This was a joint project completed for the class ‘Reinventing Democracy: Innovation, Participation and Power’ 2023 at the University of Southampton, by  Oliver Jasper, Samuel Sacker, Lewis Fox, James Johnson.

Problems and Purpose

The emergence of the new age of digital technology has raised serious questions about the ability of Canadian citizens to protect themselves from online abuse and hate. This is because “the institutions and regulations that safeguarded people throughout the era of print media, landlines, cinema and broadcast TV are less equipped to deal with this new era of digital technologies”[1]. Whilst this new digital era has created some profound benefits for many across the world, the rise in online abuse and hate, highlights how “technologies with a transformative potential such as the internet bring both opportunities and challenges”[2]. A key concern of the assembly is that even though we are more connected with people around the world, this has disconnected us from the realities of the world and also the people around us, which has served to “increase polarization and fracture human connections”[3]. There is a fine line between protecting freedom of expression whilst ensuring the internet is properly regulated, which is what this citizens assembly sets out to do.

The key purposes of the citizens assembly are to

·      establish the guiding principles of democratic expression and what impact digital technologies have on expression

·      examine the recommendations the government has received for creating a new legal framework to enhance online safety and safeguard user rights

·      compare how other countries are dealing with the problem of increased online abuse and consider whether the government could implement similar policies

·      advise the government on what they can to make the internet safer and uphold user rights.

Background History and Context

This citizens assembly is the final assembly of a three-year initiative on the issue of digital technology. The first of these citizen assemblies, in 2020, provided guidance and suggestions on how digital technology should be regulated by businesses and the government in order to prevent hatred and prejudice, whilst also protecting the right to freedom of expression. Following on from this success, the second assembly of 2021, “considered whether there should be legal penalties and consequences for those who knowingly spread disinformation online with the intent to cause harm”[4]. After what was discovered In the first two assemblies, this assembly was mandated to provide advice on the best ways to create a legal framework that deals with the problem of online hate and abuse. Online hatred can have a significant mental and physical effect on victims, so these assemblies were commissioned in order to ensure “the creation of a safer digital world for current and future generations”[5], whilst also ensuring that all Canadians interests are fairly represented which should have a positive effect on democracy and society.

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

In 2022, the department of Canadian Heritage formed an Expert Advisory Group on online safety, this group had the purpose of providing the Minister of Canadian Heritage with advice and guidance on how to address harmful content online[6]. To expand their proposals in 2020 and 2021, the department requested a third assembly to respond to the criticisms of the past two.  

In 2018 and 2019, the McConnel Foundation and the department of Canadian Heritage agreed to fund a three-year Commission to examine the impact of global technologies on Canadian democracy and society[7]. The assembly profile consisted of 45 members who were able to organize, they were randomly selected to meet and draft recommendations for public authorities.    

The organization was made difficult by the Covid-19 pandemic, which resulted in a hybrid model of deliberation[8]. The majority of the process was conducted in person in Ottawa where members were asked to gather for five days throughout June 2022.  

Participant Recruitment and Selection

12,500 invitations were sent to randomly selected households in Canada, made available to anyone aged over 18 who lived in the recipient household. In the letter that was sent out, it asked recipients to give up their time and meet both online and in person to discuss ways around the issues of online safety[9]. 

Over 600 people volunteered from their invitations, from these 42 were selected via Civic Lottery. A civic lottery is a balanced and fair way of selecting members of a citizen’s assembly, this is because it uses a form of sortition that considers the postal system as well as a randomized selection process that allows for the recruitment of panellists[10]. The advantage is that at the end of the process, left is a group of volunteers that broadly match the demographics of the people and community they represent[11]. 

For the Capstone Citizens Assembly on democratic expression, members for the 2020 and 2021 assemblies were given another chance to volunteer. What was different in this assembly was that a modified lottery process was used for the reason of ensuring demographic representation was more consistent with the population as well as exceeding the threshold for indigenous representation[12]. What also was changed was that there was an outreach to expand the group, to increase the demographic profile of the group further. 

