Over the summer, supporters of the Freedom Convoy movement have continued to hold anti-mandate demonstrations across the country, attracting anywhere from a few dozen to several hundred people in places like Sudbury, Ont., Acheson, Alta., and Regina.
Like the protests in Ottawa last winter, these smaller demonstrations featured big rigs, pickup trucks and honking — though they tended to last only a few hours and kept to parking lots or slow-moving convoys on highways.
But they also featured a new — and perhaps surprising — symbol: The flag of the Netherlands was being waved alongside the more familiar Maple Leaf and F–k Trudeau banners.
The red, white and blue flag is meant to be a show of solidarity with Dutch farmers protesting their government’s efforts to halve emissions linked to nitrogen-based fertilizers by the end of the decade.
Opposition to the policy in the Netherlands has been fierce and messy. It is one of the most intensively farmed countries in the world and the proposed changes would mean huge reductions in farmland and livestock.
In recent months, farmers in the country have blocked food distribution centres, set bales of hay on fire and spread manure on major roads.
Farmers take part in a blockade of the A67 highway, near Eindhoven, the Netherlands, on July 4 to protest against government plans that may require them to use less fertilizer and reduce livestock. (Rob Engelaar/ANP/AFP via Getty Images)
In Canada, many within the convoy movement see the Dutch farmers as allies in a global fight against an array of policies they maintain are too progressive, such as public health mandates or emission targets.
“The far right wants to think of it as a transnational movement,” said Bàrbara Molas, a research fellow at the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism (ICCT) in The Hague.
As the convoy movement organized solidarity rallies for the Dutch farmers in July, its leaders warned that Canadian farmers would soon find themselves in a similar position.
“The reason we’re standing in solidarity with [the Dutch farmers] is because these policies are actually coming to Canada as well,” Jerome O’Sullivan, the founder of the group Freedom Fighters Canada, told a podcast last month.
But the convoy movement’s embrace of the Dutch farmers’ cause has been fed by misinformation and deliberate attempts to sow confusion about government policies in Canada and the Netherlands.
It also threatens to overshadow legitimate concerns that Canadian farmers have about how to grow food while also addressing climate change.
There is a distinction, said Molas, between “what the farmers actually might think and what the far right wants people to see the farmers as.”
How the conspiracy theories went mainstream
Dutch farmers have been protesting since court rulings in 2018 and 2019 forced the country to drastically cut its nitrogen emission levels, which at the time were exceeding commitments made under international climate change agreements.
When the farmers escalated their tactics in late June, convoy-affiliated activists in Canada remarked on the similarities with their own movement, ultimately sparking interest in Ottawa’s efforts to reduce fertilizer emissions here.
“We stand proudly with Dutch farmers in the continued fight against government overreach and the globalist elite. Welcome to the revolution,” said a Facebook post from Live from the Shed, a webcast dedicated to the Canadian convoy movement.
Activists affiliated with the Freedom Convoy movement gather in an Ottawa parking lot on July 23, before heading to the Dutch embassy in Ottawa to protest in support of Dutch farmers. (Patrick Doyle/Reuters)
The July 2 post received more than 350,000 views and was shared more than 16,000 times, according to Facebook’s analytics tool, CrowdTangle.
Soon after, far-right media outlets in Canada seized on the Dutch protests to promote conspiracy theories that reinforced anti-government ideologies. Many of these sites had already been sowing misinformation about food-supply issues.
The Western Standard, a conservative publication based in Calgary, amplified in early July a conspiracy theory that claimed fires were being deliberately set at farms around the world to make populations more dependent on governments.
The column, which was shared more than 450 times on Facebook to accounts totalling 136,000 followers, suggested that global plot was the real reason behind Ottawa’s decision to help fund a cricket-processing plant in London, Ont., even though the facility mostly produces pet food.
On July 5, the Facebook page belonging to Cheryl Gallant, a Conservative MP who has been criticized in the past for spreading conspiracy theories, posted that “Trudeau wants us to eat crickets” while linking to a story about the Dutch farmers’ protest.
