it in my communities, and it
makes it particularly painfulwhen one group within those
communities are left to feelunsafe and targeted in the way
that we've seen and when, attimes, leaders don't step up to
try to preserve and affirm thevery best in Canada, which, at
(28:10):
times, I don't feel like thatwe've seen enough of, at least
from some of our leaders.
Aaron Pete (28:16):
Agreed.
Now let's get on to some lawsthat have been coming through.
The Online Harms Act Would youmind sharing what that is and
what your perspective is?
Michael Geist (28:26):
Okay, changing the channel in certain respects,
but not completely so, becauseonline hate is, in fact, one of
the elements within Bill C-63.
And so Bill C-63, the OnlineHarms Act, is essentially the
third of the government's threeintended digital laws.
So they started, some of yourviewers and listeners may recall
(28:47):
, with Bill C-10, which becameBill C-11, which was the online
streaming bill.
Then we had Bill C-18, whichwas the online news bill.
The Online Harms Act was reallydesigned as the third in those,
and so all of them, in a sense,were supposed to be about
addressing the responsibility oflarge Internet platforms,
either with respect to cultureand streaming, broadcast type
(29:09):
activities or news, or now theharms that may take place on
their platforms.
So that's the bill thegovernment had with respect to
those questions, the questionsof the responsibility of
(29:43):
internet platforms when it comesto these issues.
I think they've done a prettygood job.
We can get into it if you like.
The bill has attracted a fairamount of criticism, though, and
one of the reasons for that isthat that's not all the bill
does.
It also includes changes to thecriminal code, changes to the
Human Rights Commission that orHuman Rights Act that have, I
think, rightly, created someamount of concern.
(30:06):
So this is a bill that isperhaps better than we might
have expected based on the priorexperience with the other bills
, but there is still some roomfor improvement and, frankly,
some elements that I think thegovernment would be best off
removing altogether.
Aaron Pete (30:19):
What are some of the things that you have concerns
about in regards to the act?
Michael Geist (30:23):
Okay, so thanks for that.
So, as I say, this is a billthat is really, in some ways, at
least two bills in one.
There's the internet platformpart of the bill.
You know what responsibility dointernet platforms, or should
internet platforms, have withrespect to various harms that
take place online?
And then there is this secondelement that isn't about the
(30:44):
internet platforms at all, butis about hate, both online and
offline, which creates someprovisions dealing specifically
that make changes to both thecriminal code and then to the
Human Rights Act.
If I focus first on theinternet platform piece, which
(31:21):
is the largest part of the billand, as I say, was at least act
responsibly on the part ofplatforms and then trying to
flesh out a little bit what thatmight mean, and I think they
did a pretty good job of that.
If I do have a concern with thataspect of the bill, it's the
enforcement piece, because itenvisions creating a whole new
entity, a digital safetycommission, and I think that
that is not as well developed asit needs to be.
(31:42):
There's a lot of power that isbeing vested in this new
commission.
There isn't, I don't think,enough oversight.
There are real concerns aboutboth the power and then the
constraints on that power andthe oversight, and so I think
that there is work that stillneeds to be done on that issue,
on the elements of sort of theduties and the oversight, and so
(32:02):
I think that there is work thatstill needs to be done on that
issue, on the elements of sortof the duties and the harms.
I think, as I say, it's apretty good starting point that
I'm sure will be tweaked, butthe government did a pretty
reasonable job with Is thereconcerns around censorship in
this bill?
Yeah, so people have raisedconcerns.
I must admit I don't think themajor concerns come out of the
Online Harms Act piece, thepiece with the internet
(32:22):
platforms.
There are a couple of instancesthat are kinds of content that
are identified potentially asthe sort of content that might
be taken down really only two.
It's content that sexuallyvictimizes a child, or intimate
content that's communicatedwithout consent, often referred
(32:42):
to as revenge porn.
So those two kinds of contentthe law speaks or the bill
speaks to the need to remove inan expeditious fashion within 24
hours.
There is still a review processafterwards that may involve
putting the content back if it'snot found to have violated the
law, but by and large it's not alaw that seeks to sort of
remove content off the bat,which I think is a good thing
(33:05):
when there have been concerns.
So I don't think that there areas significant concerns.
I mean, there are concerns.
There are always going to besome concerns about where we
strike the balance on freedom ofexpression.
But the censorship issues don'tcome into play within that
framework nearly to the extentto which they do around the
(33:26):
Criminal Code and Human RightsAct side lines about what's
appropriate and what isn't, andthis law doesn't, except for the
couple pieces of kinds ofcontent that I mentioned, does
not sort of prescribe moretakedowns.
That might be where the policylands in some instances, but
(33:48):
that's not sort of the go-toapproach.
Where there are concerns I thinkrightly so around potential
censorship or even more perhaps,chilling of speech comes from
the Criminal Code and even morethe Human Rights Act provisions.
The Criminal Code concerns stem, at least in part, from
(34:12):
concerns that there arepenalties that are included
there that are viewed as being Ithink rightly so so
disproportionate relative topotentially the crime.
And in the case of the HumanRights Act this re-invokes an
approach that we used to havebut then was taken away and now
it's being brought back again,which allows people to bring
(34:33):
complaints about communicationsof hatred to the Human Rights
Commission.
There are concerns, I think,with some justification, that
that may result in sort ofalmost a weaponizing of the
system, where we start seeingcomplaints flow back and forth.
I mean, we just spent the firstbunch of your podcasts talking
specifically about some of thiskind of hate.
(34:54):
One could well imagine groups oneither side using this system
to file a whole series ofcomplaints.
There's liability that accruesto that.
Of course.
That can have a chilling effect, and I'm not sure that it deals
with some of the fundamentalissues that we have been talking
about, whether it is that kindof hate that we see, or even
about concerns related to theamplification of that hatred at
(35:19):
times on various platforms.
It doesn't deal with thoseissues, and so I think we could
have a reasonable debate aboutit.
I think, frankly, thegovernment could have excluded
it altogether, brought itforward as a separate bill and,
to some of your earlierquestions said, one of the ways
we want to lead with hatred orcombating hatred is with this
(35:40):
legislation that deals with somecriminal code changes or Human
Rights Act changes, specificallyin an attempt to try to say we
want to increase the penaltiesor we want to find ways to
ensure that the laws fit forpurpose in this regard, but
instead, by bringing it alltogether in this almost omnibus
bill, I think they may beputting the whole thing at risk
in this almost omnibus bill.
Aaron Pete (36:00):
I think they may be putting the whole thing at risk.
Vashi Kaplos did an interviewwith a Facebook whistleblower
who had left to talk about someof the problems that exist
internally with big techcompanies in regards to the
information that they're forcedto share with the general public
and with researchers tounderstand how they deal with it
, and, from her perspective, myunderstanding was that she felt
that these companies weren'tdoing enough to address it and
(36:23):
they knew internally, if theyput more budget towards
addressing some of the hateonline, that they could have a
significant impact and that theyknew their platforms were
having an impact.
They just didn't want to put inthe money to address it.
And the whistleblower on theshow commended this bill and
supported it, because one of thebig pieces that it sounds like
it's going to do is give accessto some of the background
(36:45):
research on the impacts andmaking sure that companies
actually follow through.
