A License to Censor? The Fierce Fight Over the GEC’s Renewal

Todayville

Published

1 week ago

19 minute read

What happens when an agency meant to protect Americans from foreign propaganda starts tiptoeing over the line into the realm of domestic censorship? Enter the Global Engagement Center (GEC), a charming creation of the US State Department that was originally tasked with combating foreign disinformation. It sounds like something out of a spy novel: shadowy entities sowing chaos through whisper campaigns and disinformation dumps. But now, the real drama lies in how this agency has extended its reach beyond foreign threats and into the murky waters of the internet’s free speech landscape.

Of course, the GEC would prefer to be seen as a benevolent referee, helping social media giants like Facebook and YouTube play the good guys in the battle against digital deception. In theory, this agency is all about countering Russian bots and Iranian trolls. But somehow, along the way, its mission stretched to a point where the average American scrolling through a feed can almost feel the government’s fingers tapping on their shoulder, cautioning them about what’s “trustworthy.” It’s no wonder people are starting to worry.

“Protecting” Free Speech with Blacklists and Bans

Let’s break down how the GEC manages to defend democracy in ways that look suspiciously undemocratic. The agency works directly with social media platforms, advising them on what narratives might be feeding the foreign propaganda machine. Sounds reasonable—until it doesn’t. The GEC has dipped into its federal piggy bank to fund initiatives creating online blacklists and flagging content for removal. Some say it’s about “maintaining integrity” online; others say it looks a lot like censorship on the taxpayer’s dime.

To critics, this looks like the first few moves of a chess game where the GEC is lining up for a checkmate on free expression. And they’re not alone.

Skeptics of the GEC’s approach argue that these actions open the door to a sanitized internet, where only approved opinions make the cut. Who gets to decide what’s misleading or manipulative? Turns out, it’s not entirely clear, and this vagueness is what has civil liberties watchdogs gnashing their teeth.

Paul Nakasone: Former Spy, Current AI Board Member, and GEC’s Biggest Fan

Amid the ruckus, the GEC does have a few high-profile cheerleaders. One of them is none other than Paul Nakasone, a former NSA Director who now sits on the board of OpenAI. He’s come out swinging in favor of the GEC, showering praise on its efforts to shield American audiences from outside influence. For someone who once helmed the NSA, Nakasone knows a thing or two about surveillance, and his endorsement feels like a tacit nod from the intelligence community itself.

But even as he applauds the GEC, some are asking the obvious question: why is a former NSA chief, now positioned at the bleeding edge of AI technology, so invested in this government office’s future? Could it be that he sees a future where government-sponsored “truth” filters bleed into the algorithmic architecture of social media platforms? The GEC’s methods may have started with a noble purpose, but Nakasone’s involvement shines a light on the agency’s proximity to power and influence, making many wonder if the GEC is merely a cudgel for elites to enforce their narrative.

Bipartisan Endorsement: The Ultimate Shield

Then there’s the bipartisan protection the GEC enjoys, courtesy of Senators John Cornyn and Chris Murphy, the Republican-Democrat duo that co-parented the agency into existence back in 2016. In the world of American politics, finding anything both sides agree on is as rare as a unicorn, so when they do align, it’s usually worth a closer look. Cornyn and Murphy are now pushing for the GEC’s reauthorization, hoping to give it another seven-year lease on life. Their logic? Keep the GEC’s scope foreign-focused and off-limits when it comes to domestic politics.

The proposal includes a “strict ban” on US political meddling and tighter financial oversight—measures meant to steer the GEC back toward its original, “noble” mission. Yet, those promises don’t seem to be allaying fears. After all, what constitutes meddling, exactly? And how far does “foreign-focused” go on the internet where “foreign” is about as easy to define as air? If there’s one thing Washington excels at, it’s drawing the line right where it’s convenient, then redrawing it when no one’s looking.

The GEC’s Real Legacy: Democracy or Control?

At its core, the GEC’s story isn’t one of pure villainy or virtue; it’s the all-too-common tale of mission creep. Born to protect, it evolved into a protector so zealous it could become the very thing it claimed to fight. In a landscape where free speech is already under constant siege, the GEC’s growth raises the age-old question: who watches the watchers?