Of these members, 10 were aged between 18-29, 11 were aged between 30-44, 15 were aged between 45-64, 9 were aged over 65. All members were even split between relevant Canadian provinces[13]. 

Methods and Tools Used

The assembly engaged in a three-month programme of research and discussion on a particular topic. The Mac Bell School of Public Policy at McGill University conducted specialised research and organised expert evidence to inform the assembly’s work. The conclusions of the assembly were then made public in a report. The Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression used professional speakers and group discussions to find solutions and get a variety of perspectives, to enhance their objective of reducing online harms and safeguarding human rights in Canada.  

The assembly used both small group discussions and panel discussions to ensure that members of the assembly engaged with each other and exchanged knowledge and ideas on the issues. For small group discussions, the assembly was divided into smaller groups to facilitate more interactive discussions. Through using small groups there was significant active participation from different viewpoints, which resulted in fruitful discussions. The panel discussions took place with commissioners and professionals from advisory groups, this meant that they could explore the topics in depth to further their understanding of the topic discussions. Through both critical discussions of each other's views and in depth conversation with professionals, the assembly engaged in collaborative decision-making.  

The assembly also listened to expert presentations, including virtual presentations, this helped inform them, give them more knowledge and context of the issues surrounding democracy and social media, the presentations also demonstrated to them a variety of viewpoints on topics related to democratic expression in the digital age. The presentations from prominent experts in the field, such as Professor Wendy Hui Kyong Chun and Danielle Paradis, provided a foundation of knowledge and stimulated critical thinking among the assembly members. The assembly also included virtual presentations by speakers representing different perspectives on online regulation policy issues. These presentations provided a broad variety of insights and further enriched the discussions.  

By incorporating the review of values and providing tools for reflection, the assembly fostered a deliberative environment that upheld shared principles, promoted critical thinking, and facilitated informed decision-making in the topic of digital expression regulation. Through reviewing the values of previous assemblies, they were able to extend upon previous thoughts. This allowed the participants to shape the foundation of the government’s methods regarding digital regulation. Because the assembly members were provided with tools and resources, they were able to enhance their reflection and analysis of the topics discussed. These resources included research materials, briefing papers and professional guidance.  

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

The assembly was mandated to provide the Minister of Canadian Heritage with advice on how to design a legislative and regulatory framework to prevent harmful content online[14]. Additionally, they also planned how to best incorporate the feedback the government received in 2021 on the original legislative proposal[15]. 45 Canadian residents were selected to participate[16]. The orientation sessions were hosted from the 24th to 26th of May, by Peter MacLeod, the Assembly Chair, in English and co-host Émilie Hervieux, who spoke in French[17]. During the orientation sessions, the assembly held discussions trying to find out if the candidates’ perspective on digital assemblies changed since they had joined the assembly and what they were most keen to discuss during the assembly. Over the course of the assembly they studied 8 main areas of debate.  

The initial four sessions were focused around guest presentations on democratic issues and the assembly’s discussions of these issues. The first session, on the 4th June, began with a guest speaker: Laura McPhie, a member of the Pikwakanagan First Nation[18]. McPhie spoke how the Indigenous could inform the work of the Assembly when considering decolonisation[19]. The session hosted one more presentation from Michel Sabbagh, Director General of Broadcasting, Copyright, and Creative Marketplace at the Department of Canadian Heritage (PCH)[20]. This went into a group discussion about the presentation, particularly about the balance between platform accountability and user accountability. During the next session, on June 15th, the Minister of Heritage, Pablo Rodriguez, shared his thanks and explained how the assembly fits into the government’s plan to ensure that the government profit monetarily from Canadian content on social media platforms. On 16th June the first full day of sessions began.  

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

The Assembly provided the federal government with a number of proposals on how to safeguard free speech online and stop the spread of harmful materials like hate speech and disinformation. On Sunday, June 19^th, 2022, the government of Canada received the final recommendations[21]. 

