Victoria (Vicky) McArthur, The Conversation
Research has indicated that politicians in Canada are subject to uncivil messages on their social media accounts and increasing threats and hate are directed to candidates online. (Pexels photo)
Canadian politicians have increasingly taken to social media to campaign as well as communicate with constituents, sharing updates on policies, local events, emergencies or government initiatives.
But stories have emerged of constituents being blocked by their representatives. Should Canadian politicians be free to block their own constituents?
Some politicians claim the blocking is to combat increased online harassment, while constituents have claimed that simply being critical of policies or initiatives is enough to get them blocked.
Some recent cases in Canada include federal Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault being asked to unblock Ezra Levant on X in 2023, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith blocking constituents on X in 2023 and Montréal Mayor Valérie Plante blocking comments on X and Instagram in 2024. In 2018, Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson was sued by three local Ottawa activists after blocking them on X.
Research has indicated that politicians in Canada are subject to uncivil messages on their social media accounts and increasing threats and hate are directed to candidates online. Furthermore, social media has been attributed to rising political polarization and the spread of disinformation. The RCMP is currently investigating online threats made to MP Chris d’Entremont after he crossed the floor to join the federal Liberals.
Constituent rights
AI bots on social media are influencing political discourse online in Canada; one researcher has warned these bots “amplify specific narratives, influence public opinion, and reinforce ideological divides.”
But where do Canadian politicians draw the line, and does blocking constituents violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically regarding the rights of citizens to access government information?
The Charter recognizes a derivative right to access government information when it’s essential for meaningful expression about government operations. This is why a court ordered Guilbeault to unblock Levant, founder of Rebel News, two years ago. However, this wasn’t an official ruling, but rather a settlement.
Within Ontario, the Office of the Integrity Commissioner has provided guidance on the use of social media accounts by provincial members of parliament (MPPs). The policy states that MPPs may have social media accounts in their own names, and provides advice on how they are used, but this advice mostly covers polices about partisan content or campaign rules.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association notes that there is, “a special incentive for politicians to make sure that the online record casts them in the best possible light, even if that means silencing critical or otherwise inconvenient voices.”
Social media platforms generally do not effectively or consistently intervene when it comes to targeted harassment of Canadian politicians. For Canadian politicians who maintain active, public-facing social media accounts, this leaves managing online abuse to the candidates and their staff.
What about constituents who are simply unhappy with their elected officials?
In an era where Canadian politicians increasingly use social media to communicate policy and promote transparency, shouldn’t citizens be able to post critical comments in those same spaces? If these platforms serve as modern public forums, where exactly should democratic debate take place if not there?
Silenced by elected officials?
The issue presently lacks legal precedence in Canada. In the case of Levant/Guilbeault, the decision ordering the former environment minister to unblock Levant appeared to hinge on the nature of Guilbeault’s X account: whether it was a personal account or whether he was using it in an official capacity to communicate updates on his work in Parliament.
In the case of Watson in Ottawa, the three blocked plaintiffs argued the mayor had “infringed their constitutional right to freedom of expression by blocking them from his official Twitter account.” They further argued that his Twitter feed was “a public account used in the course of his duties as mayor” — a point he later conceded in unblocking them and ending the legal battle.
As Canadian politics continues to become integrated with social media, Canada still has no clear legal framework governing when or if politicians can or should block constituents online. The issue sits at the crossroads of digital safety, public accountability and freedom of expression.
Until clearer guidelines emerge, the question remains: how can politicians in Canada safely and effectively use social media to engage with constituents? And how can constituents confidently engage in critique via those same channels without fear of being silenced by their elected officials?
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