So, here we stand, with two powerful senators asking us to trust that the GEC’s next seven years won’t resemble the questionable track record of the last. Whether you see this as a necessary shield or a potential weapon against dissent, one thing is clear—the GEC’s presence in the digital ecosystem is likely to remain contentious, polarizing, and above all, inescapably tangled in the web of modern-day propaganda wars.

The Global Engagement Center, with its sleek mission of unmasking foreign propaganda, has certainly racked up its share of victories abroad, unearthing disinformation from the usual suspects—Russia, China, and other state-sponsored actors. But back home, it’s a different story. While the GEC might like to see itself as an indispensable line of defense, a growing number of Americans see it as something altogether more insidious: a tool for quashing dissent under the shiny guise of “security.”

The backlash isn’t just coming from the fringes; it’s led by Republican lawmakers who accuse the GEC of overstepping its mandate, straying from a mission to combat foreign influence and dabbling instead in something far more contentious: influencing American political discourse. Conservatives argue that the GEC has a cozy relationship with major social media platforms, where it’s allegedly advising them to tag and downrank content from right-leaning sources, all under the sanctified banner of “disinformation.” In a country already primed to erupt over issues of free speech, it’s an explosive allegation that’s landed the GEC in the crosshairs of national outrage.

The Conservative Media Strikes Back

Fed up and ready to push back, some of the biggest conservative media names have banded together with the state of Texas to launch a lawsuit against the Department of State. Platforms like The Daily Wire and The Federalist are taking aim at what they claim is a calculated attempt by the GEC to label their content as “disinformation,” a charge they argue has made them radioactive for advertisers and throttled their visibility on social media.

Their argument is simple but searing: a federal agency is directly infringing on the First Amendment by blocking or burying conservative viewpoints in the very same channels it was established to keep open. This accusation has given conservatives a rallying cry, a David-vs-Goliath scenario where state-backed censors go after political speech under the flimsiest pretexts.

Leading the legal crusade is Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who’s never one to mince words. Paxton has openly accused the GEC of being on a crusade of its own—one aimed not at safeguarding democracy, but at suffocating it. In Paxton’s view, the GEC has gone rogue, turning from a shield against foreign interference to a battering ram against American freedoms.

Enter Congress: The Great Reassessment

The uproar has made its way to Capitol Hill, where figures like Rep. Darrell Issa are pounding the drum for a major reassessment of the GEC’s practices. Issa, along with a cadre of similarly concerned lawmakers, has raised the alarm about how far the GEC’s operations have expanded. It’s one thing to combat the well-oiled disinformation machines of Moscow or Beijing. But it’s something else entirely to be monitoring, blacklisting, and deplatforming opinions within US borders under the same disinformation protocols.

For Issa, this isn’t just mission creep; it’s an outright defiance of the GEC’s mandate. The agency, he contends, has blurred the line between legitimate counter-disinformation efforts and outright censorship, especially when that censorship just so happens to lean in one political direction. Issa and others argue that under the pretext of fighting foreign influence, the GEC is developing an appetite for policing thought—a role Congress never intended it to fill.

Reform or Dismantle: The Fight Over the GEC’s Future

And now, Washington is embroiled in a growing debate over what to do with the GEC. On one side are those who argue that the center just needs a tighter leash, and a few accountability measures to ensure it sticks to foreign threats and foreign threats only. On the other side are those who say the GEC’s existence is a danger to American principles — perhaps a well-intentioned experiment gone horribly wrong. They’re pushing for its complete dismantling, arguing that no amount of reform can protect an agency with such sweeping power from abusing it.

In an ironic twist, the very tools created to protect democracy now stand accused of eroding it, launching a bitter tug-of-war over the American ideal of free speech versus the unquantifiable need to “protect” citizens from supposedly dangerous ideas. Are we safer for it? Or are we on a slow slide into a digital age where the government, deciding what counts as legitimate speech, becomes the very propagandist it claims to fight?

At the least, the GEC seems to have lost its way, now accused of extending its mission to target domestic media—particularly conservative voices. Its partnerships with organizations like the Global Disinformation Index (GDI) have turned into a flashpoint for accusations of bias, with critics arguing that these alliances are driving the GEC’s work right into partisan territory.

The GDI, a non-profit that presents itself as an impartial watchdog against misinformation, has its own critics, many of whom argue that its “disinformation” classifications are less about protecting the public and more about ensuring the “right” voices dominate the information landscape.

