The United States’ 2026 midterm elections have been plagued with political violence, especially against women who are running for election or re-election. On August 2nd Congressional candidate Marcy Kaptur and her campaign manager were on their way to church when involved in a serious collision where the at-fault vehicle fled the scene.[i] On August 14th, 2026, Congressional candidate Bernadette Greene-Placentia was knocked unconscious and raped by two strange men.[ii] On October 23rd, Congressional candidate Heidi Kuhn and her husband Matte were injured in a three-car vehicular collision on the Inter-State highway.[iii][iv] Additionally, on October 24th Alaskan Senatorial candidate Mary Peltola and her family were on their way to the Alaska Federation of Natives’ annual banquet when they were stopped at a red light and hit from behind, slamming them into another vehicle.[v] Each of the incidents involved women – all political candidates who are Democrats.
Congressional candidate Heidi Kuhn providing update on her condition from bed. (Screenshot from her campaign website)
Across the globe on October 19th, Australian Independent MP Helen Haines was the victim of a brutal vehicular assault outside her office, where a man in a Land Cruiser rammed MP Haines, pinning her up against her own car, before reversing and ramming her a second time; both her legs amputated as a result of her critical injuries.[vi]
While all of these incidents are still under investigation, their commonalities have sparked widespread speculation across social media. Were all of these deliberate acts of political violence against women based on their political beliefs? If so, then prosecutors should be charging the offenders with hate crimes as both ‘sex’ and ‘political beliefs’ are protected characteristics under the general principle of non-discrimination found in international human rights law. As this principle is expressed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Articles 2 and 3, the State has an obligation to investigate and prosecute, if merited. The rights violated may include the right to political participation, under Article 14 of the ICCPR.
Article 2 (ICCPR)
1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.
3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;
(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.
Gender non-discrimination is reiterated in Article 3 of the ICCPR.
Article 3 (ICCPR)
The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.
Additionally, intentional harm to parliamentarians may violate the right to work, provided for in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights(ICESCR), Article 6, paragraph 1[vii]. This applies to the 174 Member States Parties to the ICESCR, though does not apply to the United States who never ratified this Covenant.
Article 6 (ICESCR)
1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right.
Only thorough, independent investigations will quell the suspicion that has been raised by these incidents and their commonalities during this controversial election period.
Ohio Rep Marcy Kaptur hospitalized after hit-and-run crash on way to church; Bonny Chu; Aug. 2, 2026; Fox News; AOL; screenshot.
Injuries notwithstanding, harassment and intimidation of women in politics have become unacceptably widespread. When Heads of State themselves use misogynistic language, and refuse to investigate and prosecute, the result enables a sense of permissiveness to the public. Furthermore, when social media platforms amplify this rhetoric and tacit acceptance of violence against women, that speech may amount to incitement to violence, contrary to the restrictions on freedom of expression under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; all parties should be held accountable for violating the rights of others if such speech is found to have a direct causal link.
Article 19 (ICCPR)
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
The rhetoric of the U.S. midterm elections must not risk further escalation of the already disproportionate impacts of misogynistic abuse, threats and violence against women of any political leaning. The United States must uphold their legal commitments to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This is crucial to the protection of a free and fair election and the protection of your own political rights.
Read more on the Backsliding of women’s rights and threats to political participation from January 1, 2026, by International Law for Women.
At the 69th Session of the Commission on the Status of Women, held at the United Nations Headquarters in NYC this past September, UN Secretary-General António Guterres declared that “women’s rights are under siege. The poison of the patriarchy is back – and it is back with a vengeance”.
The global condition of women is deteriorating. In fact, the United Nations predicts that it will be almost 300 years before gender equality is achieved worldwide if it continues at the current pace. Regressive laws are rolling women’s back rights by decades in a variety of countries, from liberal democracies like the United States, electoral autocracies like Russia, and in (now) closed autocracies like Afghanistan. They have found something in common, which is the desire to oppress women. The global trend of de-democratization threatens to bring women’s progress down with it. State hostility towards women’s movements threatens to replace existing women’s equality organizations with state-operated agencies aimed at preserving the traditional family and women’s gendered roles as mothers and caretakers.