Furthermore, the findings of the Assembly focused on a comprehensive strategy for a more democratic internet-one that respects free expression, including the right to disagree. They argued for more user empowerment through rights to data ownership and portability, claiming that these rights may fundamentally alter the digital environment. Additionally, they emphasised the significance of decolonisation, a topic frequently ignored in discussions about digital policy as this phenomenon has the potential to multiply negative impacts in the digital world by furthering the effects of colonialism and institutional racism[22]. 

In order to address global collaboration and agreements to lessen the prevalence of online harm, the Assembly also suggested the establishment of a worldwide forum. The proposed envoy would participate in this meeting, which would be crucial in shaping international digital policies. The authors also suggest incorporating deliberate decolonisation tactics into the evaluation, application, and eventual enactment of policy suggestions in order to solve these problems they content that these tactics are crucial for developing an online society that is more equitable[23].  

In addition to this the Canadian Citizens Assemblies on Democratic Expression showed the value of combining expert-led and citizen-led policy exercises that have operated concurrently to provide government with alternative perspectives. While the citizen-led exercises drew on a wide range of experiences and viewpoints, the expert-led exercises offered technical and legal insights. This cooperative approach produced comprehensive policy suggestions that take into account wider social, cultural, and ethical ramifications in addition to the technological aspects of online hazards. This is important firstly because it helps to increase public trust whilst also legitimising the policy outcomes which consequently raises trust between the public and the government[24]. 

Beverley McLachlin, the CO-Chair of the commission, also emphasised the necessity for the voices of Canadian citizens to be reflected in the legislation, highlighting the Assembly’s contribution to making legislation more representational of their needs and concerns[25]. 

Analysis and Lessons Learned

 Inclusiveness  

Smith gives us a definition of inclusiveness, placing the importance of how the participants are selected and thus how much of a voice they have in the process[26]. 

Regarding the Capstone Citizen Assembly, the notion of Inclusion can be considered successful. 

12,000 invitations were sent out to randomly selected households whereby anyone over 18 could subsequently volunteer, this enhanced inclusion. By using a civil lottery to determine members, which was a way in which used a postal system and randomised selection process to determine these members[27], it ensured that the volunteers were able to match the demographics of the area they represent creating a mini public of Canada. By ensuring all demographics had some form of representation, it means that the threat of having ‘agenda’ members was reduced, and inclusion was increased.  

Furthermore, for the Capstone Assembly, by expanding the original members to 45 and using more indigenous representation, it can be argued this further enhanced inclusiveness seeing as it exceeded maximum thresholds for people of indigenous origin, making the whole process even more democratic.  

As mentioned in section 4, these 45 members were evenly split in age and Canadian province, further making the demographic more inclusive and representative.  

Another way in which the Capstone Citizen Assembly addressed the issue of inclusiveness is by introducing a hybrid model of participation for volunteers. By making the process both online and in person, it meant access was easier to volunteers who may not have been able to attend the in person meetings. However, it could be argued this had drawbacks, seeing as the atmosphere online is not as serious as that in person.  

The orientation sessions were hosted in both English and French[28], respecting the indigenous French-Canadians who were involved in the process, this enhanced inclusion, giving all members an equal chance to understand the sessions that were delivered. 

On the basis of Smith’s theoretical framework, inclusion has been successful, members were selected that completely represented the relevant demographics, and they had equal opportunities to voice their opinions. 

Popular Control

In terms of popular control, whilst the Canadian citizens assembly represents a form of popular control to an extent, it does not represent a complete embodiment of the principle. Popular control refers to “the extent to which citizens are afforded increased influence and control within the decision-making process”[29]. This is crucial within democratic states and as a result political equality and popular control are widely considered as two core principles of democracy[30]. In order to measure the impact that the citizens assembly has had on popular control, we must consider the policy stage model analysis, as proposed by Smith, which determines the stages of the decision-making process and the influence that the participants had on this. 