A Facebook post by Cheryl Gallant, Conservative MP for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. (Facebook)
In the days that followed, Canada’s far-right media pushed more disinformation to their readers.
Rebel News, for instance, claimed the Dutch government had “pandered to the radical demands of the World Economic Forum,” echoing a popular conspiracy theory that maintains the Swiss think-tank is secretly forcing governments around the world to adopt left-wing policies.
Another far-right publication, The Counter Signal, recirculated the comments of a former far-right Dutch politician, who falsely claimed the goal of the Dutch climate plan was to confiscate the farmers’ land and then give it to immigrants.
As interest in the Dutch protests increased in Canada, conservative pundits and politicians began suggesting the Canadian government was also going to force farmers to reduce how much fertilizer they use.
This is not what the government has said it intends to do. While Ottawa has pledged to reduce emissions from fertilizers by 30 per cent, it has also pledged to meet that goal without resorting to a mandatory reduction in nitrogen fertilizer use.
Nevertheless, the Toronto Sun’s Brian Lilley wrote in a widely shared column, that the plan, which hasn’t yet been finalized, “means reducing fertilizer usage by 30 per cent.”
In a Facebook post, Devin Dreeshen, a United Conservative MLA in Alberta, referred to it as the “30 per cent fertilizer ban,” while Todd Loewen — another UCP MLA and candidate in the party’s leadership race — said he was standing with the Dutch farmers because they were resisting “the exact same eco-radical policies” advocated by Ottawa.
Before July, Facebook posts in Canada that mentioned the phrase “fertilizer ban” had received effectively zero interactions, according to CrowdTangle statistics.
In the last week of July, though, the phrase received nearly 10,000 interactions.
Canola blooms in fields near La Salle, Man., on July 28. Canola is among the more fertilizer-intensive crops grown in Canada. (Shannon VanRaes/Reuters)
Farmers Forum, an Ontario-based agriculture newspaper that is sympathetic to the convoy movement, interviewed several farmers earlier this month about the prospect of a Dutch-style fertilizer ban coming to Canada.
Almost all were convinced a ban was in the works, and cited the World Economic Forum (WEF) as the reason why.
“It’s kind of scary, at the WEF, they tell you exactly what they’re doing, and ‘Bang,’ six months later, it’s happening,” Andy Senn, a dairy farmer from St-Bernardin, Ont., told the paper.
Misinformation flourished in information vacuum
At the same time that social media is flooded with misinformation about Canada’s agricultural policy, the federal government is seeking input from farmers and other industry players about how best to cut fertilizer emissions.
“It’s definitely a challenge for us in terms of communication. We’re working hard on trying to use different ways to communicate,” said Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau.
The goal of reducing fertilizer emissions by 30 per cent was set as part of the Trudeau government’s plan to lower the country’s overall greenhouse gas emissions by between 40 and 45 per cent by 2030 — in line with the reductions international experts say are necessary to minimize the damage from climate change.
Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau has said, repeatedly, the government is not seeking to cut fertilizer use, but rather to reduce fertilizer emissions. (Blair Gable/Reuters)
When the fertilizer target was initially announced in December 2020, there was widespread confusion within the agricultural industry about whether it would entail cutting fertilizer use, which would in turn affect crop yield.
Earlier this year, the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada released a discussion paper that outlines its strategy for reducing fertilizer emissions “will focus on improving nitrogen management and optimizing fertilizer use, and not on a mandatory reduction in the use of fertilizers.”
It also cites industry and government research that concluded significant emissions reductions can be achieved by expanding the use of certain techniques, like applying fertilizer in the spring instead of the fall.
The discussion paper has helped ease some fears within the industry.
“Overall, we were really pleased to see these techniques included,” said Cassandra Cotton, vice-president of policy and program at Fertilizer Canada, a lobby group representing the industry.
The amount of misinformation circulating about fertilizer policy ” hurts and prevents this moving forward in a positive direction,” Cotton said.
But she also echoed a view expressed by others in the industry: that the federal government has been slow to offer specifics about a policy that will ultimately affect what foods Canadians eat every day.