The principle of non-discrimination, which includes women,is provided for in the nine core international human rights treaties. According to the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR) – Article 2, paragraph 1:
Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
A diverse group of resolute-looking women in suits stand in front of a neoclassical building. (AI generated image)
Threats to women’s political participation
“A move towards authoritarianism is often accompanied by a resurgence of patriarchal values, with devastating effects on gender equality. Leaders with authoritarian leanings will encourage intolerance of and misogyny against women in public life, with the goal of dividing and cultivating fear. As countries inch towards authoritarianism, this backlash against women is noticeable.”[i]
On June 14th of 2025 Minnesota State Representative and Speaker Emeritus Melissa Hortman, along with her husband, were the victims of a politically motivated assassination. Police found a hit list in the car of the shooter that included the names of almost 70 pro-abortion advocates and lawmakers.[ii]
On November 5th of 2025, Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum was sexually assaulted by a man as she made a public appearance; the incident was captured on video that went viral.[iii] Acknowledging that this was an indication of the extensive sexual violence that Latin American women face daily, she is pressing charges and is calling for a review of sexual harassment laws.
In January 2019 an AI-generated ‘deepfake’ porn video of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez circulated online, traumatizing the Democratic Congresswoman. In response, as a survivor of sexual violence, she spoke out publicly against deepfakes as “a way of digitizing violent humiliation”, citing violations of privacy and autonomy.[iv] Fighting against this injustice that so many young women are subjected to, she promulgated the Take it Down act[v], which the U.S. Senate passed into law on May 19, 2025.
In October 2022, the home of U.S. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was broken into where her husband was brutally bludgeoned on the head with a hammer by an assailant intent on finding her. Prosecutors say the man had “a violent plan to kidnap Nancy Pelosi, to hold her hostage, to break her kneecaps, to teach her a lesson.”[vi] Paul Pelosi survived the attack, after surgery and a long recovery, but the incident highlighted the hostile level that political rhetoric has reached and the vulnerability of lawmakers and their families. Shortly afterwards Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi stepped down from her role as Speaker of the House and Democratic Leader, after serving over 40 years in politics with the honour of being the first and only female speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.
The law
None of this is justifiable. And all of it is designed to silence and drive women, including younger generations, out of the politics and the public sphere. Political participation is a human right. And domestic law must conform to international law. To that effect Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by 175 States by the end of 2025[vii], provides that:
Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:
(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;
(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.
In addition to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), women’s political participation is also provided for under the Action for Equality, Development and Peace – Beijing Declaration and Platform for Actionof 1995. Strategic objectives include Women in Power and Decision Making.[xxv]
Strategic objective G.1. –
Take measures to ensure women’s equal access to and full participation in power structures and decision-making. Actions to be taken.
Strategic objective G.2. –
Increase women’s capacity to participate in decision-making and leadership. Actions to be taken.
“Actions to be taken” refers to taking positive action, also known as affirmative action, to account for a history of structural inequality and systemic discrimination until substantial equality is achieved.
According to the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), globally women occupy only 27.2% of parliamentarian seats. And while there was a significant increase between 2000 – 2015, that progress has slowed, rising by a mere 0.3% between 2024 and 2025, which was a landmark year for elections.[viii] The intimidation, harassment and violence perpetrated against female parliamentarians has been a pressing issue for the (IPU) since 2016. The IPU has created various counter-measure initiatives aimed at achieving gender parity in parliaments, hosting an annual Summit of Women Speakers of Parliament, advocating best practices and publishing Guidelines for the elimination of sexism, harassment and violence against women in parliament[ix].
Threats against women parliamentarians arise from both the public and from their political parties, driving them out of politics and undermining political participation. This negatively impacts women’s representation and diminishes democracy itself.
De-democratization and the autocratization of the USA
International human rights law emphasizes the indivisibility and interdependence of human rights. They work together to strengthen one another, but in contrast, the loss of one right can lead to the loss of others.
