Search Results

If you follow Iran through international media, you have likely noticed that the story is often forced into a narrow frame. Across news cycles, op-eds, and diaspora debates, two dominant hegemonic narratives keep reappearing. The first presents salvation as something imported: it portrays the Pahlavi brand, the United States, and Israel as the natural “rescuers” of the Iranian people. The second is the Islamic Republic’s narrative, which claims that public dissent is not an independent political uprising but a foreign-designed operation, often described as a Mossad-linked project. These two stories appear to be opposites, but they function similarly: they compress a complex society into a simplified binary and leave little room for ordinary people to speak as political subjects.   This article focuses on the second hegemony: the Islamic Republic’s discourse abroad. Many people assume propaganda is mostly produced inside Iran, through state television, censorship, and fear. But the regime’s narrative machine also travels. It moves through networks in the diaspora, through “community institutions,” through self-described spokespersons, and sometimes through organizations that present themselves as neutral representatives of Iranians overseas. The point is not that everyone in these spaces is consciously serving the state. The point is that the discourse itself has a structure, and that structure repeatedly achieves the same outcome: it shields the regime from accountability, delegitimizes protest, and removes the Iranian people from the center of their own history.   Step One: Removing the Regime from the Place of Accusation   The Islamic Republic’s external discourse often begins with a subtle but decisive shift: the government is quietly removed from the position of being the primary defendant. Instead of asking what the regime has done, and why it continues to respond to dissent with violence, the narrative reorganizes the problem around “conditions.” It reframes Iran as a country under pressure rather than a society under systematic rule. The explanation becomes economic difficulty, sanctions, external threats, instability in the region. The crisis is presented as something that “happened” to the state, not something the state continuously produces.   On the surface, this can sound compassionate: people are suffering, and sanctions are real. But the rhetorical effect is political. The more the suffering is explained as the product of outside pressure, the less the regime appears as the central agent of harm. Structural repression becomes background noise. Accountability fades. The government is no longer an aggressor; it becomes a manager of misfortune, imperfect, but not criminal.   Step Two: Enlarging the External Enemy Once the state is protected through “conditions,” the discourse then amplifies the external enemy. War, intervention, and foreign interference are placed at the center of attention. The narrative warns of chaos, collapse, Iraq-style destruction, Libya-style fragmentation. Sometimes it uses a human rights tone. Sometimes it uses an anti-imperialist tone. Often it uses both. But the function remains constant: the danger of foreign involvement is pushed so far forward that the regime’s violence becomes secondary, almost incidental, in comparison. This is one of the most powerful manipulations in the discourse: it does not have to deny repression completely. It only has to make repression seem less urgent than external threats. It creates a moral hierarchy of harm where the regime appears bad, but intervention appears worse. The public is nudged into a false choice: accept authoritarianism or risk national catastrophe. The outcome is paralysis, and the normalization of survival under repression. Step Three: Turning Protest into a Security Threat From there, protest itself is transformed. Demonstrations, strikes, and street resistance are not approached as political rights or expressions of collective agency. They are framed as “security risks.” The protester is shifted from citizen to suspect. This is where language becomes a weapon.   