The first stage is the agenda setting of the issue, and the participants had limited control over this as it was mandated “at the request of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, to support his departments’ efforts to reset their approach to digital regulation”[31]. Despite the fact that the participants had limited influence on the agenda setting, the next stage policy analysis produced a high level of popular control in this case. After listening to both expert led and citizen led policy exercises throughout the process of the assembly, the participants were able to “refine their recommendations, find consensus and ensure all assembly members had an opportunity to provide feedback”[32]. This demonstrates a high level of popular control as all the participants contributed to providing recommendations to the government.

The next stage is policy selection by a governing body and this again produced a high level of popular control. The assembly established seven core values and overwhelmingly approved forty three recommendations which will guide government policy in order to protect people from online harm, which shows the influence that the participants had on policy making. Also, the minister of heritage himself “explained how this process fits into the governments wider legislative agenda”[33] which supports the argument for high popular control at this stage.

The final stage refers to the implementation of the policies recommended by the assembly and levels of popular control here are lower than the other stages. This is because the assembly was only conducted recently, and as of April 2023 the legislative Bill which was created of the back of this assembly, is being processed in parliament.

Overall, this citizens assembly has provided relatively high levels of popular control, but it does not represent a complete embodiment. The first and last stages of Smith’s policy stage model analysis do not provide high levels of popular control as the participants were unable to set the agenda of the assemblies and we are yet to see the effects of the policies that will be implemented as a result of their recommendations. However, the second and third stages have produced a high level of popular control because the participants had a significant impact on the development of the recommendations which will be used to guide government policy.

Considered Judgement 

The concept of considered judgement in democratic processes proposed by Graham Smith is a critical viewpoint that is consistent with the procedures followed by the Citizens Assembly on Democratic Expression in Canada. The idea of considered judgement alludes to the establishment of a democratic setting where people can interact with many opinions, including those that are in opposition to their own, which according to Warren (1996) is an unfamiliar requirement in contemporary polities[34]. The democratic innovation of considered judgement is prevalent in the methods and tools used within the case of the Citizens Assembly on Democratic Expression in Canada. Due to the civic lottery method of selecting citizens for the rave, a broad representation of the Canadian community was provided. During a three-month research and debate programme about democratic speech, the participants were exposed to professional evidence and specialised research from the Mac Bell School of Public Policy at McGill University. They were able to consider and discuss a variety of viewpoints during this process before coming to their conclusions, which were then made public in a report. We can relate this to Hannah Arendt’s concepts of considered judgement because she emphasises the value of a deliberative process because it promotes critical thinking and the examination of various viewpoints which can ultimately foster a collective judgement that transcends individual biases and opinions[35].

Furthermore, Graham Smith’s concept of establishing a democratic space for careful judgement is reflected in the combination of expert-led and citizen-led exercises. The assembly was able to produce complete policy recommendations that considered not only technology problems but also broader social, cultural, ethical factors by incorporating both expert ideas and the lived experiences of individuals. This strategy is consistent with Smith’s goal of democratic innovations that increase citizen involvement in political decision-making and improve democratic theory and practise[36]. Smith also thinks that the results of deliberative procedures ought to have significant influence on public policy. It is possible that the Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression’s recommendations were meant to have a significant impact on public policy because the assembly was charged with advising the Minister of Canadian Heritage on how to create a legislative and regulatory framework. So, to conclude, the citizens Assembly on Democratic Expression in Canada serves as a compelling case study of Graham Smith’s concept of considered judgement being successfully applied in a real-world democratic process, highlighting the potential of such deliberative democratic innovations to increase citizens involvement in the calibre of public policy and decision-making.  