The Varieties of Democracy Institute developed theVarieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Research Project using data collection and 600+ indicators to measure and conceptualize democracy into core principles and components, applying them to every country in the world. Components include gender equality, credible elections, and freedom of expression, as indicated below in infographic 1. “In 2019 autocracies outnumbered democracies for the first time since 2001”[x] sparking concerns over a “third wave of autocratization”.
Infographic 1: V-Dem Global State of Democracy Indices
The V-Dem 2024 Democracy Report listed the United States as an “autocratizing” country on the Liberal Democracy Index, registering substantial and significant deterioration compared to its 2014 level.[xi] Analysis from the GlobalState of Democracy Initiative, an inter-governmental organization, also reports backsliding of democracy in the United States.[xii] Furthermore, the United Nations Human Rights Council recently adopted a resolution citing a lack of cooperation from the United States, who was due for their Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in 2025. The UPR is an interactive peer-review process of a States’ human rights performance that every Member State of the UN is required to participate in every 5 years. However, the Trump administration announced that it would be boycotting the UPR.[xiii] This is clearly an affront to international human rights law.
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, a U.S. based nonpartisan law and policy organization, “America’s longstanding and abysmal record on myriad gender equity markers has been the true harbinger for our downgraded status.”[xiv]
De-democratization and regression of women’s rights in the United States have impacted their rights to privacy (Art. 17 ICCPR), health (Art. 12 ICESCR), and life (Art. 6 ICCPR), especially regarding maternal mortality. The U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in 2022 reversed Roe v. Wade, which set abortion rights back almost 50 years. In 2026, women in South Carolina could face up to 30 years in prison for having an abortion if Bill S. 323 – the Unborn Child Protection Act – is passed. Additionally, Montana’s Bill HB 609 would make traveling out of state for an abortion a crime, punishable by up to 5 years in prison. This breaches the right to movement, protected under Article 12 of the ICCPR, and discriminates since men do not face similar penalties. These challenges to women’s rights emphasize the need for stronger progressive female representation in parliament.
Additionally, some Republican leaders have even suggested that women be denied the right to vote, contrary to international law. Article 7 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), for example, guarantees equal political participation. But U.S. Pentagon Chief, Republican Pete Hegseth, supports a law to end women’s voting rights. The ‘one household, one vote’ system aims to disempower women and regress to a patriarchal order. Likewise, the SAVE ACT (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act; H.R. 8281), tabled in 2025, imposes unreasonable obstacles to voting for anyone who has undergone a name change, including married women, trans people and adoptees. Political participation, including the right to vote, is a human right and must be free from discrimination on the basis of sex or gender.
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979), Article 7:
States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the political and public life of the country and, in particular, shall ensure to women, on equal terms with men, the right:
(a) To vote in all elections and public referenda and to be eligible for election to all publicly elected bodies;
(b) To participate in the formulation of government policy and the implementation thereof and to hold public office and perform all public functions at all levels of government;
(c) To participate in non-governmental organizations and associations concerned with the public and political life of the country.
The growing threat against women’s equal access to human rights and fundamental freedoms is of concern to all women, as ideologies rapidly spread across the internet. Of further concern is the U.S. Trump Administration’s expressed desire to “make Canada the fifty-first state”, thereby potentially subjecting Canadian women to the same misogynistic and systemic overhauling of the U.S. legal order.
Denying women political agency is a form of patriarchal protectionism that in effect subordinates women while strengthening the control of male State and non-State actors alike. But a robust democracy depends on the inclusion of a diversity of voices. Women’s rights are regarded as the canary in the coal mine of democracy because of their inextricable link.