“Part of this [misinformation] is being driven by the lack of detail as to how the government plans to get to this target,” said Kelvin Heppner, a farmer in southern Manitoba and an editor for RealAgriculture, a respected industry publication.
“And so in that vacuum, there are conclusions that people are reaching — and they’re not necessarily based on what the government has said it will do.”
According to Molas, it is this confluence of confusion and concern that creates an opening for far-right groups to exploit.
“These are movements that began because of very real grievances that governments didn’t address soon enough,” she said. “The far-right sees that as an opportunity to spread their anti-democratic narrative.”
MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) — The Australian government announced on Thursday what it described as world-leading legislation that would institute an age limit of 16 years for children to start using social media, and hold platforms responsible for ensuring compliance.
“Social media is doing harm to our kids and I’m calling time on it,” Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said.
The legislation will be introduced in Parliament during its final two weeks in session this year, which begin on Nov. 18. The age limit would take effect 12 months after the law is passed, Albanese told reporters.
The platforms including X, TikTok, Instagram and Facebook would need to use that year to work out how to exclude Australian children younger than 16.
“I’ve spoken to thousands of parents, grandparents, aunties and uncles. They, like me, are worried sick about the safety of our kids online,” Albanese said.
The proposal comes as governments around the world are wrestling with how to supervise young people’s use of technologies like smartphones and social media.
Social media platforms would be penalized for breaching the age limit, but under-age children and their parents would not.
“The onus will be on social media platforms to demonstrate they are taking reasonable steps to prevent access. The onus won’t be on parents or young people,” Albanese said.
Antigone Davis, head of safety at Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, said the company would respect any age limitations the government wants to introduce.
“However, what’s missing is a deeper discussion on how we implement protections, otherwise we risk making ourselves feel better, like we have taken action, but teens and parents will not find themselves in a better place,” Davis said in a statement.
She added that stronger tools in app stores and operating systems for parents to control what apps their children can use would be a “simple and effective solution.”
X did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday. TikTok declined to comment.
The Digital Industry Group Inc., an advocate for the digital industry in Australia, described the age limit as a “20th Century response to 21st Century challenges.”
“Rather than blocking access through bans, we need to take a balanced approach to create age-appropriate spaces, build digital literacy and protect young people from online harm,” DIGI managing director Sunita Bose said in a statement.
More than 140 Australian and international academics with expertise in fields related to technology and child welfare signed an open letter to Albanese last month opposing a social media age limit as “too blunt an instrument to address risks effectively.”
Jackie Hallan, a director at the youth mental health service ReachOut, opposed the ban. She said 73% of young people across Australia accessing mental health support did so through social media.
“We’re uncomfortable with the ban. We think young people are likely to circumvent a ban and our concern is that it really drives the behavior underground and then if things go wrong, young people are less likely to get support from parents and carers because they’re worried about getting in trouble,” Hallan said.
Child psychologist Philip Tam said a minimum age of 12 or 13 would have been more enforceable.
“My real fear honestly is that the problem of social media will simply be driven underground,” Tam said.
Australian National University lawyer Associate Prof. Faith Gordon feared separating children from there platforms could create pressures within families.
Albanese said there would be exclusions and exemptions in circumstances such as a need to continue access to educational services.
But parental consent would not entitle a child under 16 to access social media.
Earlier this year, the government began a trial of age-restriciton technologies. Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, the online watchdog that will police compliance, will use the results of that trial to provide platforms with guidance on what reasonable steps they can take.
Communications Minister Michelle Rowland said the year-long lead-in would ensure the age limit could be implemented in a “very practical way.”
“There does need to be enhanced penalties to ensure compliance,” Rowland said.
“Every company that operates in Australia, whether domiciled here or otherwise, is expected and must comply with Australian law or face the consequences,” she added.
The main opposition party has given in-principle support for an age limit at 16.
Opposition lawmaker Paul Fletcher said the platforms already had the technology to enforce such an age ban.
“It’s not really a technical viability question, it’s a question of their readiness to do it and will they incur the cost to do it,” Fletcher told Australian Broadcasting Corp.
“The platforms say: ’It’s all too hard, we can’t do it, Australia will become a backwater, it won’t possibly work.’ But if you have well-drafted legislation and you stick to your guns, you can get the outcomes,” Fletcher added.