TRANSPARENCY

The Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression was advising the government and industry to adopt much higher standards of transparency and user control, so it is vital that they themselves uphold a high level of transparency. The assembly succeeds at being externally transparent because they provided the public with access to information, recorded the proceedings and held open meetings to engage with the public. The assembly provided public access to information about the assembly's purpose, agenda, process, and progress across a range of documents, reports and additional information listed on the ‘Commission Canada’ website[37],

 Including the final report from the ‘capstone’ Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression, which explains the running of the event, important arguments from each session.

 The report covers the conclusions reached of every question posed to the assembly across the 6,000 hours of the assembly[38]. The report also included a full list of forty-three recommendations the assembly made to give the Minister of Canadian Heritage guidance on designing a legislative and regulatory framework to mediate harmful content online[39]. Additionally, they upheld external transparency by recording the proceedings. Crucially, the assembly engaged with the public through arranged events over the course of the proceedings. Through engaging with the public, the assembly develops a relationship of transparency and trust with the citizens.

The events also provided internal transparency as the assembly members were told exactly what the conclusions of their discussions were being used for. Pablo Rodriguez, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, during the fourth session, thanked the volunteers and explained how the project fit into his plan to “ensure online streaming includes Canadian content”[40]. However, the assembly’s primary focus is discussing safeguarding and freedom of speech online, but Rodriguez’s plan involves ensuring that Canadian organisations benefit monetarily when their content is shared on social media platforms. Although this demonstrates internal transparency because the volunteers are informed of the uses of their suggestions, it could be argued that there is a lack of external transparency because the report, which is accessible for the public, focuses on the suggested regulations to optimise online safety.

Efficiency 

The Citizens Assembly on Democratic Innovation require administrative resources for its management. These expenses included the prices of holding a civic lottery, setting up expert presentations, and overseeing the assembly’s discussions. To ensure an impartial, inclusive, and well-informed decision-making process, these expenses would have been a required investment. The Citizens Assembly did place some demands on the citizens with the time taken to attend the meetings and the cognitive load associated with understanding and discussing complex issues. Graham smith writes that “Administrative costs and the burden placed on citizens can thus be a feasibility constraint on democratic innovations”[41], however in the case of the Canadian assembly, participants may have valued the chance to influence public policy and have meaningful conversations about significant societal concerns. Furthermore, smith also highlights the benefits and drawbacks of alternative patterns of decision-making process that do not provide formal chances for citizen interaction[42]. However, The Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression might be considered as an attempt to minimise these possible costs by offering a structured venue for citizen input. Failure to provide structured opportunities for citizen engagement may result in decisions that are not representative of the populations different perspectives and experiences, or it may result in lack of public trust or legitimacy in the decision-making process. By offering a planned forum for public participation, the Canadian Citizens Assembly on Democratic Expression might be considered as an effort to reduce these possibly expenses. 

Transferability

Smith argues that “whilst it is accepted that some decisions can be made at a more local level, we take as given that significant political decisions will continue to be taken by public authorities at larger levels”[43]. This gives us a framework to analyse the notion of transferability in our case on the Third Citizen Assembly on Democratic Expression in Canada. 

This Citizen Assembly demonstrates good levels of transferability. The fact that it involved people from all over Canada, including all demographics and provinces[44] gives it the opportunity to be replicated in the future, this is because it is on a large scale, compared to ‘local’ Citizen assemblies. 

With this said, replication firmly relies on national funding and political will. The organizers of this assembly, the department of heritage, have been able to strategize with the help and support of the McConnel foundation[45] who committed time and funding meaning they could meet the conditions for a sustainable and successful outcome. 

It is also important to consider the political importance of this Citizen Assembly, one could argue this enhanced transferability. As mentioned, because this was a nationwide process on an issue that effects so many Canadians, it meant that the chance of attracting participants was high. This was shown by 600 volunteers as mentioned in section 4, further showing this would easily be reciprocated in a further effort. 

Overall, the level of transferability was high for this Citizen Assembly. The fact it was centred around a national issue provides the best example of why it has the best chance of being taken further in the future. 