Conservative media outlets have consistently found themselves on the wrong end of these classifications, flagged as threats to the sanctity of truth while more progressive-leaning sources, somehow, skate by. This raises questions about how these ostensibly neutral organizations are choosing their targets and how much influence the government-backed GEC has on these classifications.

An Ethical Tug-of-War: Security, Truth, or Free Speech?

As the debate heats up over the GEC’s impending renewal, we’re not just talking about a procedural rubber stamp. The reauthorization of the GEC is emerging as a proxy battle over far deeper questions: What role should the government play in policing information? And where is the line between safeguarding the public and controlling it?

On one hand, there’s the argument that a body like the GEC is essential for a world where foreign states meddle with domestic politics through armies of bots and fake accounts. Without it, we’re told, Americans would be defenseless against the unrelenting tidal wave of foreign-sponsored fake news designed to sow chaos and division. Yet, that same narrative has an underbelly—a creeping encroachment on civil liberties, a kind of censorship wearing the costume of patriotism, where political biases steer the GEC’s focus.

Congress at a Crossroads: To Renew, Reform, or Repeal?

Congress now faces a critical decision: Do they rubber-stamp the GEC for another seven years and trust that reforms and restrictions can keep it in check? Or is it time to dismantle a mechanism that critics argue is increasingly indistinguishable from the very disinformation campaigns it claims to fight? Senators are debating an array of reforms, from tighter financial oversight to strict prohibitions on domestic content moderation. But skeptics aren’t convinced that a few added layers of oversight will suffice; the GEC’s history suggests that mission creep may be inevitable, and with it, the erosion of free expression.

If the GEC’s renewal goes through with little structural change, the implications will reverberate far beyond Washington. It could set a precedent where government-sanctioned “disinformation” monitoring becomes normalized as part of the American media landscape, allowing those in power to define and punish “disinformation” with little accountability. The potential for abuse here is staggering.

Setting Precedents for a Digital Battlefield

The GEC saga is a window into the heart of a much larger debate over information warfare and the role of government in a digital age. If the GEC continues to exercise its authority as both referee and player in the information space, it could pave the way for similar agencies to wield censorship as an arm of policy. We might soon find ourselves living in a digital landscape where what’s considered “misinformation” conveniently aligns with what’s politically inconvenient for those in power.

Ultimately, the GEC’s future will set the tone for how the US balances national security with its commitment to free speech. As the Senate weighs its options, the stakes couldn’t be higher. This decision will define the boundaries of governmental influence over the public’s access to information, shaping the next chapter of American engagement in the digital world. The choice to renew, reform, or repeal the GEC is no small moment—it’s a defining one, with repercussions for every American’s right to think, speak, and decide for themselves what is truth and what is manipulation.

Reclaim The Net needs your help

Thank you for considering a contribution. Each donation not only supports our operations but also strengthens our efforts to challenge injustices and advocate for those who cannot speak out.

Make a one-time donation

Up Next

Garbage in = Garbage Out…The issues with censorship and AI.

Don't Miss

Trump Effect: No One Gretz Off Easy Backing The Donald

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Alberta government announces review of Trudeau’s euthanasia regime

Censorship Industrial Complex / 21 mins ago

Congressional investigation into authors of ‘Disinformation Dozen’ intensifies

Bruce Dowbiggin / 3 hours ago

The Pathetic, Predictable Demise of Echo Journalism

Censorship Industrial Complex

Congressional investigation into authors of ‘Disinformation Dozen’ intensifies

Published on November 21, 2024

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Dr. Michael Nevradakis of The Defender

The Center for Countering Digital Hate, authors of ‘The Disinformation Dozen,’ faces a Nov. 21 deadline to provide Congress with documents related to its alleged collusion with the Biden administration and social media platforms to censor online users.

The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), authors of the “Disinformation Dozen,” faces a Nov. 21 deadline to provide Congress with documents related to its alleged collusion with the Biden administration and social media platforms to censor online users.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, on Nov. 7 subpoenaed CCDH as part of an ongoing congressional investigation, launched in August 2023, into the nonprofit’s censorship-related activities.