Terms like “rioters,” “agitators,” or “foreign-backed disruptors” are introduced to create distance between the public and those who resist. Under this framing, protest is no longer a legitimate claim to freedom, dignity, or justice. It becomes instability. It becomes sabotage. It becomes something that must be controlled for the sake of “order.” And once protest is defined as a security issue, violence becomes easier to justify. The regime does not need to admit it is attacking citizens, it can claim it is defending society. It can borrow the logic of other states, pointing to policing elsewhere and saying, “This is normal.” The moral shock of repression is replaced with bureaucratic language. The question is no longer: “Why are people being killed?” It becomes: “How do we prevent disorder?” Step Four: Human Rights Talk that Ends in Dehumanization One of the most cynical aspects of this discourse is its ability to mimic humanitarian language while maintaining authoritarian outcomes. In some cases, it speaks extensively about the suffering of Palestinians, Israeli violence, regional war, and Western hypocrisy. These issues can be real and important, but within the Islamic Republic’s propaganda structure, they are often instrumentalized. They become a shield, not a principle. They become a way to claim moral legitimacy without ever addressing the regime’s crimes at home. In the most extreme form, this rhetorical strategy leads back to the Mossad accusation. Protesters are described as manipulated, deceived, or infiltrated. The goal is not necessarily to provide evidence. The goal is to contaminate protest with suspicion. When a movement is described as intelligence-linked, it is no longer seen as human struggle, it is treated as an operation. And when people are treated as operatives, their lives become expendable. This is how a narrative prepares the ground for repression: it does not only justify violence after it happens; it shapes perception so violence appears inevitable, rational, or even necessary. What the Discourse Refuses to Say Perhaps the most revealing feature of this hegemonic narrative is what it omits. It does not speak seriously about torture, political imprisonment, executions, or systematic sexual violence. It does not confront censorship, internet shutdowns, or mass surveillance. It avoids the regime’s deep corruption and rent-based economy, where wealth is extracted through power rather than produced through accountability. It does not name the everyday cruelty: fear, humiliation, hopelessness, exhaustion, environmental collapse, and the slow destruction of a livable future.   Most importantly, it refuses to recognize the Iranian people’s right to resist. It treats resistance as naïveté, as manipulation, as danger. It strips agency from those who protest and returns it either to foreign powers or to the state itself. The regime becomes a rational actor. Protesters become irrational bodies. This is not an accident. It is the architecture of the discourse. The False Binary and the Erasure of the People At the end of the process, what remains is a false binary that benefits authoritarianism: Islamic Republic versus Pahlavi. The binary appears to offer choice, but it collapses political imagination. It erases alternatives. It erases grassroots organizing. It erases feminist, labor, student, ethnic, and ecological movements. It erases those who reject both monarchy nostalgia and theocratic rule. In other words, it erases the “third voice”, the voice of the people as political authors of their own future. And this is why the two hegemonies, though they claim to oppose each other, often produce similar damage. One reduces Iran to a project of salvation by external allies; the other reduces Iran to a project of “security” threatened by foreign conspiracies. Both treat the people as objects rather than subjects. Both reproduce a politics where legitimacy is granted from above, never built from below. Why the Third Voice Must Be Defended The Iranian people do not need saviors. They do not need to be framed as spies. They need to be recognized as a society with dignity, agency, memory, and political intelligence. The third voice is not a moderate compromise between two extremes. It is the refusal of the binary itself. It is the insistence that Iran’s future cannot be manufactured through propaganda, whether dressed as nationalism, humanitarian concern, or geopolitical realism. If Iran’s history is not to be written in the name of others, then this voice must be protected wherever we live and in whatever language we can speak. A voice that does not justify killing. A voice that does not worship power. A voice that insists, simply and relentlessly, on the right to protest, to resist, and to imagine a future beyond fear.