See Also

References

[1] 3^rd Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression. (2022) “Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression: Recommendations for reducing online harms and safeguarding human rights in Canada.” (26) Ottawa, Public Policy Forum.

[2] Gagliardone, I., Gal, D., Alves, T., & Martinez, G. (2015). Countering online hate speech.

(7) Unesco Publishing.

[3] 3^rd Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on

Democratic Expression. (2022) “Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression:

Recommendations for reducing online harms and safeguarding human rights in

Canada.” (57) Ottawa, Public Policy Forum.

[4] 3^rd Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression. (2022) “Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression: Recommendations for reducing online harms and safeguarding human rights in Canada.” (26) Ottawa, Public Policy Forum.

[5] 3^rd Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression. (2022) “Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression: Recommendations for reducing online harms and safeguarding human rights in Canada.” (48) Ottawa, Public Policy Forum.

[6] 3^rd Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression. (2022) “Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression: Recommendations for reducing online harms and safeguarding human rights in Canada.” (08) Ottawa, Public Policy Forum.

[7] 3^rd Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on

Democratic Expression. (2022) “Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic

Expression: Recommendations for reducing online harms and safeguarding human

rights in Canada.” (26) Ottawa, Public Policy Forum.

[8] 3^rd Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on

Democratic Expression. (2022) “Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic

Expression: Recommendations for reducing online harms and safeguarding human

rights in Canada.” (08) Ottawa, Public Policy Forum.

[9] 3^rd Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression. (2022) “Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression: Recommendations for reducing online harms and safeguarding human rights in Canada.” (11) Ottawa, Public Policy Forum.

[10] 3^rd Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression. (2022) “Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression: Recommendations for reducing online harms and safeguarding human rights in Canada.” (12) Ottawa, Public Policy Forum.

[11] 3^rd Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression. (2022) “Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression: Recommendations for reducing online harms and safeguarding human rights in Canada.” (12) Ottawa, Public Policy Forum.

[12] 3^rd Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression. (2022) “Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression: Recommendations for reducing online harms and safeguarding human rights in Canada.” (27) Ottawa, Public Policy Forum.

[13] 3^rd Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression. (2022) “Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression: Recommendations for reducing online harms and safeguarding human rights in Canada.” (11) Ottawa, Public Policy Forum.

[14] 3^rd Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression. (2022) “Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression: Recommendations for reducing online harms and safeguarding human rights in Canada.” (08) Ottawa, Public Policy Forum.

[15] 3^rd Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on

Democratic Expression. (2022) “Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic

Expression: Recommendations for reducing online harms and safeguarding human

rights in Canada.” (26) Ottawa, Public Policy Forum.

[16] 3^rd Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on

Democratic Expression. (2022) “Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic

Expression: Recommendations for reducing online harms and safeguarding human

rights in Canada.” (27) Ottawa, Public Policy Forum.

[17] 3^rd Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on

Democratic Expression. (2022) “Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic

Expression: Recommendations for reducing online harms and safeguarding human

rights in Canada.” (28) Ottawa, Public Policy Forum.

[18] 3^rd Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on

Democratic Expression. (2022) “Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic

Expression: Recommendations for reducing online harms and safeguarding human

rights in Canada.” (30) Ottawa, Public Policy Forum.

[19] 3^rd Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on

Democratic Expression. (2022) “Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic

Expression: Recommendations for reducing online harms and safeguarding human

rights in Canada.” (30) Ottawa, Public Policy Forum.

[20] 3^rd Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression. (2022) “Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression: Recommendations for reducing online harms and safeguarding human rights in Canada.” (30) Ottawa, Public Policy Forum.

[21] GlobeNewswire. (2022, June 13). MEDIA RELEASE: Canada in a room: 45 citizen volunteers are providing advice on combatting online hate speech. (Press release). Retrieved from

https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2022/06/13/2461574/0/en/MEDIA-RELEASE-Canada-in-a-room-45-citizen-volunteers-are-providing-advice-on-combatting-online-hate-speech.html

[22] 3^rd Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression. (2022) “Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression: Recommendations for reducing online harms and safeguarding human rights in Canada.” (57-58) Ottawa, Public Policy Forum.