The subpoena requests all communications and documents “between or among CCDH, the Executive Branch, or third parties, including social media companies, relating to the identification of groups, accounts, channels, or posts for moderation, deletion, suppression, restriction, or reduced circulation.”

The subpoena also requests all records, notes, and other “documents of interactions between or among CCDH and the Executive Branch referring or relating to ‘killing’ or taking adverse action against Elon Musk’s X social media platform (formerly Twitter).”

CCDH previously included Kennedy on its “Disinformation Dozen” list, published in March 2021, of the 12 “leading online anti-vaxxers.”

Leaked CCDH documents released last month by investigative journalists Paul D. Thacker and Matt Taibbi revealed that CCDH sought to “kill” Twitter and launch “black ops” against Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President-elect Donald J. Trump’s nominee for secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

“Black ops” are defined as a “secret mission or campaign carried out by a military, governmental or other organization, typically one in which the organization conceals or denies its involvement.”

A subsequent report by Taibbi and Thacker showed that CCDH employed tactics it initially developed to help U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the U.S. Democratic Party, to target Musk, Kennedy and others.

CCDH used ‘explicit military terminology’ to target speech

Thacker told The Defender the leaked documents “definitely spurred” Jordan’s subpoena.

Sayer Ji, the founder of GreenMedInfo, was also listed among “The Disinformation Dozen.” He said the leaked documents were “chilling” and that CCDH’s efforts were part of “the largest coordinated foreign influence operation targeting American speech since 1776.”

Ji told The Defender:

The leaked documents confirm what we experienced firsthand: CCDH wasn’t just targeting 12 individuals – we were test cases for deploying military-grade psychological operations against civilians at scale.

Just as the British Crown once used seditious libel laws to silence colonial dissent, CCDH’s operation expanded to silence hundreds of millions globally, from doctors sharing clinical observations to parents discussing vaccine injuries.

Ohio physician Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, also on “The Disinformation Dozen” list, told The Defender, “The exposure of the manipulation that went on behind the scenes to silence us is what we suspected, and now we know … We have the sad last laugh against their attacks. They are the ones with blood on their hands.”

Ji said CCDH’s internal communications reveal not just bias, “but explicit military terminology – ‘black ops,’ ‘target acquisition,’ ‘strategic deployment’ – coordinated between Five Eyes networks and dark money interests to target constitutionally protected speech.”

Writing on GreenMedInfo, Ji said, “CCDH’s ‘black ops’ approach includes coordinated media smears, economic isolation, and digital censorship.” Ji said CCDH’s activities represent “a new level of institutionalized power directed at civilian targets, often bypassing constitutional safeguards.”

Thacker said Jordan’s investigation should expand to include CCDH’s “black ops.”

“I don’t want to speculate on what CCDH was doing with ‘black ops’ against Kennedy,” Thacker said. “I think that should be explored by a congressional committee, with CCDH CEO Imran Ahmed put under oath,” Thacker said.

CCDH facing multiple lawsuits, possible Trump administration investigation

Jordan’s subpoena is the latest in a series of legal challenges for CCDH. According to GreenMedInfo, the organization faces several lawsuits and government investigations.

Following last month’s CCDH document leak, the Trump campaign said an investigation into CCDH “will be at the top of the list.”

The campaign also filed a complaint against the Harris campaign with the Federal Election Commission, “for making and accepting illegal foreign national contributions” – namely, from the U.K. Labour Party.

This followed the release of evidence indicating that the Biden administration coordinated with the U.K. Foreign Office as part of what GreenMedInfo described “as a systematic censorship regime involving CCDH and affiliated organizations.”

A lawsuit Musk filed against CCDH in July 2023 for allegedly illegally obtaining data and using it in a “scare campaign” to deter advertisers from X will likely proceed on appeal. A federal court initially dismissed the lawsuit in March.

Discovery in the Missouri v. Biden free speech lawsuit may also “shed further light and legal scrutiny on the critical role that CCDH played in allegedly suppressing and violating the civil liberties of U.S. citizens,” according to GreenMedInfo.

CCDH, others flee X in protest

Earlier this week, CCDH deleted its account on X, the platform it wanted to “kill.”

Writing on Substack, Ji said CCDH’s departure from X, during the same week Trump nominated Kennedy to lead HHS, represents a “seismic shift” and marks “a watershed moment, signaling the unraveling of entrenched systems of control and the rise of a new era for health freedom and open discourse.”