The interconnectedness of human rights
Human rights experts recognize the interconnectedness and interdependence of human rights. Oppressors strategically take aim at women’s political rights, such as the right to public participation which is closely connected to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression, precisely because without those rights women are unable to promote or protect other rights. This is particularly true of freedom of expression, our most valuable right – it is a cornerstone of democracy integral to the protection and promotion of other rights. Consequently, not only are female parliamentarians at high risk of intimidation, harassment and violence, but so are female journalists and women’s human rights defenders, both from state and non-state actors alike. This violates the right to freedom of expression, which is protected by Article 19, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
“Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”
According to the International Knowledge Network of Women in Politics “(t)hese challenges discourage women from actively participating in politics and can lead to self-censorship.”[xix] The women that we depend on to inform us in the media and to represent our interests in policy-making at various levels of governance are silenced and driven out of office. Furthermore, freedom of expression includes both the right to impart and the right to receive information. Therefore, the rights of all women are indirectly violated by attacks on female journalists, parliamentarians, and human rights defenders.
A group of (Afghan) women in blue burqas standing outside; 2023; source – Faruk Tokluoğlu, Pexels
Illegitimate restrictions to political rights threaten social rights, such as equal access to education or healthcare, which are proscribed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Political Rights (1966). This is exactly what the women and girls of Afghanistan have been facing since the Taliban regained control in 2021 – no education past grade 6, they cannot be examined by a male doctor, nor are females permitted to study or practice medicine, including midwifery and nursing; thus, their rights to education, work, healthcare, and right to life are all threatened. Widows are reduced to begging on the streets to feed their children and themselves. As intended by the Taliban, women and girls are condemned to a life of economic dependence and poverty. These extreme forms of patriarchal protectionism deny women both political and personal agency. Furthermore, they are only permitted to leave their homes ‘out of necessity’ as proscribed by law. Afghan women are facing a severe mental health crisis due to the denial of their fundamental rights and freedoms. Experts “said that their plight was among the worst in the world.”[xx]
First invisible, and now silent, Afghan women have been erased from public life. The latest backlash to women’s rights in Afghanistan attacked the right to public participation and freedom of expression in the most extreme manner – denying women the right to have their voices heard in public. Under Article 13 of The Law on the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice[xxi] women are forbidden even from merely speaking aloud with each other and from singing in public.
(3) “A woman’s voice is considered intimate and should not be heard singing, reciting, or reading aloud in public”; and (8) If an adult woman leaves her house out of necessity, she must cover her voice, face, and body”.
Fighting against these draconian measures, though confined to the home, women and girls took to online education. Consequently, the Afghan government cut off fibre optic internet in September 2025[xxii], denying access to information, freedom of assembly and freedom of expression, thus severing the last means of communication that women and girls had with the outside world. Women’s human rights defenders are calling the sum of these human rights violations ‘gender apartheid’.
It hasn’t always been that way. Afghan women were given the right to vote in 1919.[xxiii] And in 2020, Afghan women held over 25 per cent of seats in Parliament and could run for president.”[xxiv] Women are now banned even from working in civil society organizations, national and international NGOs including the UN, despite the country’s major humanitarian crisis. Now the Taliban, acting as the de facto authority in Afghanistan, are erasing women completely from public life – policies consistent with patriarchal autocracies that chip away at women’s rights, forcing them back into the home and to a life of servitude as mothers and caregivers. Without women in public life, the rate of child marriage has skyrocketed, and consequently, so have maternal mortality rates. Disturbingly, Afghanistan is just one of the many States where women are experiencing a systemic backlash – a stark reminder of the fragility of women’s and girls’ rights.
Afghan women in 1927; source: Commons
Collective compliance
It is natural to feel helpless in the face of such situations. When human rights violations occur on a massive scale at the hands of the State there is a diffusion of responsibility and unwillingness to challenge the State. No single individual feels compelled to take on the responsibility or costs of litigation to challenge the wrongful conduct in court. Conversely, an individual who is the sole victim of a human rights violation would likely pursue justice on their own volition. Thus, human rights violations of a broad scope are often the most challenging to reverse. Individual responsibility may be out of reach for mass human rights violations, but collectively they are not. Solidarity is imperative. Furthermore, when a human rights violation is facilitated by law, we tend to trust that it is compliant with international law, especially in democratic States.