TOKYO (AP) — A robot that has spent months inside the ruins of a nuclear reactor at the tsunami-hit Fukushima Daiichi plant delivered a tiny sample of melted nuclear fuel on Thursday, in what plant officials said was a step toward beginning the cleanup of hundreds of tons of melted fuel debris.
The sample, the size of a grain of rice, was placed into a secure container, marking the end of the mission, according to Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings, which manages the plant. It is being transported to a glove box for size and weight measurements before being sent to outside laboratories for detailed analyses over the coming months.
Plant chief Akira Ono has said it will provide key data to plan a decommissioning strategy, develop necessary technology and robots and learn how the accident had developed.
The first sample alone is not enough and additional small-scale sampling missions will be necessary in order to obtain more data, TEPCO spokesperson Kenichi Takahara told reporters Thursday. “It may take time, but we will steadily tackle decommissioning,” Takahara said.
Despite multiple probes in the years since the 2011 disaster that wrecked the. plant and forced thousands of nearby residents to leave their homes, much about the site’s highly radioactive interior remains a mystery.
The sample, the first to be retrieved from inside a reactor, was significantly less radioactive than expected. Officials had been concerned that it might be too radioactive to be safely tested even with heavy protective gear, and set an upper limit for removal out of the reactor. The sample came in well under the limit.
That’s led some to question whether the robot extracted the nuclear fuel it was looking for from an area in which previous probes have detected much higher levels of radioactive contamination, but TEPCO officials insist they believe the sample is melted fuel.
The extendable robot, nicknamed Telesco, first began its mission August with a plan for a two-week round trip, after previous missions had been delayed since 2021. But progress was suspended twice due to mishaps — the first involving an assembly error that took nearly three weeks to fix, and the second a camera failure.
On Oct. 30, it clipped a sample weighting less than 3 grams (.01 ounces) from the surface of a mound of melted fuel debris sitting on the bottom of the primary containment vessel of the Unit 2 reactor, TEPCO said.
On Thursday, the gravel, whose radioactivity earlier this week recorded far below the upper limit set for its environmental and health safety, was placed into a safe container for removal out of the compartment.
The sample return marks the first time the melted fuel is retrieved out of the containment vessel.
Fukushima Daiichi lost its key cooling systems during a 2011 earthquake and tsunami, causing meltdowns in its three reactors. An estimated 880 tons of fatally radioactive melted fuel remains in them.
The government and TEPCO have set a 30-to-40-year target to finish the cleanup by 2051, which experts say is overly optimistic and should be updated. Some say it would take for a century or longer.
Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi said there have been some delays but “there will be no impact on the entire decommissioning process.”
No specific plans for the full removal of the fuel debris or its final disposal have been decided.
TORONTO – The Professional Women’s Hockey League has revealed the jersey designs for its six newly named teams.
Each PWHL team operated under its city name, with players wearing jerseys featuring the league’s logo in its inaugural season before names and logos were announced last month.
The Toronto Sceptres, Montreal Victoire, Ottawa Charge, Boston Fleet, Minnesota Frost and New York Sirens will start the PWHL’s second season on Nov. 30 with jerseys designed to reflect each team’s identity and to be sold to the public as replicas.
Led by PWHL vice-president of brand and marketing Kanan Bhatt-Shah, the league consulted Creative Agency Flower Shop to design the jerseys manufactured by Bauer, the PWHL said Thursday in a statement.
“Players and fans alike have been waiting for this moment and we couldn’t be happier with the six unique looks each team will don moving forward,” said PWHL senior vice president of business operations Amy Scheer.
“These jerseys mark the latest evolution in our league’s history, and we can’t wait to see them showcased both on the ice and in the stands.”
Training camps open Tuesday with teams allowed to carry 32 players.
Each team’s 23-player roster, plus three reserves, will be announced Nov. 27.
Each team will play 30 regular-season games, which is six more than the first season.
Minnesota won the first Walter Cup on May 29 by beating Boston three games to two in the championship series.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 7, 2024.