What Iran Protests 2026 Reveal About Media Power Today The recent unrest in Iran in December 2025 was not only a confrontation in the streets, but a contest over its meaning. Long before the first videos from inside the country could surface, parts of the Persian‑language media ecosystem had already imposed a ready‑made storyline onto the unfolding events, a narrative shaped from afar and projected onto a movement whose own voice had yet to be heard. The uprising itself began on December 27, 2025, emerging from a landscape strained by hazardous winter pollution, a currency collapse that erased purchasing power overnight, and the lingering effects of months‑long water shortages earlier in the summer. Even as the government briefly relaxed its enforcement of mandatory hijab laws in an attempt to defuse public anger, the underlying pressures continued to mount. This context set the stage, but it was not the force that shaped the story that followed. The immediate spark came from Tehran’s commercial heart. As the rial plunged to record lows, traders in the Jomhouri and Saadi districts shuttered their shops, and demonstrations quickly formed around the Grand Bazaar. Reporting from Firstpost  indicates that shopkeepers closed their businesses on December 30, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. IST because the currency collapse made pricing goods impossible and daily transactions unsustainable (Firstpost, 2025). What began as an economic stoppage among merchants soon spilled into the surrounding streets, where demonstrators chanted against inflation, corruption, and the government’s mismanagement of the economy. Within a day, the unrest had spread far beyond Tehran’s commercial centers. According to ABC News , shop owners in cities such as Hamedan and Qeshm also closed their stores and joined the demonstrations, while protesters in Zanjan and other regions chanted slogans directly targeting the country’s leadership (Malekian, 2025). The collapse of the rial, fluctuating between 1.38 and 1.45 million per U.S. dollar, intensified public anger and contributed to the resignation of the head of Iran’s Central Bank, a development confirmed by state media and international reporting (Malekian, 2025). By December 30, university students had entered the streets in force. Students at Khajeh Nasir University in Tehran chanted slogans linking economic hardship to political repression, including demands for freedom and equality. As ABC News  reports, these demonstrations marked a shift from narrowly economic grievances to broader political demands, echoing the language of earlier nationwide movements (Malekian, 2025). The protests quickly became the largest Iran had seen since the 2021–2022 uprising following the death of Mahsa Amini. The regime’s response, while stopping short of a nationwide internet shutdown, followed a familiar choreography: targeted crowd‑control tools, tear gas in public squares, water cannons in busy corridors, irritant sprays at close range, and selective physical confrontations. Shopkeepers in some districts reported forced closures; students faced detentions and restricted movement on campuses; and a heavy security presence in bazaars and commercial centers created an atmosphere of intimidation. Official closures, attributed to “cold weather and energy saving”, emptied public spaces, while online disruptions slowed uploads enough to delay real‑time documentation. In parallel, state‑aligned media framed the protests as “externally guided,” attempting to delegitimize the movement and fracture public sympathy. From the very first hours, however, foreign‑based Persian‑language media outlets, including Iran International, Manoto, Independent Farsi, and BBC Persian, cast the unrest through a pre‑existing political lens. Their coverage did not merely report events; it actively shaped the interpretive frame through which the uprising was understood abroad. Their rapid portrayal of the earliest chants as expressions of support for Reza Pahlavi raises questions about the priorities guiding their editorial choices. Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s last monarch, remains a symbolic figure for segments of the diaspora, yet he lacks an organized political presence inside the country. The narrative built around him, however, was ready long before the protests began, and it was quickly applied to a movement that had not yet spoken for itself. Unlike previous waves of unrest, authorities did not impose a nationwide internet shutdown during the first days of the protest. Yet the absence of a full shutdown did not mean that information flowed freely. Even with VPNs, now a basic survival tool for Iranians online, uploading videos remained slow and inconsistent under heightened monitoring and network instability. As a result, the first substantial wave of videos from inside Iran surfaced only after an external narrative had already taken shape abroad. And when those videos finally appeared, they revealed an emotional landscape that bore little resemblance to the story constructed in their absence. The chants, the ones heard in Tehran, Isfahan, Mashhad, Karaj, and dozens of smaller towns, centered on economic collapse, daily survival, and systemic frustration, not allegiance to any individual or dynasty. To understand the true emotional and political landscape of the December 2025 uprising, I used AI‑assisted review tools to track, categorize, and