Why international law matters
Knowledge is power. Understanding international law allows for holding State authorities accountable to their legal obligations arising from treaties with other States and, specific to human rights treaties, to all individuals under their jurisdiction. When these provisions are violated through acts or omissions it’s crucial to know how to enforce accountability through judicial and non-judicial mechanisms at domestic, regional, and international levels.
States must protect and promote the right to political participation, ensuring it is meaningful, effective, and inclusive with a real impact on decision-making. Additionally, domestic laws that lead to the loss of rights contradict the international legal principle of non-retrogression of human rights.
Women must defend their rights to public life and participate in policy making at all levels of governance from civil society organizations to the highest diplomatic posts of international organizations. This is imperative both to protect and to promote women’s human rights and democracy itself, especially in the face of increasing autocratization.
Returning to the UN Secretary-General’s warning at the 69th Session of the Commission of Women – “the poison of the patriarchy is back – and it is back with a vengeance” (…), “but there is an antidote”, he continued, (and) “that antidote is action”. We all have an important role to play in 2026 and beyond.
[v] Introduced in Senate (01/16/2025) Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks Act or the TAKE IT DOWN Act; 119th Congress (2025-2026); Accessed December 19, 2025 https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/146
[x] Abstract; Inexorable Force or Dying Wave? The long term trends of democratization and the third wave of Autocratization; David Randahl University of Gothenburg, Varieties of Democracy Institute: Working Paper No. 152. March 2025. https://v-dem.net/media/publications/WP_152.pdf
[xi] Figure A7. Countries by score on V-Dem’s Liberal Democracy Index (LDI), page 60; Democracy Report 2025, V-Dem Institute.
[xiii] Human Rights Council reschedules human rights review of the United States of America; regrets “non-cooperation” with UPR mechanism; 07 November 20205, United Nations Human Rights Council; Geneva;
[xv] DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION ET AL; CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 19–1392. Argued December 1, 2021—Decided June 24, 2022; https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
During a time of radical political transformation of the global landscape, knowledge is power – yet for Canadians, freedom of expression has been impaired since Bill C-18, the Online News Act, reached royal assent on June 22, 2023[i]. Freedom of expression is a core value of democracy and therefore must be carefully guarded.
The Act proposed a regime whereby digital intermediaries, including search engines and social media platforms, would be regulated by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and must bargain with eligible Canadian news businesses to provide compensation when their news content is shared via links on these intermediaries. The intention is for tech giants to contribute to the sustainability of the Canadian news market. However, in an ongoing dispute between the Government of Canada and U.S. based non-State actor Meta Platforms Inc., Meta has argued that they already provide significant value through referral traffic for those news publishers and therefore refuse to pay compensation. In protest Meta has been blocking content from legacy Canadian news agencies from being seen or shared by platform users for over two years now, as many Canadians have noticed. Google intended to take similar measures but reached an agreement with the Government of Canada in November 2023[ii]. Regardless of which entity is at fault, State or non-State actor, the implementation of Bill C-18 and its resulting dispute is in effect breaching international human rights standards, specifically freedom of expression.
As the Minister of Canadian Heritage, whose department is responsible for Bill C-18, is aware, Canada acceded to the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and its Optional Protocol in 1976. Article 19, paragraph 2 of the Covenant provides that
“Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”
Article 19 makes clear that freedom of expression extends to everyone, not just the press, and that it concerns both imparting and receiving information. But Canadians are currently unable to receive news from reliable sources while using popular social media platforms. Therefore, our right to receive information is impaired. We are also unable to comment on news articles, therefore impairing our right to impart information. Additionally, our right to political participation is impaired, all of which are essential to both democracy and women’s rights.
While there are certain permissible restrictions on freedom of expression, according to Art. 19 para. 3[iii] of the ICCPR, this situation does not meet the criteria. These restrictions are not necessary for the respect or reputation of others, for the protection of national security, of ordre public, or for public health or morals. And although the restrictions Canadians face resulting from Bill C-18 are not restrictions de jure, they are restrictions de facto.