Is that your understanding aswell?
Michael Geist (36:52):
It is my understanding that that's what
the government has in mind and Iam aware that you know that
obviously has supporters.
So it is my understanding.
I think there may be value.
I think you can make the case.
There is value in that researchside.
I think there are some risksassociated with it, though you
know we shouldn't forget, forexample, that the Cambridge
(37:13):
Analytica case, which reallybecame sort of the really almost
the preeminent privacy casefrom Facebook, where there were
a lot of concerns, came out of aresearch initiative, and so
there are risks associated withthis, and I think that we will
need careful study to ensurethat.
You know, the benefits that canaccrue from providing the
(37:36):
ability to engage in thatresearch are there, but at the
same time, we more data abouthow they've gone ahead and
actually dealt with those issuesaccess.
(38:16):
But it's the transparency piecethat I think is in many ways,
even more important, becausewhat the legislation talks about
is a requirement to put forwarda digital safety plan that will
require the platforms, whetherFacebook or otherwise, to be
much more open and candid aboutwhat it is that they do and then
provide real data on what it isthat they've done.
And you know, I thinklegislation that advances that
(38:37):
objective.
I think that part of it isactually a really good aspect of
the bill.
Aaron Pete (38:42):
I know you're not a political analyst, but Pierre
took a swing at this bill rightout of the gate, before even
reading it, and criticized it.
What are your thoughts on hisinitial critique?
Michael Geist (39:08):
And do you think his position is going to move
to create age verification forkids trying to access
pornography?
Which who would generally beagainst that, except for the
privacy risks associated withage verification technologies?
The prospect of websiteblocking?
The broad approach thatactually targets not just
(39:28):
pornographic sites but searchengines, social media companies?
There's a lot of problems withthis bill.
Conservative government so far,conservative party so far, has
been pretty supportive of thatbill.
It's been a bit of a.
I'm a bit surprised to see that,given some of the risks
associated with that bill and onthis bill, you know, I can't
say I'm at all surprised that tothe extent to which there are
(39:50):
concerns about censorship andspeech, well, you know that's
been.
That's pretty on brand for theparty to speak out against it
and I'm grateful that they haveif there's overstepping.
At the same time, it does seemto me certainly some of the
children related harms and evensome of the other harms, whether
on violence or terrorism or onhate, are the sorts of things
(40:11):
that I would have thought mostcould agree on.
We may disagree on how we getthere and it seems to me that
there really is and remains anavenue to be supportive of the
good elements in the bill whileat the same time taking a strong
position against places wherethe bill has overstepped.
And we'll see if the positionsevolve over time.
(40:34):
As we record this, it's stillpretty early days.
The legislation hasn't beendebated yet in the House,
obviously still going to head tocommittee.
So I think there's still spacefor, frankly, for the government
to adjust and for oppositionparties to calibrate their
positions on that bill.
Aaron Pete (40:51):
Should we ban TikTok ?
Michael Geist (40:54):
No, that was the easiest question you've asked,
because you've had a bunch ofhard ones.
No, we should not.
That doesn't mean we shouldn'tregulate TikTok, but banning, in
this instance, first of all, islikely to be ineffective.
People will still be able toaccess the app, it just won't be
(41:15):
updated.
If ever were to be banned, it'slikely to increase the power of
some of its competitors, and sowe end up with more dominance
for Instagram, let's say.
I'm not sure that that'snecessarily a great thing, but,
most fundamentally, it seems tome that a strong case of the
national security risks haven'treally been made and the
(41:37):
concerns that arise out ofsocial media apps, which are
very real, whether it is privacyor competition or
disinformation campaigns, thereare a whole series of different
risks that are associated withthem.
Those are not exclusive toTikTok, and so I would much
prefer to see governments ensurethat they've got widely
(41:58):
applicable regulations that dealwith some of those issues, as
opposed to singling out a singleentity, presumably because it
has the connections to China, asopposed to trying to grapple
more directly with, let's say,disinformation, which is a very
real issue, and certainly indemocracies thinking about or
(42:21):
looking ahead to electioncampaigns, whether the one this
year in the United States, orprobably a year from now in
Canada.
We need to deal with thosekinds of issues.
I'm not convinced that banninga single app is going to do that
, though.
Aaron Pete (42:35):
We've seen an increase in F Trudeau signs.
We've seen a lot of pushbackagainst his leadership over, I
would say, the past six months.
A larger and larger response.
If I look at any of the recentpolls, he's not doing well in
popularity.
A lot of that is just.
I think politicians have ashelf life and they start to
reach that.
(42:55):
You certainly don't strike meas a partisan person by any
stretch of the imagination, sothis isn't a partisan question
about the current leader of theday.
It's more just.
What are your thoughts on himas a leader?
Where is he at when you look atall the laws that he's put
forward?
I'm just curious as to whatyour perspective is, because you
really get into theunderstanding of what are some
(43:16):
of the ideas that he's bringingforward in some of these
documents.
I know he's not writing themhimself, but his government has
put forward so many ideas overhis tenure.
What are your thoughts onJustin Trudeau?
Michael Geist (43:26):
You know, I think that there are things that
the government has done thatare with us to stay.
That, I think, are really goodthings, you know.
I think the emphasis on youknow even symbolic emphasis and
it's not purely symbolic, buteven just the ability to say
that a gender equal cabinet thatyou know we want to ensure that
(43:48):
there are opportunities forwomen and we want to ensure that
there are opportunities forpeople coming from all different
perspectives I think has been areally valuable contribution
and one that you know wasperhaps more controversial or
something we'd never seen inCanada before.
We saw it, and so I think wesee that I think some of the
things that have been done onchild care have provided real
opportunities for people.
(44:08):
So I think people that look ata government's record and see
only the negative and I knowthat there are people out there,
I think so you know misssomething.
There are always going to beshades of gray, and any
government that's been in powerthis long is going to make
mistakes and is going to do somethings that many of us will
agree with, I think you know.
(44:29):
I think they, of course, madesome mistakes during COVID, but
I think they also did a lot ofthings right during COVID as
well, and that was, you know,they moved quickly to try to
address any number of issues,which I think was a good thing.
That said, I think that much ofthe promise that the government
had when it first came intopower around issues that some of
the issues that I focus ontransparency and access to
(44:52):
information, consultativeapproaches on things We've seen
those diminish over time and youknow, I think it's undeniable
that on some of those issues,they simply haven't lived up to
what they had promised.
On other of those issues, it'sbecome, I think, a more
defensive posture and I findthat discouraging and, as you
(45:14):
say, perhaps it is that allgovernments run out of steam
after a period of time and youknow, certainly it's hard to
escape the conclusion that inthis instance at a minimum, even
if you're a supporter of thatgovernment, I think it's
undeniable that many of thekinds of principles and things
that that government stood forwhen running for office back in
2015, when first elected, someof those things either just
(45:35):
haven't been the kinds ofprinciples and things that that
government stood for whenrunning for office back in 2015,
when first elected.
Some of those things eitherjust haven't been fulfilled or
just have no longer.
No longer are the prioritiesthat we once thought they might
have been.