quantify more than one hundred videos recorded between December 27 and December 30. The resulting frequency analysis reveals a movement whose sentiment was overwhelmingly anti‑systemic. The most repeated slogans, “Shameless, shameless,” “Death to the dictator,” “Death to Khamenei,” and “Khamenei is a murderer; his rule is illegitimate”, expressed direct confrontation with authority. These were not reformist demands or issue‑specific complaints. They reflected anger, betrayal, and a total collapse of trust in the ruling structure. While economic hardship may have ignited the protests, the sentiment captured in these chants shows that the public’s grievances had evolved into a broader rejection of the system itself. A second cluster of chants focused on economic desperation and social breakdown. Slogans such as “Death to high prices,” “Poverty, corruption, inflation, we will march until the regime falls,” and bazaar‑specific chants like “The dishonorable sit at home while businesses are shut down” revealed a population that viewed economic suffering as inseparable from political corruption. These chants did not ask for price controls or subsidies; they asserted that the system itself produces poverty. This is why economic and political chants appeared interwoven, the crowd did not distinguish between the two. A third category reflected collective identity and mobilization. Chants like “Don’t be afraid, we are all together,” “We come from a lineage of blood; we will stay until the end,” “It’s time for unity, time for revolution,” and “A student may die, but will not accept humiliation” expressed solidarity, courage, and a shared sense of purpose. The sentiment here was not one of confusion or leaderlessness. It was the opposite: a declaration that the crowd itself was the agent of change. A fourth set of chants reflected civic and cultural values: “Freedom, freedom, freedom,” “Woman, Life, Freedom,” “Man, Homeland, Prosperity,” and “Not Gaza, not Lebanon, my life for Iran.” These slogans blended liberal civic ideals with national self‑determination and a rejection of regional entanglements. The sentiment was neither monarchist nor Islamist. It was civic‑nationalist, rooted in dignity, autonomy, and a desire for a future defined by Iranians themselves. Finally, monarchist nostalgia appeared, but only marginally. Chants like “Long live the Shah” and “Reza Shah, may your soul be at peace” were present but far down the frequency list. They did not define the movement, nor did they dominate the soundscape. Their sentiment was symbolic rather than programmatic, a vocabulary of protest rather than a political platform. This is precisely where the media narrative diverged most sharply from the data. Across Tehran, Isfahan, Mashhad, Karaj, Kermanshah, Nourabad Mamasani, Izeh, Zahedan, Hamedan, Zanjan, Qeshm, Shiraz, Jonaghan, Saraasiab, and Ekbatan, the same emotional architecture repeated: anger at authority, economic desperation, collective courage, anti‑systemic demands, and civic‑nationalist identity. Only in a handful of locations did monarchist chants appear, and even there, they coexisted with the broader anti‑systemic and economic slogans. The sentiment of the December 2025 uprising is clear: it was primarily anti‑systemic, deeply economic in origin, collective and self‑mobilized, civic‑nationalist in tone, and not centered on any individual figure. The data shows a movement driven by shared suffering and shared agency, not by allegiance to a claimant or dynasty. The chants tell the story plainly: this was a revolt against a system, not a coronation for a savior. And yet, the question that lingers at the end of this uprising is not only about what happened in the streets, but what happened in the story. In an age of AI‑driven amplification, decentralized media ecosystems, and instant fact‑checking tools available to anyone with a VPN, Iran’s December 2025 unrest becomes a case study in the evolving struggle over narrative power. Can external actors still redirect a movement, overlaying it with a storyline that bears little resemblance to the sentiment on the ground. The events of December suggest that even as information becomes more diffuse, the ability to shape perception from afar has not disappeared; it has merely changed form. Whether future movements can withstand this kind of narrative engineering, or whether external media will continue to recast events in ways that serve their own agendas, remains one of the defining questions of our political age. Firstpost. (2025, December 30). Why mass protests erupted in Iran amid currency collapse. https://www.firstpost.com/world/iran-protests-intensify-as-public-anger-over-soaring-prices-and-collapsing-rial-spreads-nationwide-13756782.html References Malekian, S. (2025, December 30). Iranian protests expand beyond the economy as students demand freedom, end to regime rule. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/iranian-protests-expand-economy-students-demand-freedom-end-116231033