[23] 3^rd Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression. (2022) “Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression: Recommendations for reducing online harms and safeguarding human rights in Canada.” (61-62) Ottawa, Public Policy Forum.

[24] 3^rd Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression. (2022) “Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression: Recommendations for reducing online harms and safeguarding human rights in Canada.” (55-56) Ottawa, Public Policy Forum.

[25] GlobeNewswire. (2022, June 13). MEDIA RELEASE: Canada in a room: 45 citizen volunteers are providing advice on combatting online hate speech. (Press release). Retrieved from

https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2022/06/13/2461574/0/en/MEDIA-RELEASE-Canada-in-a-room-45-citizen-volunteers-are-providing-advice-on-combatting-online-hate-speech.html

[26]Smith, G. (2009). Studying democratic innovations: An analytical framework. In Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (Theories of Institutional Design, pp 21). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511609848.002

[27] 3^rd Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on

Democratic Expression. (2022) “Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic

Expression: Recommendations for reducing online harms and safeguarding human

rights in Canada.” (11) Ottawa, Public Policy Forum.

[28] 3^rd Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on

Democratic Expression. (2022) “Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic

Expression: Recommendations for reducing online harms and safeguarding human

rights in Canada.” (28) Ottawa, Public Policy Forum.

[29] Smith, G. (2009). Studying democratic innovations: An analytical framework. In Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (Theories of Institutional Design, pp 22-23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511609848.002

[30] Beetham, D. (1999). Democracy and human rights (Vol.

249). Cambridge: Polity Press.

[31] 3^rd Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on

Democratic Expression. (2022) “Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic

Expression: Recommendations for reducing online harms and safeguarding human

rights in Canada.” (06) Ottawa, Public Policy Forum.

[32] 3^rd Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic

Expression. (2022) “Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression:

Recommendations for reducing online harms and safeguarding human rights in

Canada.” (44) Ottawa, Public Policy Forum.

[33] 3^rd Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on

Democratic Expression. (2022) “Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic

Expression: Recommendations for reducing online harms and safeguarding human

rights in Canada.” (34) Ottawa, Public Policy Forum.

[34] Warren, M. E. (1996). What should we expect from more democracy? Radically democratic responses to politics. Political Theory, 24(2), 241-270.

[35]

Hannah, A. (1961). Between Past and Future. New York, Viking

[36] Smith, G. (2009). Studying democratic innovations:

An analytical framework. In Democratic

Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (Theories of Institutional Design, pp

24-25). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511609848.002

[37] https://www.commissioncanada.ca/

[38] https://www.commissioncanada.ca/

[39] 3^rd Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression. (2022) “Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression: Recommendations for reducing online harms and safeguarding human rights in Canada.” (26) Ottawa, Public Policy Forum

[40] 3^rd Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression. (2022) “Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression: Recommendations for reducing online harms and safeguarding human rights in Canada.” (34) Ottawa, Public Policy Forum

[41] Smith, G. (2009). Studying democratic innovations: An analytical framework. In Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (Theories of Institutional Design, pp 26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511609848.002

[42] Smith, G. (2009). Studying democratic innovations:

An analytical framework. In Democratic

Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (Theories of Institutional Design, pp 26).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511609848.002

[43] Smith, G. (2009). Studying democratic innovations: An analytical framework. In Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (Theories of Institutional Design, pp 26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511609848.002

[44] 3^rd Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression. (2022) “Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression: Recommendations for reducing online harms and safeguarding human rights in Canada.” (11) Ottawa, Public Policy Forum

[45] 3^rd Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression. (2022) “Canadian Citizens’ Assembly on Democratic Expression: Recommendations for reducing online harms and safeguarding human rights in Canada.” (08) Ottawa, Public Policy Forum

External Links

Notes