Aaron Pete (45:48):
Would you mind telling people how they can keep
up to date with your work?
I am certainly a fan.
When you post something onLinkedIn, it's one of the first
things that pops up on myalgorithm, because I'm so
interested in your work.
But how can people keep up?
Michael Geist (46:00):
Okay, that's cool.
So the algorithm is working, atleast on that social media
platform.
So they can find me, I guess,first and foremost on my own
website, at michaelgeistca.
That's where they can findlinks to my regular podcast, law
Bites, which is focused on thedigital policy-related stuff, as
well as regular blogging andother sorts of activities.
They can find me on Twitter or,I suppose, x, at Mgeist, at
(46:23):
M-G-E-I-S-T, but then they canalso find me on LinkedIn or Blue
Sky or Mastodon they're there,oh and also on Substack.
So I've got a Substack thatalso includes both my regular
podcast and my posts.
Aaron Pete (46:39):
Michael, you're one of my favorite voices.
I do find that this realm thatwe're in the podcasting, the
posting world, it leads peopledown more outrageous, more bold,
more clickbait, more going downthat path in order to gain an
audience, in order to garnersomething, and it's a challenge
I totally get it for so manypeople that you're going to do
(47:01):
something, you want to have thataudience.
That's a tough thing that youwant to chase, but I've always
found that you're reasonable,you're thoughtful, you give both
perspectives, you try and bemiddle grounded on these issues
and you try and call things outwhere they need to be called out
, but also show the respect ofwhere the motivation is coming
from for some of these ideas.
And I think that's so importantwhen we see journalism facing
(47:23):
different types of challengesand traditional media facing
different types of challenges.
When you're willing to do thisindependently, when you're
willing to share your thoughtsand help guide these
conversations in a thoughtfuland constructive way, that's
what we need more of.
So I'm a giant fan of your workand it's always an honor to sit
down with you.
Michael Geist (47:38):
All right, thanks, I'm blushing here, thank
you.
Thank you for those really kindwords and thank you for
providing a forum like this.
You know, so often things arequick and there's not an
opportunity to really get into areal discussion, a serious
discussion on a range of issuesthat are correlated or related
to one another.
(47:59):
And this has been a good.
It's been a really goodconversation and I think you're
really using this platform in aneffective fashion.
Aaron Pete (48:05):
I appreciate it.
Hopefully we get to chat againsoon.
Thank you again for all yourwork.
Michael Geist (48:09):
Okay, thanks for having me.
Welcome back to another episode of the Bigger
Than Me podcast.
Here is your host, aaron P.
There's a rise in antisemitismin Canada and it concerns me.
I don't find that our politicalleaders are speaking out enough
against it.
I'm speaking with a prominentvoice on this issue and the
Online Harms Act.
My guest today is Michael Geist.
(00:21):
Michael, thank you so much forbeing willing to sit back down.
It was such an honor to speakwith you the first time.
Very briefly, would you mindreintroducing yourself for
people who might not beacquainted?
Michael Geist (00:34):
Yeah, sure, happy to, and thanks again for
having me on.
My name is Michael Geist.
I'm a law professor at theUniversity of Ottawa, where I
hold the Canada Research Chairin Internet and E-commerce Law,
which essentially means that Ifocus on, in many ways, the
intersection between law, policyand technology, and I've been
pretty active on especially someof the government's recent
(00:54):
proposals on trying to doexactly that.
Aaron Pete (00:57):
We have a lot to cover.
The first area that I'd like totalk to you about is what's
happened since October 7th andthe events that have been going
on.
You've been very vocal and I'vehad the opportunity to follow
your work, specifically onLinkedIn and the posts you make,
and I find that you have verythoughtful responses to what's
going on and you wrote a greatarticle about some of the events
(01:17):
that have taken place and theanti-Semitism.
Would you mind covering some ofthe work that's gone on since
October 7th?
Michael Geist (01:24):
Would you mind covering some of the work that's
gone on since October 7th?
Sure, and it's a challengingissue.
I have to say that you know,what we've witnessed on the
streets in Canada and, frankly,around the world, is something
that I never would have imagined.
I can appreciate that there aredifferent perspectives on
what's taking place in Israeland in Gaza right now.
I have my own.
(01:44):
I know others may have adifferent view, but to see the
spillover of anti-Semitism andhate onto the streets in Canada,
online in Canada, to see it inmany other places where I'm a
member of the Jewish community,and to see so many in the Jewish
community really put at riskwith the kinds of activities and
(02:04):
targets that we've seen atJewish community centers, at
schools, at Jewish-ownedbusinesses, at various
communities, at hospitals,sometimes disingenuously claim
that it's not the target,although it just certainly feels
like it's not random, and Idon't think we've seen leaders
step up in the way that we oughtto have seen.
(02:26):
And there seems to be.
Not only is there littlestopping it, but, if anything,
it continues to accelerate andwhat becomes seemingly for some
acceptable or normal justcontinues to escalate in a way
that, as I say I must admit Inever really thought would have
been imaginable in a countrylike ours.
Aaron Pete (02:48):
Can you help us understand this issue from your
perspective, because I look atit as a First Nations person and
if some of the things thatyou've posted about that have
been put out about Jewish peoplewere done about First Nations
people, we would be putting innew laws, we would be working
incredibly hard.
I feel like there would berallies, there would be protests
, there would be an overwhelmingresponse to some of the things
(03:10):
that have been said and it'sbeen shocking for me to watch
because, again, if I put myselfin that circumstance and if it
said a different name other thana Jewish person, I imagine that
the response would beincredibly, overwhelmingly
strong and politicians would becoming out.
What is going on?
Why is there this difference?
Michael Geist (03:28):
Yeah, I feel the same way you do.
I say that as a Jewish person,but I think back to.
You know the kinds of issuesthat have arisen where different
communities have felt targetedand needed support over the
years, whether that was BlackLives Matter, whether that was
issues around reconciliationthat we've seen and what we
learned about broadly for manyof us around residential schools
(03:52):
and the desire to step up,whether it's some of the
misogyny that we've seen takeplace at times where women have
been targets and it feels likecommunities have come together.
And in this instance, almostfrom day one, almost from
October 8th, the Jewishcommunity has felt targeted.
I realize that there aredifferences of opinion about
(04:14):
Israel's response to what wasthe worst massacre since the
Holocaust for the Jewishcommunity and I don't think it
should surprise anyone that theJewish community, still reeling
from that, israel, still reelingfrom that, has responded and,
as I say, there are differentviews about that response.
But regardless, the targetingof the community at times simply
(04:38):
using the term Zionist for thekind of language that frankly
would have never been acceptableI mean to talk about Jewish
doctors and Jewish lawyers orJewish politicians in ways that
you know has strong anti-Semiticnotions and connotations,
oftentimes directly anti-Semiticand to think that it's okay but
I called them a Zionist instead, I personally think is wrong.
(05:02):
And you know, for years there'sbeen debate around what's known
as the IRA definition, adefinition dealing with
anti-Semitism, and one of theconcerns was that it might limit
the ability to criticize Israeleven as one does not intend to
be anti-Semitic.
