C2C Journal

The Federal Court of Appeal has confirmed: the use of the Emergencies Act to crush the Freedom Convoy was unconstitutional. 🇨🇦 A massive congratulations to Christine Van Geyn and the Canadian Constitution Foundation (@CDNConstFound). You have rendered an immense service to the people of Canada by leading this legal fight! ⚖️ Our analysis of the original Federal Court ruling: c2cjournal.ca/2023/04/the-la…

Land acknowledgements are now deeply embedded in Canada's education system, appearing in everything from Grade 5 Social Studies projects to university department mandates. At the University of British Columbia, the English department has gone as far as labeling its own discipline as a product of "colonizing violence". George Ramsay's investigation reveals that students learn early that conforming to these ideological expectations is a key step toward academic success.

Higher education institutions have become primary enforcers of land acknowledgement rituals, often using ideologically loaded terms like "unceded", "stolen" and "colonized". At the University of British Columbia, departments go beyond acknowledging history by asserting that their entire academic disciplines are informed by violence and prescribing "approved" ways for students to think. Students from primary school through graduate programs encounter these practices daily, often reflecting them back in graded assignments to ensure academic survival. This environment rewards conformity over critical inquiry, making it difficult for the next generation of teachers and professionals to question the prevailing orthodoxy. The long-term effect of this system is a narrowing of acceptable discourse, where opting out of a cultural ritual is treated as a moral failing. Restoring a functional and inclusive Canada requires safeguarding every citizen's right to remain silent when they do not share a mandated belief. Don't believe me? You can see it for yourself all over their website. english.ubc.ca/about/land-ack… Read more: c2cjournal.ca/2026/03/we-hav…

From Taylor Swift concerts to neighborhood bus stops, Indigenous land acknowledgements have become an unmissable fixture of Canadian public life. Over the past decade, these statements have transitioned from optional gestures into a ubiquitous requirement in schools, workplaces and the public square. As George Ramsay reports, this shift represents a move toward enforced verbal compliance that prioritizes performative activism over personal principles. When a statement of respect is no longer a choice, it becomes a box-checking ritual rather than a reflection rooted in knowledge and conviction. Read the full investigation into the tyranny of compelled speech: c2cjournal.ca/2026/03/we-hav…

There is no logical or scientific account of the issue – but the universe exists and it got here somehow.

Catherine Kronas was removed from her elected school council position after she politely suggested that councils should decide their own meeting procedures rather than reciting government-mandated statements. She was only reinstated after legal mediation, underscoring the significant social and disciplinary risks faced by those who challenge Ontario's new norms of compelled speech in education. Read more: c2cjournal.ca/2026/03/we-hav…

Catherine Kronas was stripped of her elected seat on a Hamilton school council for one reason: she politely disagreed with the mandate to recite land acknowledgements before meetings. The school board claimed her words "caused harm", yet offered no evidence to support the accusation. This is the reality of compelled speech in Canada. Being a dedicated volunteer or concerned parent is no longer enough—institutions now demand outward displays of ideological conformity. When a government or school board dictates what you must say, how you must say it, and when, personal autonomy becomes the first casualty. Watch the interview: facebook.com/watch/?v=76735…

The universe works without telling us why.

Geoff Horsman, a biochemistry professor and parent, objected to opening every school council meeting with a land acknowledgement, arguing it reinforces a divisive premise. When school board staff told him the issue was off-limits for debate, Horsman sought a judicial review in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to determine whether boards can legally prohibit discussion of mandated political speech. Read more: c2cjournal.ca/2026/03/we-hav…

Will we wait for the taps to run dry before we elect mayors who understand the infrastructure beneath our feet?

Canada's privacy laws remain stuck in 2001, even as the government prioritizes AI-driven economic growth over modern digital protections. Since 2020, efforts to update the country's two-decade-old privacy law, PIPEDA, have faltered. A 2022 proposal for a "Digital Charter" promised stronger safeguards for citizens, but the bill died when the last election was called. Evan Solomon, Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation, now warns that strict regulations could stifle Canada's economic potential. He cautions against "over-indexing" on privacy rules that might slow AI-led growth, framing commercial interests as a counterbalance to individual rights. Meanwhile, as AI systems continue their voracious appetite for data, the prospect of robust new privacy protections remains uncertain.