Several other left-leaning organizations and individuals, including The Guardian and journalist Don Lemon, also said they will stop using X, after Trump tapped Musk to lead a federal agency tasked with increasing government efficiency.

According to NBC News, many ordinary users are also fleeing X, citing “bots, partisan advertisements and harassment, which they all felt reached a tipping point when Donald Trump was elected president last week with Musk’s support.”

But according to Adweek, X’s former top advertisers, including Comcast, IBM, Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery and Lionsgate Entertainment, resumed ad spending on the platform this year, but at “much lower rates” than before.

“Elon Musk’s ties with Donald Trump might spur some advertisers to think spending on X is good for business,” Adweek reported.

Thacker said CCDH’s deletion of its X account was “aligned” with the departure of “other organizations and ‘journalists’ aligned with the Democratic Party.” He said it appears to have been a “coordinated protest.”

Ji said organizations like CCDH view X “as an existential threat.” He added:

Having experienced both Twitter 1.0’s AI-driven censorship system and X’s more open environment, I understand exactly why CCDH sees X as an existential threat. X represents what Twitter 1.0’s embedded censorship infrastructure was designed to prevent: a truly free digital public square.

Under Musk’s commitment to free speech, their tactical advantage disappeared. They’re not leaving because X is toxic. They’re leaving because they can’t control it.

Online censorship ‘may no longer be sustainable under intensified scrutiny’

According to GreenMedInfo, CCDH’s departure from X “appears to reflect an internal recognition that their operational model – characterized by critics as a US-U.K. intelligence ‘cut-out’ facilitating unconstitutional suppression of civil liberties – may no longer be sustainable under intensified scrutiny.”

In recent months, several mainstream media outlets have corrected stories that relied upon CCDH reports claiming “The Disinformation Dozen” was responsible for up to two-thirds of vaccine-related “misinformation” online.

According to Thacker, this reflects an increasing awareness by such outlets that readers are turning their backs on such reporting.

“The outlets that promoted CCDH propaganda are being investigated by their own readers, who are fleeing in droves. Readers are voting against this type of propaganda by refusing to subscribe to these media outlets,” Thacker said.

Yet, “many outlets continue to host these demonstrably false narratives without correction,” Ji said.

According to Ji, these false narratives resulted in medical professionals fearing the loss of their licenses for expressing non-establishment views, self-censorship among scientists “to avoid career destruction,” suppression of “critical public health discussions” and the labeling of millions of posts as “misinformation.”

“This isn’t just about suppressing speech. It’s about establishing a new form of digital control that echoes the colonial-era suppression our founders fought against,” Ji said.

“CCDH has polluted political discourse by pretending there is some absolute definition of the term ‘misinformation’ and that they hold the dictionary,” Thacker said. “That’s nonsense. They spread hate and misinformation to attack perceived political enemies of the Democratic Party.”

Ji called upon Congress to investigate “The full scope of those silenced beyond the ‘Disinformation Dozen,’” the “systematic suppression of scientific debate,” “media organizations’ role in amplifying foreign influence operations” and “dark money funding networks” supporting such organizations.

Thacker said Congress should examine possible CCDH violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. “We need to also look at how much foreign money they took in and whether we as a nation are comfortable with foreign influence trying to alter the law and political discussions.”

“The fight isn’t just about correcting past wrongs or personal vindication. It’s about preserving fundamental rights to free speech and scientific inquiry in the digital age,” Ji said. “If we don’t address this systematic abuse of power, we risk surrendering the very freedoms our founders fought to establish.”

This article was originally published by The Defender – Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

Aristotle Foundation

Toronto cancels history, again: The irony and injustice of renaming Yonge-Dundas Square to Sankofa Square

Published on November 20, 2024

Todayville

From the Aristotle Foundation

By Greg Piasetzki

In 2022, Torontonians renamed Ryerson University to Toronto Metropolitan University, “to address the legacy of Egerton Ryerson.”¹ Rather than remember him as the founder of Ontario’s system of “free” public schools and libraries, Ryerson was “cancelled” for his suggestions regarding the curriculum for the Indian residential schools that were then being proposed. However, the schools themselves were not built until some 30 years later, after Ryerson was dead. Further, modern complaints about the schools are generally misconceived and have little to do with the curriculum.²