And the IRA definition, you know, sought to make the case that
at times that some of thosecriticisms do go over the line
(05:23):
anti-Semitic and the IRAdefinition, you know, sought to
make the case that at that timesthat some of those criticisms
do go over the line.
And you know, I must admit,there were times where I wasn't
really sure where I would fallon that.
But to see what I've seen overthe last number of months
highlights that I actually thinkthat the concerns that were
expressed through thatdefinition, I think actually
were entirely accurate.
And, as I say, we see speech,we see threats, we see
(05:47):
activities that I think you'reright, targeted at any other
community would have been bothunacceptable.
Leaders would not be afraid tospeak out, they would be kind of
lining up at the podium tospeak out, and I think we would
see law enforcement and othercommunity leaders being far more
aggressive in seeking to ensurethat, frankly, that all
(06:08):
Canadians, regardless of theirperspectives on these kinds of
issues, feel safe, and that's,frankly, something where we are
not at right now in Canada.
Aaron Pete (06:16):
I'm sorry to ask you to do this, but I do imagine
that some of my listeners don'tkeep up with the news to the
same extent.
They may not have a full graspof what took place on October
7th.
Would you feel comfortablesomewhat summarizing the events
that took place that day?
You mentioned that it's rightup there with the Holocaust,
would you mind, just for thoseindividuals who might not have
kept up with it or understoodthe gravity of the situation?
Michael Geist (06:39):
Right.
Well, to be clear, it is notright up there with the
Holocaust.
The Holocaust involved the massmurder of six million Jews and
another million or more of otherethnicities, but it was the
Jewish community that was themost targeted and in my case it
was quite literally.
Many members of my family werewiped out.
(06:59):
This was not that to beabsolutely clear, but it was the
largest number of Jews thatwere killed in a single day
since the Holocaust.
And in that instance, hamas, aknown terrorist organization
registered as a terroristorganization in Canada, came in
(07:20):
from the Gaza Strip into Israeland engaged, frankly, in
activities, in barbaricactivities that remain
unimaginable Killing wholefamilies, killing children in
front of the parents and thenkilling the parents, burning
many of those individualsengaging in, now confirmed yet
(07:42):
again by a UN official engagingin sexual assault, rape of some
of the very worst kind,targeting both Kibbutzim these
communities that were locatednear the Gaza Strip targeting a
music festival, the Nova MusicFestival, and there were victims
(08:03):
from many, many different partsof the world.
It wasn't just people fromIsrael and then, alongside that,
taking several hundred hostages, and there are still over a
hundred hostages that are stillthere, and when we're talking
about hostages.
We're, in some instances, quiteliterally talking about babies,
talking about elderly women and, to you know, under any
(08:27):
circumstance we would see thatas just an act of terror.
That is almost without parallelin terms of our thinking.
I mean, we tend to think backto 9-11, and yet the scale,
particularly relative to thesize of Israel, was so much more
dramatic, the barbarism thattook place was so much more
dramatic, and so, from myperspective, unsurprisingly,
(08:51):
israel has taken a position thatthat simply can't happen again
and that the perpetrators ofthat Hamas, who embed themselves
within communities, withincivilians, has to be destroyed.
I mean, they simply can't havethat capability to do that again
.
Aaron Pete (09:10):
That is a lot to take in and I somewhat don't
want to get into thewhataboutisms about what's
actually going on in theconflict and I know that there's
more expert voices on thosetopics than I could ever provide
or questions that could beasked that I wouldn't be able to
go to those depths on.
So I don't really want to getinto the conflict.
But people here in Canada havereally nothing to do with what's
(09:31):
going on over there Jewishpeople living their life with
their families.
They're not involved in thatconflict in a direct way and so
they deserve peace, happiness,the pursuit of happiness.
They deserve to be able to livea normal life and it seems like
they're being targeted andthey're not involved.
Would you mind explaining whyCanadians are being targeted
(09:53):
when they're so far from theconflict here in Canada?
Michael Geist (09:56):
Right.
Well, listen, there are peopleboth of course, who were left
reeling from October 7th andresponded to that.
There are people who have seenthe response and obviously it's
been awful to see what has takenplace in Gaza, since it's
tragic to see the amount ofdeath that's taken place and
(10:18):
want that to stop.
I'd submit the way to make thatstop is for Hamas to stop, but
nevertheless I understand thereare strong perspectives on all
sides when it comes to thisparticular issue.
But rather than targeting withprotests and of course protests
are legit as long as they don'tbleed into violence and other
(10:42):
unlawful activities but makingone's views known to the Israeli
government via consulate or anembassy, to the Canadian
government via Parliament Hillor other places, to sort of try
to influence their views on thisstrike me as wholly legitimate.
But one of the things that wehave seen is targeting.
As I say, we've seen shots firedat Jewish schools, graffiti and
(11:05):
other violence at Jewishcommunity centers, targeted
vandalism at Jewish-ownedbusinesses really echoes of,
frankly, of the Holocaust ofNazi Germany when we saw some of
those take place.
I'm not saying this is NaziGermany, but there are certainly
echoes in terms of kind of howJews have been targeted in this
(11:25):
way.
I think that happens, of course, because Israel is identified
as the one state that has beenrepresentative of the Jewish
people, and so Jews are seen assomehow responsible for this.
It does seem to me that much ofwhat takes place is really
almost this flowering ofanti-Semitism.
(11:46):
That may have been latent, thatmay not have been as visible
for a long period of time, but Iguess I have a hard time
believing that.
Surely some of this must havebeen there before, and this has
provided, for some at least, aconvenient excuse to exercise
some of those views.
Aaron Pete (12:02):
What is anti-Semitism from your
perspective?
Michael Geist (12:06):
Well, anti-semitism to me, is really
understood right now astargeting Jews and Jewish
community as Jews.
It's in some instancestargeting, treating them in an
unfair or biased manner.
It is vilifying them, it isengaging frankly in hate towards
(12:27):
the community and, as I say, insome of the protests we see
some of that taking place inways that are, I know, for my
community, very scary.
Aaron Pete (12:37):
You mentioned that some of this didn't, not all of
this started after October 7th,that this somewhat existed prior
.
Why do you think that is?
How do you process that?
As a person Like, I again putmyself in the shoes of like.
I'm a First Nations person andso if people hated me, I'd be
like, well, like what?
Like, if there was this, this,this dislike, I just I can't
(12:59):
imagine it in any othercircumstance and it makes me
uncomfortable to think that thishas existed and continues to
exist.
It's just hard for my brain toeven wrap myself around this
concept.
Michael Geist (13:11):
Well, listen, I mean, anti-semitism is one of
the oldest forms of hatred inmany ways.
I mean, jews have been facingthis for literally millennia, as
we've gone through periodswhere, literally millennia, as
we've gone through periods where, gone from community to
community, rarely having a spacethat was a protected space, and
(13:34):
oftentimes being driven fromdifferent kinds of communities,
viewed as the other and you know, obviously there's many
communities that face some ofthat.
I think it's important torecognize Jewish communities
exist in communities around theworld.
This is not just sort ofEuropean white communities, but
more than half of Israel arepeople that are coming from
different parts of the Arabworld or the Middle East, from
(13:59):
Africa, from other parts in theworld.