Would a court consider the same criteria for restrictions in fact, as it does for restrictions in law? According to the Government of Canada’s analysis on Section 2 (b), “3. Does the law or government action at issue, in purpose or effect, restrict freedom of expression?”[iv]:
ii) Effect:
Even if a purpose is compatible with section 2(b), an individual may be able to demonstrate that the effect of the government action infringes their section 2(b) right. In this situation, the individual must show that their expression advances one or more of the values underlying section 2(b), e.g., participation in social and political decision making, the search for truth and individual self-fulfillment (Irwin Toy Ltd., supra; Ramsden, supra). While more recent Supreme Court decisions still refer to this principle of showing the effect of government action, the Court does not appear to apply with a great deal of vigor the requirement that an individual show an advancement of values, tending instead to easily find a restriction of section 2(b).
If a court concludes that the government action, in either purpose or effect, infringes section 2(b), it will then consider whether the limit on free expression is justifiable under section 1.
Therefore, regardless of the purpose of the government action, a court may find the effect of a government action to infringe upon our freedom of expression.
What is the effect of this restriction on freedom of expression?
In an era rife with misinformation and disinformation, citizens are urged to fact-check information through well-respected news agencies with high journalistic standards before sharing content online. However, fact-checking through trusted news agencies Instagram or Facebook accounts is attempted in vain. Visits to news accounts read “People in Canada can’t see this content – In response to Canadian government legislation, news content can’t be viewed in Canada”.
The impairment of our ability to fact-check runs contrary to Canada’s commitment to counter the spread of misinformation and disinformation. In a fast-paced world it is not always convenient nor efficient to fact-check information through a Google search, which is why so many people rely on “instant” information through platforms like Instagram. Furthermore, direct site visits to news publishers can often be blocked by pay walls, making it more difficult to discern the facts from a credible source.
Countering the spread of misinformation was particularly crucial during the height of the COVID-19 global pandemic, however, alternative news agencies were more accessible than highly credible sources. Unfortunately this same effect has taken place throughout wars and major elections.
In that respect, “…as part of a series of reports on coordinated inauthentic behaviour, Meta reported that, in 2021, it had removed 52 networks found in 34 countries that had ‘engaged in coordinated efforts to manipulate or corrupt public debate for a strategic goal, while relying centrally on fake accounts to mislead people about who’s behind them’.”[v] The 2022 Report of the UN Secretary General – Countering disinformation for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms – concluded that “States bear the primary responsibility to counter disinformation by respecting, protecting and fulfilling the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, to privacy and to public participation.”[vi]
The right to political participation
According to research on Trust in Media published in July 2024 by Pollara Strategic Insights, 33% of Canadians and 57% of Gen Zs use social media as their primary news source[vii]. One important difference between receiving information on a dedicated news app from receiving it on a social media app is the ability of the reader to directly engage in democratic dialogue in a social media feed. This direct access to democratic engagement is particularly important to women and others from marginalized groups.
The impairment of the right to impart information undermines the enjoyment of the right to political participation. Arguably, sharing opinions on social media that are pertinent to political issues, regardless of the content of one’s opinions, is an exercise not only of the freedom of expression but also of the right to political participation and democratic engagement. This assertion is affirmed by the Public Service Alliance of Canada:
“Expressing political opinions or sharing political content on social media is a form of political expression and is protected by the Charter”[viii].
The 2024 article Tweeting, talking, or doing politics? Testing the influence of communication on democratic engagement in Science Direct says, “The act of citizens being both politically and civically engaged is a known benefit to society, which is collectively known as ‘democratic engagement.’”[ix]
Social media has become one of the most powerful political tools of the 21st century. Therefore, without the ability to access, read, share, and participate in political dialogue on issues that concern us and shape our lives, Canada could be found in violation of the right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)for failing to reach an agreement with social media giant Meta Platforms Inc.
In June of 2023 up to 5% of Canadians social media users were included in a test for whom Meta blocked news content; they continue to experience this block, which has been extended in application to 100% of Canadians since August 2023. This block has impaired Canadians’ right to freedom of expression and the right to meaningful political engagement at the time of a generational crisis. We cannot defend our civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights without the guarantee of freedom of expression aligned with international standards.