In 2024, Toronto is at it again. This time, the historical figure targeted for cancellation is abolitionist Henry Dundas, as city officials seek to wipe his name from Yonge-Dundas Square. The square is a notable city landmark and one of Canada’s most popular tourist destinations. Filled with brightly lit electronic advertisement billboards, the square serves as an iconic social hub and venue for events connected to Toronto’s cultural festivals. The city’s former mayor, John Tory, summarized the case for renaming the famous square – based on a report from city hall – as follows:

An objective reading of the history, the significance of this street which crosses our city, the fact that Mr. Dundas had virtually no connection to Toronto and our strong commitment to equity, inclusion and reconciliation make this a unique and symbolically important change.³

The new name, “Sankofa Square,” is taken not from anything Torontonian, Ontarian, or even Canadian – but from the Akan people of West Africa.

Ironically, city officials not only appear ignorant of Henry Dundas’ many contributions to Canada, and to the abolition of slavery, but are also blissfully unaware that the Akan people of Africa were notorious slave traders responsible for capturing and selling one to two million of their fellow Africans into slavery.⁴

The man: Who was Henry Dundas?

Henry Dundas was a Scottish lawyer, politician, and one of British Prime Minister William Pitt’s most trusted and powerful ministers who served during the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars.

Critically, Dundas was also a staunch abolitionist, committed to ending slavery as an institution in the British Empire and elsewhere in the world.

As early as 1777, when he was in his thirties, Dundas publicly established his abolitionist position on slavery. When Joseph Knight, a slave from Jamaica, was taken to Scotland by his owner, he challenged his status as a slave under Scottish law. Dundas, then Lord Advocate (principal legal advisor to the government), took on Knight’s case in his private capacity as a lawyer. On the final appeal before Scotland’s highest court, Dundas argued passionately, and with some humour, against the inhumanity of slavery:

We may possibly see the master chastising his slave as he does his ox or his horse. Perhaps, too, he may shoot him when he turns old […]

[But] [h]uman nature, my Lords, spurns at the thought of slavery among any part of our species.⁵

The court agreed and declared that no slave could remain a slave once they arrived on Scottish soil.⁶

A decade later, a religiously-inspired Christian abolition movement began in Britain (most famously personified by William Wilberforce) with the goal of ending the Atlantic slave trade. Dundas was a supporter of the movement, but urged that its members go further and challenge not just the Atlantic slave trade but seek the abolition of slavery itself – a much bigger challenge since at that time slavery was practiced on every inhabited continent.

During the 300 or more years the transatlantic slave trade existed, estimates are that 10 million to 12 million Africans were captured, enslaved, and sold by their fellow Africans. The purchasers were largely British, Portuguese, and French traders who acted as intermediaries in shipping slaves to the Americas for re-sale. The destination for 50 percent of the slaves was South America, 45 percent went to the West Indies, and about four percent went to what would become the United States.^7,8 Dundas understood that, unless slavery itself was ended – with its unrelenting violence, forced labour, and premature death – slavery as an institution would continue for generations, since legally the children of slaves were considered chattel (like livestock) and were thus also slaves like their parents.

The controversy: Did Dundas’ abolitionism go far enough?

Dundas is criticized today for amending a motion in Britain’s Parliament in 1792.⁹ His original motion called for the immediate end to the slave trade. But outright abolition was unrealistic at the time, and thus historians agree that Dundas’ original motion would surely have failed.¹⁰ Moreover, Britain’s competitors – especially the Portuguese and French – would have simply picked up where Britain left off. Realizing this, Dundas made a strategic pivot and called for a gradual end to the slave trade. His strategy worked, and his amended motion succeeded with a significant majority.¹¹

Change would take time. Only about one percent of the adult population had the right to vote,¹² and many had at least an indirect financial interest in West Indian plantations (as did numerous Members of Parliament), and trade with the plantations generated income for businesses in England and tariff revenue for the Crown. Surmounting such entrenched interests would not happen overnight.

And this is why Dundas’ successful motion was key: it shifted the tenor of the public discourse. For the first time, ending the slave trade was up for debate. The British empire at this time was nearing its peak as the largest empire in history, with enormous influence, and thus this step was significant in the eventual abolition of slavery worldwide.