It is a true melting pot inmany respects in terms of people
coming from a great manydifferent places, and the fact
that this has been somethingthat has recurred again and
again and again is also, I think, it is hard for me to wrap my
(14:19):
brain around and I feel, assomeone privileged to have been
born and raised in Canada,although the descendant of
Holocaust survivors, that I feltthat much of this was put
behind us, that there was asafety in Canada, that this was
gone.
But I must admit, post-october7th has been a wake-up call, I
(14:42):
think for many that in fact itseems that for each generation
the Jewish community will oftenface some of these issues, and
it feels like we're facing ityet again.
Aaron Pete (14:54):
You mentioned in one of your articles that
politicians have remainedrelatively silent on this issue.
Would you mind elaborating?
Michael Geist (15:02):
Sure it's.
You know, listen, and I thinkyou did a nice.
You know you made, I think,appropriate comment to say that
you know if this had targetedother communities, I think that
we would, that politicians wouldnot be reticent to speak out,
and I think too often they havebeen in this case.
I think in the early instancesthere was an attempt to sort of
(15:23):
just frame this broadly.
As you know, please don'tengage in hate, try to create
equivalencies that I don't thinkwere there, especially early on
, where I think the Jewishcommunity has been really the
target.
I think there's beenIslamophobia as well.
I think we need to speak outagainst that as well.
I think we need to speak outagainst that as well.
But I mean, the sheer numberstell us quite clearly that the
(15:46):
Jewish community, oftentimes avery, very small part of a
community, are often the mosttargeted community for hate
crimes in city after city acrossCanada.
And I think our federalpoliticians have often not
spoken clearly and unequivocallyin the way that they could and
should.
And I think the same is trueoften in our local communities.
(16:07):
You know it's often the mayors,chiefs of police that we look
to.
I mean, there are some laws onthe books.
We can debate about theapplication of those laws, but
what should be beyond debate isthat we require and need
community leaders to step up.
We need people who are notJewish to step up and speak out
as well, and there certainlyhave been many that have.
(16:30):
But I can tell you candidlythat I know that there are many
people that feel a sense ofbetrayal that they may have been
active, that Jewish communitiesstood side by side on other
issues and yet there has beenrelative silence at times when
it comes to this issue, andthat's certainly discouraging
and it's a little bit hard totake.
Aaron Pete (16:50):
David Eby, our premier here in British Columbia
, has just come out and saidthat he's going to end
anti-Semitism in.
It sounds like our province,which is ambitious to say the
least, but this is after one ofthe cabinet ministers just
stepped down saying that theprovincial government wasn't
doing enough.
Do you have any perspectives onkind of the response to the
(17:12):
lack of response?
Michael Geist (17:14):
Listen, you know Celina Robinson, who's, I know,
the cabinet minister formercabinet minister that you're
talking about, you knowacknowledged that what she had
said was wrong, apologized forit.
I think we have seen manyinstances where politicians say
things that that may have been amistake.
We've seen it in this, on theseissues, on a number of
(17:35):
occasions and those apologieshave you know when they've been
forthcoming.
They've often been accepted.
In the case of the one mostprominent active Jewish minister
in that government, itapparently wasn't enough and, um
, you know, I think she she wentand burned down the house a
little bit on her way out bymaking clear, um, how she had
(17:56):
felt, how she had felt how shehad been treated and the
challenges that she had faced asa Jewish member of cabinet.
And so I'm happy that thePremier Eby says he's going to
try going to addressanti-Semitism.
I don't think he is going toend it in the way that no one
else has been.
No one's been able to end it,but it does feel like it comes.
(18:16):
It comes late and it comeshaving failed to address what
was a recurring issue that wasclearly evident, at least to one
of his most notable members ofcabinet, and nothing happened
until it was, in a sense, toolate.
Aaron Pete (18:32):
How do you feel about the federal government's
response?
Justin Trudeau's response.
It does seem like it's veryhard to figure out where they
stand on the war right now andwhat their actual position is.
Michael Geist (18:43):
It is.
It's hard to.
It is hard.
It feels like, well, in someways it feels that it's easy, it
feels that it's drivenprimarily by electoral
calculations as opposed to coreprinciples, and I can appreciate
that the government may have,you know, is trying to balance a
number of perspectives when itcomes to the war, but I don't
think there's anything tobalance when it comes to dealing
with clear signs of hate.
(19:05):
And it's discouraging when youknow, when we see leaders and
includes the Prime Minister sortof fall back on the line that
you know this isn't us, thisisn't Canadians, it turns out it
is, it turns out that this ispart of what we see in Canada
and it requires real leadershipfrom all leaders, including the
Prime Minister, to try to dosomething about it.
Aaron Pete (19:27):
Brilliant.
Did you see the comments madeby Claudine Gay at the
congressional hearing?
Michael Geist (19:34):
Yes, I certainly did.
Aaron Pete (19:36):
Do you have any thoughts that you'd be able to
share on her response toquestions about anti-Semitism
and her leadership's response?
Michael Geist (19:44):
Yeah, I mean, I watched that clip, I think, over
and over and over again becauseI couldn't quite believe what I
was hearing.
You know, the seeming inabilityof university presidents rather
to take an unequivocal standagainst the calling for genocide
(20:06):
, which I believe is the gist ofthe question, was just
mind-boggling.
And you know, I know thatJewish community students,
jewish students on many campusesboth in the united states and
some in canada, have not feltsafe and at times the campuses
(20:27):
and university leaders have beenslow to respond as well.
And it's um, you know, ofcourse.
You know we see future leadersare coming out of there and
we're left to wonder a littlebit how there isn't the ability
to speak clearly on that issueas well.
To be clear, academic freedom isabsolutely essential and people
should be able to haveprotection in that regard.
(20:50):
But that doesn't always.
That doesn't extend necessarilyto say certainly anything you
like in a classroom environment.
That leaves people feelingunsafe and even more just.
Generally, it seems to me thatwe in the academic world, with
my own university, have made apoint of emphasizing the need
(21:11):
for robust discussion and debate, but within a safe space where
everyone feels comfortable andtreated with respect, and I feel
that that has at times.
I'm not going to say thatthat's at my institution, but I
will say that there's certainlybeen institutions where we know
that there are students, facultymembers, that don't feel safe.
Aaron Pete (21:30):
There's this incoherence that I'm having
trouble squaring in regards todiversity, equity and inclusion,
safe spaces, anti-bullyingrules, like all of these
initiatives that speak to thisidea that we need to be able to
do all of this work in a goodway.
Everybody deserves to berepresented, we should make
space for everyone in the room,and a lot of those initiatives
(21:53):
are pushed forward in theinterests of the Black community
, indigenous people, minoritygroups, and then it seems like
that all went out the windowwith Claudine Gay's testimony,
like it just did not seem, likeI couldn't see the consistency
among all of these initiativesthat I hear about all the time,
and then these comments seem tonot be consistent with any of
that.
Michael Geist (22:13):
All of a sudden, I must admit it feels that way
to me as well.
I'm a supporter of thoseinitiatives.