The one free miracle is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.

Massive fines are merely a cost of doing business for tech giants, while public institutions remain dangerously vulnerable to large-scale data breaches. Despite the prospect of multibillion-dollar penalties, companies like Google and Meta continue to violate privacy regulations on a regular basis. In 2023, Meta was fined €1.2 billion for transferring private information from Europe to the U.S., while Google has faced repeated fines for misusing electronic cookies and disguising advertisements as emails. When potential profits are sufficiently vast, these fines become just another line item in the budget.

Do you really know what you're giving up when you click "I AGREE"? The art installation "I Agree" by Israeli designer Dima Yarovinsky exposes the staggering length of the "Terms & Conditions" for major digital platforms. By printing these agreements, the installation makes tangible the performative nature of modern privacy laws—rules that exist on paper but have little bearing on real life. Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University estimate that it would take an average of 38 eight-hour days to read every privacy policy a typical user encounters in a single year. This makes meaningful choice or autonomy effectively impossible. When digital engagement is required for essentials like flying, applying for jobs or accessing government services, clicking "Yes" becomes less a decision and more an unavoidable trade-off.

Privacy laws on paper do not guarantee protection in practice. Canada has had formal privacy legislation since 2001, yet rapid technological change continues to create "blind spots" that regulation cannot keep up with. These small, repeated intrusions—what scholars call "privacy nicks"—include everyday tools like doorbell cameras and facial recognition, gradually normalizing constant surveillance.

Our modern digital world is a strange fusion of two dystopian nightmares, proving that both George Orwell and Aldous Huxley were right. George Orwell's 1984 warned of a future where a malicious Big Brother watched and controlled every citizen. In contrast, Aldous Huxley's Brave New World envisioned a society that submitted to state control through the search for idle pleasure and a fictional drug called "soma". Evidence of both dystopias exists today as the state observes us non-stop through digital surveillance technology. Simultaneously, we have willingly ceded our privacy to social media platforms that rule our lives and dole out tidbits of fleeting happiness. Whether through police-state surveillance or pleasure-seeking submission, the result is the same loss of personal liberty.

Canada's primary privacy law, PIPEDA, was enacted in 2001 and is now considered hopelessly outdated in the era of TikTok and advanced AI. Attempts to modernize it have repeatedly stalled in Parliament, most recently with Bill C-27, which died when an election was called. Current leadership appears to prioritize unlocking AI's economic potential, despite the technology's voracious appetite for data—which directly conflicts with strong privacy protections. Read more at: c2cjournal.ca/2026/03/take-t…

In The Social Dilemma, filmmaker Jeffrey Orlowski reveals how today's platforms are built on a surveillance-driven business model, treating human experience as raw material to be mined, manipulated and monetized. Most people understand this, at least in principle. Yet the lure of connection, convenience and efficiency keeps us hooked. As our data is continuously captured and fed back to us, algorithms steer what we see and how we act—making it ever harder to disengage.

Algorithms and smart devices have turned surveillance into a business model that mines and extracts human experience. Despite knowing they are being tracked, many people continue to share sensitive data in exchange for connection and efficiency. This voluntary exchange highlights the erosion of the 1890 legal concept of the right to be left alone. As digital engagement becomes a requirement for modern life, the ability to refuse these "privacy nicks" disappears. Read more at: c2cjournal.ca/2026/03/take-t…

Surveys suggest nearly nine in every ten of Canada’s approximately 7 million Gen Zers are unsure whether they’ll ever own a home. Only 11 percent were certain they would, while 62 percent believe “owning a home is not achievable at all.” An article in Forbes, meanwhile, cited a survey in which 21 percent of American Gen Zers consider it more likely World War III will break out than that they’ll buy a home in the next five years. That's a bleak outlook for Canada's youth.

Long before social media algorithms, sensationalist press barons turned the invasion of privacy into a profitable public spectacle. By 1910, newspaper barons like William Randolph Hearst had turned gossip into a highly industrial trade. A famous cartoon from the era titled The Yellow Press portrayed Hearst as a jester, gleefully distributing salacious and scandalous stories to an eager public. This era of effrontery and intrusion forced a legal reckoning regarding what details of a person's life should remain private. While the technology has changed from printing presses to digital algorithms, the struggle against the prurient taste of mass media remains as relevant today as it was a century ago.