The Toronto connection: Dundas the humanitarian

For his role in abolishing slavery, Dundas ought to be celebrated. The same is true of his major influence on the colonies that would become Canada and, in particular, on what would become the province of Ontario and the city of Toronto. Importantly, that influence was wielded in support of issues that, today, would be described as relating to equity, inclusion, and reconciliation—ironically, the exact criteria (“commitments”) justifying the city’s condemnation of him.

Appointing Simcoe, the empire’s first legislator to outlaw slavery

Dundas was a close friend of John Graves Simcoe (another staunch abolitionist), and he appointed Simcoe as the first lieutenant-governor of Upper Canada in 1791. It was Simcoe who, two years later, would introduce the Act to Limit Slavery in Upper Canada, the very first legislation in the entire British empire to limit slavery.¹⁴

The legislation passed, beginning the abolition of slavery in the province. Although the legislation did not free slaves already present, it freed the children of such slaves at age 25, and made Upper Canada a safe haven for slaves fleeing the United States.¹⁵ Like the precedent Dundas set in Scotland, no slave could remain a slave on Upper Canadian soil. Over the next seven decades, more than 40,000 black men and women would risk their lives to escape slavery and find freedom in Upper Canada.

When Dundas appointed Simcoe, he knew about Simcoe’s abolitionist sympathies—and almost certainly anticipated the legislation he would propose.¹⁶ And thus, Dundas made possible what became known as the Underground Railroad.

Honouring black soldiers

Dundas also ordered the governors of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to honour Britain’s promise of land grants to 4,000 former slaves who had fought for the British against the American Revolution, and to offer free passage – courtesy of the British navy – to any who preferred to return to Africa.¹⁷

Initiating official bilingualism

Upon the division of the then-province of Quebec into Upper Canada (present-day Ontario) and Lower Canada (present-day Quebec) in 1791, Dundas instructed the English governor of Lower Canada to allow French-speaking parliamentarians to pass laws in French.¹⁸ This was a serious point of disagreement in the newly formed legislative assembly, as the (powerful) English minority insisted all British subjects be governed in English. Dundas solved the impasse by ordering that legislation be passed in both languages, in what is the first example of official bilingualism in Canadian history. (For context, this occurred only months after England and France were, once again, at war; and thus this act was truly magnanimous.)¹⁹

Defending indigenous peoples

Finally, following American Independence, Yankee incursions into Canadian territory were a very real and constant threat. Dundas, as secretary of state for Home Affairs, instructed the Canadian governor Sir Guy Carleton to intervene against the Americans and protect the interests of the “Indian Nations”:

…securing to them the peaceable and quiet possession of the Lands which they have hitherto occupied as their hunting Grounds, and such others as may enable them to procure a comfortable subsistence for themselves and their families.²⁰

The irony: Replacing the abolitionist with slave traders

Given the evidence, Toronto city council’s treatment of Dundas is clearly not only ahistorical but shameful. Regrettably, so is their adoption of the replacement, the term “Sankofa” from the Akan language. Little needs to be said here, other than this: The Akan peoples of West Africa were notorious slave traders. During the transatlantic slave trade, the Akan captured, enslaved, and sold one to two million fellow Africans into slavery. In other words, the Akan were the source of 10 to 20 percent of all transatlantic slaves.

Conclusion

The Toronto city council narrative surrounding the renaming of Yonge-Dundas Square flies in the face of historical fact. Dundas was demonstrably ahead of his time as a humanitarian. And as a politician, he was not only principled and morally courageous but effective. Dundas was one of the key figures in abolishing the slave trade, opening up the Underground Railroad, and protecting minorities of various backgrounds—black, French, and indigenous. If the city really wants to promote the act of “reflecting on and reclaiming teachings from the past,”²¹ as it claims, it might do well to start with the truth about Henry Dundas’ legacy. There may be times to rename a place or landmark, but this is not one of them.

Endnotes

Please see references in PDF

About the author

Greg Piasetzki is a Toronto-based intellectual property lawyer, a senior fellow with the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy, and a citizen of the Métis Nation of Ontario.

About the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy

Who we are

The Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy is a new education and public policy think tank that aims to renew a civil, common-sense approach to public discourse and public policy in Canada.