I feel that we have done and wecan continue to do more to
ensure it, certainly in my owninstitution, and I'm glad that
we have tried to make efforts toensure that we can include as
(22:44):
many different perspectives andvoices and try to have faculty
and student bodies that are morereflective of the diversity of
our country, which I think isone of the great things that we
have.
But at the same time, I am attimes left to wonder why, when
it comes to some of theinitiatives designed to ensure a
(23:05):
comfort level for all that,somehow Jews don't seem to count
, and I don't understand why.
Aaron Pete (23:12):
I don't understand why either, but you did make an
amazing post.
It didn't end up airing on theSuper Bowl, I don't't think, but
it was this amazing uh videoabout how this can be addressed.
And it was of this this womanwith her child heading out,
coming home and seeing ananti-semitic uh trope on their
garage wall, and then theirneighbor uh while they were out,
(23:36):
coming and cleaning off andrepainting and fixing it.
And it was that reminder for methat one person can make a
difference, that this isaddressable at the ground level
over time, if we come togetherand we start to work together to
be proud of all ethnicities,all cultures, all values and
work towards uplifting the bestof ourselves.
(23:57):
And I loved that, becausethat's really what this podcast
is about it's thinking biggerthan yourself and being proud of
other people and standing bythem and doing it when you might
not get the recognition, butmoving the world in that
direction.
What did that ad mean to you?
Michael Geist (24:11):
Yeah, no, thank you for that and thank you for
this podcast that you are takingthat perspective and airing
those issues.
I'm really grateful and I agreewith you that ad.
You know, I think for those inthe Jewish community this is a
lived experience, so theyrecognize it.
But you know, as I think thisconversation is highlighting,
you're doing a great job ofhighlighting the fact that there
are many that don't see thisand you know, the Super Bowl, I
(24:34):
suppose, provided an opportunityto bring this to attention of
obviously a large audience, oneof the largest television
audiences of the year and Ithink those kinds of initiatives
at trying to educate arecritically important.
And you know we're at a timethat feels, I must admit, pretty
dark.
Right now.
It's really difficult but atthe same time, seeing other
(24:58):
communities come forward to saythis is wrong and wishing to
speak out and to educate othersabout why it's wrong, provides a
bit of light about a potentialway forward.
Aaron Pete (25:08):
And just to share my personal perspective as, like
an Indigenous person to thisland, I feel like, when we're
having these conversations inCanada, when we talk about
reconciliation and coming backtogether, a I think we need to
appreciate that people have comeover to this country for a very
long time and we have beenwelcoming and I know people like
to take the trope that wedidn't want those outsiders or
(25:30):
there were those early issues.
We wouldn't have Métis peopleif there wasn't some camaraderie
among people coming here asimmigrants and moving here and
coming together.
We wouldn't have that distinctculture and I think they are a
symbol of us coming together,breaking bread and sharing the
best of ourselves and I thinkthat should be highlighted.
But we should also work towardsthat into the future that the
(25:52):
best of us come to this countryand we work hard and we share
our gifts and our uniqueness andthat's what enriches our
culture, it strengthens oursocial fabric, it makes it a
more interesting place and thisis one of my favorite places.
I've gotten to travel but I'm soproud to come from here and
when I see this news it'sfrustrating, and when I see a
leader not standing up againsthate, discrimination, disrespect
(26:16):
, anti-semitism, it's hard towatch because that's not my
Canada, that's not the valuesthat we stood on 100 years ago,
150 years ago, and that's notthe way forward that's going to
make us stronger.
It makes us more vulnerable.
It makes us more divisive, lessclear on issues and less
willing to trust each other inthe grocery store, and that's
just not a Canada that I want tolive in.
(26:36):
It's not a province I want tolive in.
It's not a community I want tolive in.
I want anybody to be able tocome forward on issues and us to
hear them out and work towardssolutions, no matter how small,
because that's what makes ustrust the system.
Other people, when you go inand you're doing your taxes or
you go into your account, youwant to know that you're going
to have that good rapport, andwhen people don't get that, that
makes them feel disconnectedfrom the community, and that's
(26:58):
not how you want people to feelwhen we're talking about mental
health, wellness and living afull and meaningful life.
And so having your post is aconstant reminder that I can
play a role in this, that I canbe a leader on these issues in
ways, small and big to try andpush issues forward and make
sure that we have constructiveconversations.
Michael Geist (27:23):
So I appreciate all of the posts you've made
about that.
Oh well, thank you for that andthank you for those thanks, but
even more thank you for whatyou just said.
You know, that's a vision ofCanada that I entirely agree
with this is.
You know, I too have traveled alot and I always come home.
And I come home because this isa country that has so much to
offer and I've long believedthat diversity truly is our
strength, perhaps the mostimportant strength that we have.
(27:46):
I see it in my classrooms, Isee it in my communities, and it
makes it particularly painfulwhen one group within those
communities are left to feelunsafe and targeted in the way
that we've seen and when, attimes, leaders don't step up to
try to preserve and affirm thevery best in Canada, which, at
(28:10):
times, I don't feel like thatwe've seen enough of, at least
from some of our leaders.
Aaron Pete (28:16):
Agreed.
Now let's get on to some lawsthat have been coming through.
The Online Harms Act Would youmind sharing what that is and
what your perspective is?
Michael Geist (28:26):
Okay, changing the channel in certain respects,
but not completely so, becauseonline hate is, in fact, one of
the elements within Bill C-63.
And so Bill C-63, the OnlineHarms Act, is essentially the
third of the government's threeintended digital laws.
So they started, some of yourviewers and listeners may recall
(28:47):
, with Bill C-10, which becameBill C-11, which was the online
streaming bill.
Then we had Bill C-18, whichwas the online news bill.
The Online Harms Act was reallydesigned as the third in those,
and so all of them, in a sense,were supposed to be about
addressing the responsibility oflarge Internet platforms,
either with respect to cultureand streaming, broadcast type
(29:09):
activities or news, or now theharms that may take place on
their platforms.
So that's the bill thegovernment had with respect to
those questions, the questionsof the responsibility of
(29:43):
internet platforms when it comesto these issues.
I think they've done a prettygood job.
We can get into it if you like.
The bill has attracted a fairamount of criticism, though, and
one of the reasons for that isthat that's not all the bill
does.
It also includes changes to thecriminal code, changes to the
Human Rights Commission that orHuman Rights Act that have, I
think, rightly, created someamount of concern.
(30:06):
So this is a bill that isperhaps better than we might
have expected based on the priorexperience with the other bills
, but there is still some roomfor improvement and, frankly,
some elements that I think thegovernment would be best off
removing altogether.
Aaron Pete (30:19):
What are some of the things that you have concerns
about in regards to the act?
Michael Geist (30:23):
Okay, so thanks for that.
So, as I say, this is a billthat is really, in some ways, at
least two bills in one.
There's the internet platformpart of the bill.
You know what responsibility dointernet platforms, or should
internet platforms, have withrespect to various harms that
take place online?
And then there is this secondelement that isn't about the
(30:44):
internet platforms at all, butis about hate, both online and
offline, which creates someprovisions dealing specifically
that make changes to both thecriminal code and then to the
Human Rights Act.