The international responsibilities of trans-national corporations
Although Meta is directly responsible for the infringement on Canadians’ human rights, the State is indirectly responsible. Human rights must be respected, protected and fulfilled through the regulation of non-State actors. And although Meta its headquartered in the United States, the U.S. is also a party to the ICCPR, whereby an affected member State may file a complaint with the UN Human Rights Committee.
Transnational corporations (TNCs), including Meta, have an obligation to respect human rights in the countries where they conduct business.This obligation is outlined in the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). In a statement released by Meta on March 16, 2021, a corporate human rights policy was launched stating that it “sets out the human rights standards we will strive to respect as defined in international law including the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs)”[x]. Meta stated that “(w)e will report our most critical human rights issues, like risks to freedom of expression, to our Board of Directors.”[xi]
According to the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, Article 13:
The responsibility to respect human rights requires that business enterprises:
(a) Avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts through their own activities, and address such impacts when they occur;
(b) Seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their operations, products or services by their business relationships, even if they have not contributed to those impacts.
Meta’s Corporate Human Rights Policy also states that they commit to implementation of the Global Network Initiative (GNI) Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy. The GNI Principles in turn recognize the indivisibility and interdependence of human rights and therefore that “the deprivation of one right adversely affects others”[xii]. The Principles further state that “freedom of opinion and expression supports an informed citizenry and is vital to ensuring public and private sector accountability. Broad public access to information and the freedom to create and communicate ideas are critical to the advancement of knowledge, economic opportunity and human potential.”[xiii]This supports the assertion that adverse impacts on the right of freedom to receive and impart information may also adversely affect the right to political participation.
“Not only does Meta control a huge chunk of the internet’s physical infrastructure, it also controls who can see what, when and where. That gives it enormous power, even as the contours of the legal obligations to its users remain unclear.”[xiv] It is notable that compliance of TNCs with human rights norms is an evolving area of international law, but in the interest of public perception and accountability, they ought to put human rights above profits by paying their fair share to Canadian news agencies. Conversely, Canada ought to put human rights above profits, despite the 2025 tariff crisis. At a time when the world is experiencing a decline in democracy, with Canada having slid down from a liberal democracy to an electoral democracy on the V-Dem Index in recent years[xv], and women’s rights facing a fierce backlash worldwide, including in Canada, perhaps profit loss is not the most meaningful cost.
Ironically, the Online News Act is said to be “An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada”[xvi], but it has done just the opposite, and it must be addressed. Can the Liberals, led by Prime Minister Mark Carney, take action to foster an effective remedy to the benefit of all Canadians impacted by this ongoing human rights violation?
Respectful engagement is welcomed through the comment section that follows the footnotes.
[iii] Article 19, para. 3: The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
[iv] Analysis; 3. Does the law or government action at issue, in purpose or effect, restrict freedom of expression?; Section 2(b) – Freedom of expression; the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; Charterpedia; Canada’s System of Justice; Government of Canada; https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art2b.html; website accessed October 7, 2025
[vi] United Nations General Assembly; Countering disinformation for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms; pg. 17/19; Report of the Secretary General; A/77/287; 12 August 2022
[ix] Tweeting, talking, or doing politics? Testing the influence of communication on democratic engagement; Sherice Gearhart, Bingbing Zhang, and Oluseyi Adegbola; Telematics and Informatics Report, Vol. 16, December 2024, 1000167; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772503024000537 (Accessed Sept. 4, 2025)
[xv] Pages 52, 60, 62; Nord, Marina, David Altman, Fabio Angiolillo, Tiago Fernandes, Ana Good God, and Staffan I. Lindberg. 2025. Democracy Report 2025: 25 Years of Autocratization – Democracy Trumped? University of Gothenburg: V-Dem Institute. https://www.v-dem.net/documents/61/v-dem-dr__2025_lowres_v2.pdf