If I focus first on theinternet platform piece, which
(31:21):
is the largest part of the billand, as I say, was at least act
responsibly on the part ofplatforms and then trying to
flesh out a little bit what thatmight mean, and I think they
did a pretty good job of that.
If I do have a concern with thataspect of the bill, it's the
enforcement piece, because itenvisions creating a whole new
entity, a digital safetycommission, and I think that
that is not as well developed asit needs to be.
(31:42):
There's a lot of power that isbeing vested in this new
commission.
There isn't, I don't think,enough oversight.
There are real concerns aboutboth the power and then the
constraints on that power andthe oversight, and so I think
that there is work that stillneeds to be done on that issue,
on the elements of sort of theduties and the oversight, and so
(32:02):
I think that there is work thatstill needs to be done on that
issue, on the elements of sortof the duties and the harms.
I think, as I say, it's apretty good starting point that
I'm sure will be tweaked, butthe government did a pretty
reasonable job with Is thereconcerns around censorship in
this bill?
Yeah, so people have raisedconcerns.
I must admit I don't think themajor concerns come out of the
Online Harms Act piece, thepiece with the internet
(32:22):
platforms.
There are a couple of instancesthat are kinds of content that
are identified potentially asthe sort of content that might
be taken down really only two.
It's content that sexuallyvictimizes a child, or intimate
content that's communicatedwithout consent, often referred
(32:42):
to as revenge porn.
So those two kinds of contentthe law speaks or the bill
speaks to the need to remove inan expeditious fashion within 24
hours.
There is still a review processafterwards that may involve
putting the content back if it'snot found to have violated the
law, but by and large it's not alaw that seeks to sort of
remove content off the bat,which I think is a good thing
(33:05):
when there have been concerns.
So I don't think that there areas significant concerns.
I mean, there are concerns.
There are always going to besome concerns about where we
strike the balance on freedom ofexpression.
But the censorship issues don'tcome into play within that
framework nearly to the extentto which they do around the
(33:26):
Criminal Code and Human RightsAct side lines about what's
appropriate and what isn't, andthis law doesn't, except for the
couple pieces of kinds ofcontent that I mentioned, does
not sort of prescribe moretakedowns.
That might be where the policylands in some instances, but
(33:48):
that's not sort of the go-toapproach.
Where there are concerns I thinkrightly so around potential
censorship or even more perhaps,chilling of speech comes from
the Criminal Code and even morethe Human Rights Act provisions.
The Criminal Code concerns stem, at least in part, from
(34:12):
concerns that there arepenalties that are included
there that are viewed as being Ithink rightly so so
disproportionate relative topotentially the crime.
And in the case of the HumanRights Act this re-invokes an
approach that we used to havebut then was taken away and now
it's being brought back again,which allows people to bring
(34:33):
complaints about communicationsof hatred to the Human Rights
Commission.
There are concerns, I think,with some justification, that
that may result in sort ofalmost a weaponizing of the
system, where we start seeingcomplaints flow back and forth.
I mean, we just spent the firstbunch of your podcasts talking
specifically about some of thiskind of hate.
(34:54):
One could well imagine groups oneither side using this system
to file a whole series ofcomplaints.
There's liability that accruesto that.
Of course.
That can have a chilling effect, and I'm not sure that it deals
with some of the fundamentalissues that we have been talking
about, whether it is that kindof hate that we see, or even
about concerns related to theamplification of that hatred at
(35:19):
times on various platforms.
It doesn't deal with thoseissues, and so I think we could
have a reasonable debate aboutit.
I think, frankly, thegovernment could have excluded
it altogether, brought itforward as a separate bill and,
to some of your earlierquestions said, one of the ways
we want to lead with hatred orcombating hatred is with this
(35:40):
legislation that deals with somecriminal code changes or Human
Rights Act changes, specificallyin an attempt to try to say we
want to increase the penaltiesor we want to find ways to
ensure that the laws fit forpurpose in this regard, but
instead, by bringing it alltogether in this almost omnibus
bill, I think they may beputting the whole thing at risk
in this almost omnibus bill.
Aaron Pete (36:00):
I think they may be putting the whole thing at risk.
Vashi Kaplos did an interviewwith a Facebook whistleblower
who had left to talk about someof the problems that exist
internally with big techcompanies in regards to the
information that they're forcedto share with the general public
and with researchers tounderstand how they deal with it
, and, from her perspective, myunderstanding was that she felt
that these companies weren'tdoing enough to address it and
(36:23):
they knew internally, if theyput more budget towards
addressing some of the hateonline, that they could have a
significant impact and that theyknew their platforms were
having an impact.
They just didn't want to put inthe money to address it.
And the whistleblower on theshow commended this bill and
supported it, because one of thebig pieces that it sounds like
it's going to do is give accessto some of the background
(36:45):
research on the impacts andmaking sure that companies
actually follow through.
Is that your understanding aswell?
Michael Geist (36:52):
It is my understanding that that's what
the government has in mind and Iam aware that you know that
obviously has supporters.
So it is my understanding.
I think there may be value.
I think you can make the case.
There is value in that researchside.
I think there are some risksassociated with it, though you
know we shouldn't forget, forexample, that the Cambridge
(37:13):
Analytica case, which reallybecame sort of the really almost
the preeminent privacy casefrom Facebook, where there were
a lot of concerns, came out of aresearch initiative, and so
there are risks associated withthis, and I think that we will
need careful study to ensurethat.
You know, the benefits that canaccrue from providing the
(37:36):
ability to engage in thatresearch are there, but at the
same time, we more data abouthow they've gone ahead and
actually dealt with those issuesaccess.
(38:16):
But it's the transparency piecethat I think is in many ways,
even more important, becausewhat the legislation talks about
is a requirement to put forwarda digital safety plan that will
require the platforms, whetherFacebook or otherwise, to be
much more open and candid aboutwhat it is that they do and then
provide real data on what it isthat they've done.
And you know, I thinklegislation that advances that
(38:37):
objective.
I think that part of it isactually a really good aspect of
the bill.
Aaron Pete (38:42):
I know you're not a political analyst, but Pierre
took a swing at this bill rightout of the gate, before even
reading it, and criticized it.
What are your thoughts on hisinitial critique?
Michael Geist (39:08):
And do you think his position is going to move
to create age verification forkids trying to access
pornography?
Which who would generally beagainst that, except for the
privacy risks associated withage verification technologies?
The prospect of websiteblocking?
The broad approach thatactually targets not just
(39:28):
pornographic sites but searchengines, social media companies?
There's a lot of problems withthis bill.
Conservative government so far,conservative party so far, has
been pretty supportive of thatbill.
It's been a bit of a.
I'm a bit surprised to see that,given some of the risks
associated with that bill and onthis bill, you know, I can't
say I'm at all surprised that tothe extent to which there are
(39:50):
concerns about censorship andspeech, well, you know that's
been.
That's pretty on brand for theparty to speak out against it
and I'm grateful that they haveif there's overstepping.
At the same time, it does seemto me certainly some of the
children related harms and evensome of the other harms, whether
on violence or terrorism or onhate, are the sorts of things
(40:11):
that I would have thought mostcould agree on.
We may disagree on how we getthere and it seems to me that
there really is and remains anavenue to be supportive of the
good elements in the bill whileat the same time taking a strong
position against places wherethe bill has overstepped.
And we'll see if the positionsevolve over time.
(40:34):
As we record this, it's stillpretty early days.
The legislation hasn't beendebated yet in the House,
obviously still going to head tocommittee.
So I think there's still spacefor, frankly, for the government
to adjust and for oppositionparties to calibrate their
positions on that bill.
Aaron Pete (40:51):
Should we ban TikTok ?
Michael Geist (40:54):
No, that was the easiest question you've asked,
because you've had a bunch ofhard ones.
No, we should not.
That doesn't mean we shouldn'tregulate TikTok, but banning, in
this instance, first of all, islikely to be ineffective.
People will still be able toaccess the app, it just won't be
(41:15):
updated.
If ever were to be banned, it'slikely to increase the power of
some of its competitors, and sowe end up with more dominance
for Instagram, let's say.
I'm not sure that that'snecessarily a great thing, but,
most fundamentally, it seems tome that a strong case of the
national security risks haven'treally been made and the
(41:37):
concerns that arise out ofsocial media apps, which are
very real, whether it is privacyor competition or
disinformation campaigns, thereare a whole series of different
risks that are associated withthem.
Those are not exclusive toTikTok, and so I would much
prefer to see governments ensurethat they've got widely
(41:58):
applicable regulations that dealwith some of those issues, as
opposed to singling out a singleentity, presumably because it
has the connections to China, asopposed to trying to grapple
more directly with, let's say,disinformation, which is a very
real issue, and certainly indemocracies thinking about or
(42:21):
looking ahead to electioncampaigns, whether the one this
year in the United States, orprobably a year from now in
Canada.
We need to deal with thosekinds of issues.
I'm not convinced that banninga single app is going to do that
, though.
Aaron Pete (42:35):
We've seen an increase in F Trudeau signs.
We've seen a lot of pushbackagainst his leadership over, I
would say, the past six months.
A larger and larger response.
If I look at any of the recentpolls, he's not doing well in
popularity.
A lot of that is just.
I think politicians have ashelf life and they start to
reach that.
(42:55):
You certainly don't strike meas a partisan person by any
stretch of the imagination, sothis isn't a partisan question
about the current leader of theday.
It's more just.
What are your thoughts on himas a leader?
Where is he at when you look atall the laws that he's put
forward?
I'm just curious as to whatyour perspective is, because you
really get into theunderstanding of what are some
(43:16):
of the ideas that he's bringingforward in some of these
documents.
I know he's not writing themhimself, but his government has
put forward so many ideas overhis tenure.
What are your thoughts onJustin Trudeau?
Michael Geist (43:26):
You know, I think that there are things that
the government has done thatare with us to stay.
That, I think, are really goodthings, you know.
I think the emphasis on youknow even symbolic emphasis and
it's not purely symbolic, buteven just the ability to say
that a gender equal cabinet thatyou know we want to ensure that
(43:48):
there are opportunities forwomen and we want to ensure that
there are opportunities forpeople coming from all different
perspectives I think has been areally valuable contribution
and one that you know wasperhaps more controversial or
something we'd never seen inCanada before.
We saw it, and so I think wesee that I think some of the
things that have been done onchild care have provided real
opportunities for people.
(44:08):
So I think people that look ata government's record and see
only the negative and I knowthat there are people out there,
I think so you know misssomething.
There are always going to beshades of gray, and any
government that's been in powerthis long is going to make
mistakes and is going to do somethings that many of us will
agree with, I think you know.
(44:29):
I think they, of course, madesome mistakes during COVID, but
I think they also did a lot ofthings right during COVID as
well, and that was, you know,they moved quickly to try to
address any number of issues,which I think was a good thing.
That said, I think that much ofthe promise that the government
had when it first came intopower around issues that some of
the issues that I focus ontransparency and access to
(44:52):
information, consultativeapproaches on things We've seen
those diminish over time and youknow, I think it's undeniable
that on some of those issues,they simply haven't lived up to
what they had promised.
On other of those issues, it'sbecome, I think, a more
defensive posture and I findthat discouraging and, as you
(45:14):
say, perhaps it is that allgovernments run out of steam
after a period of time and youknow, certainly it's hard to
escape the conclusion that inthis instance at a minimum, even
if you're a supporter of thatgovernment, I think it's
undeniable that many of thekinds of principles and things
that that government stood forwhen running for office back in
2015, when first elected, someof those things either just
(45:35):
haven't been the kinds ofprinciples and things that that
government stood for whenrunning for office back in 2015,
when first elected.
Some of those things eitherjust haven't been fulfilled or
just have no longer.
No longer are the prioritiesthat we once thought they might
have been.
Aaron Pete (45:48):
Would you mind telling people how they can keep
up to date with your work?
I am certainly a fan.
When you post something onLinkedIn, it's one of the first
things that pops up on myalgorithm, because I'm so
interested in your work.
But how can people keep up?
Michael Geist (46:00):
Okay, that's cool.
So the algorithm is working, atleast on that social media
platform.
So they can find me, I guess,first and foremost on my own
website, at michaelgeistca.
That's where they can findlinks to my regular podcast, law
Bites, which is focused on thedigital policy-related stuff, as
well as regular blogging andother sorts of activities.
They can find me on Twitter or,I suppose, x, at Mgeist, at
(46:23):
M-G-E-I-S-T, but then they canalso find me on LinkedIn or Blue
Sky or Mastodon they're there,oh and also on Substack.
So I've got a Substack thatalso includes both my regular
podcast and my posts.
Aaron Pete (46:39):
Michael, you're one of my favorite voices.
I do find that this realm thatwe're in the podcasting, the
posting world, it leads peopledown more outrageous, more bold,
more clickbait, more going downthat path in order to gain an
audience, in order to garnersomething, and it's a challenge
I totally get it for so manypeople that you're going to do
(47:01):
something, you want to have thataudience.
That's a tough thing that youwant to chase, but I've always
found that you're reasonable,you're thoughtful, you give both
perspectives, you try and bemiddle grounded on these issues
and you try and call things outwhere they need to be called out
, but also show the respect ofwhere the motivation is coming
from for some of these ideas.
And I think that's so importantwhen we see journalism facing
(47:23):
different types of challengesand traditional media facing
different types of challenges.
When you're willing to do thisindependently, when you're
willing to share your thoughtsand help guide these
conversations in a thoughtfuland constructive way, that's
what we need more of.
So I'm a giant fan of your workand it's always an honor to sit
down with you.
Michael Geist (47:38):
All right, thanks, I'm blushing here, thank
you.
Thank you for those really kindwords and thank you for
providing a forum like this.
You know, so often things arequick and there's not an
opportunity to really get into areal discussion, a serious
discussion on a range of issuesthat are correlated or related
to one another.
(47:59):
And this has been a good.
It's been a really goodconversation and I think you're
really using this platform in aneffective fashion.
Aaron Pete (48:05):
I appreciate it.
Hopefully we get to chat againsoon.
Thank you again for all yourwork.
Michael Geist (48:09):
Okay, thanks for having me.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.