From Leftist Activist to a Sponsored Voice of the Cultural Right Jordan Peterson is now widely recognized as a central voice of the contemporary cultural right: a defender of “traditional values,” a critic of feminism, and a commentator on the “crisis of masculinity.” Yet this public identity was not where he began. Peterson’s early political roots were unmistakably leftist. As a young man, he was active in Canada’s New Democratic Party (NDP) and surrounded himself with imagery from revolutionary and socialist movements. Accounts from those close to him describe his home walls decorated with posters of leaders associated with the Soviet Union and international leftist struggle. His intellectual concerns were shaped by questions of inequality, suffering, and the human condition under systems of power. This foundation eventually led Peterson to Jungian psychology and to an interest in myth as a framework for meaning-making. His early lectures, including his first wave of YouTube content, centered on the psychological struggle of being human: how individuals confront chaos, build individuality, and cultivate moral responsibility. These lectures resonated deeply, particularly among young men searching for direction in an increasingly disoriented and fragmented world. For a time, Peterson’s influence was grounded in meaning, not ideology. But meaning in the 21st century does not exist outside of the marketplace. In the era of cultural capitalism, meaning is not simply discovered—it is produced, distributed, branded, and monetized. A public intellectual is no longer only a thinker; he is a media entity, and all media entities require audiences, distribution networks, and funding. The turning point in Peterson’s public trajectory came with his outspoken opposition to Canada’s Bill C-16, which required institutions to respect individuals’ chosen gender pronouns. Peterson framed his stance as a defense of “freedom of speech,” claiming that compelled language was a form of state overreach. The controversy was immediate and intense. Protests erupted, institutional backlash followed, and calls for his removal from the University of Toronto circulated. Ironically, the same public attempt to silence him catapulted him to global fame. The controversy turned Peterson into a symbol of defiance against what was framed as “authoritarian political correctness.” This was the moment when Peterson’s audience changed—and with that, his funding networks and ideological alignment began to shift. Conservative media organizations, religious foundations, and right-wing donor networks began to financially and strategically elevate his profile. He went from being a psychologist speaking about myth and meaning to a champion in a cultural war. His bestselling book, 12 Rules for Life, emerged from this new phase. While the book’s language presents itself as a guide to achieving order and purpose, its conceptual foundation reinforces hierarchical and traditional gender structures as natural and morally necessary. This shift was not accidental—it was shaped by the demands and expectations of his new audience market within cultural capitalism. The final stage of Peterson’s ideological transformation took place when he joined The Daily Wire, a media company built explicitly to counter progressive cultural narratives. The Daily Wire operates not merely as a news platform but as a machine of ideological production, shaping how meaning, identity, morality, and politics are framed for its audience. Under this institutional alignment, Peterson’s rhetoric shifted further: he began defending conservative geopolitical narratives, including firm support for Israel’s military actions and foreign policy positions aligned with the American right. This stance did not develop organically from his earlier intellectual work. It was a function of affiliation. When a public figure becomes embedded within a funded ideological network, the boundaries of what can be said—and what must be said—shift accordingly. Peterson’s voice, once concerned with the universal and existential, became woven into the messaging strategies of a media ecosystem deeply invested in shaping Western cultural power. The lesson here is not about Peterson as an individual. It is about how meaning itself is produced under cultural capitalism. The marketplace does not just influence which ideas succeed—it transforms the ideas themselves. Meaning becomes a commodity. The self becomes a brand. Belief becomes alignment. Peterson’s journey from leftist activist to conservative cultural emblem is not simply a story of personal change—it is a story of how power funds, directs, and repurposes meaning. He did not just shift audiences; the audience reshaped him. He did not simply adopt new political commitments; his platform required them. In an age where cultural identity is currency, the struggle over meaning is inseparable from the struggle over capital. Peterson’s trajectory is a case study in how intellectual life becomes political performance, and how political performance becomes ideological infrastructure. Meaning is never neutral. Meaning exists inside systems of power. And power always leaves its signature. #JordanPeterson #CulturalCapitalism #DailyWire #MeaningCrisis #MediaPower #PoliticalShift #MasculinityDebate #RightWingMedia #IsraelDebate #PublicIntellectuals

These days, there is widespread anxiety around immigration across the globe. Many majority populations express concerns about cultural change, social cohesion, and national identity. Amidst these debates, I recently stumbled upon an article by sociologist Tariq Modood that does an admirable job suggesting a solution. In his 2025 article, Modood introduces the idea of “multicultural nationalism,” a model that calls for mutual recognition between majority and minority groups, proposing that all cultural identities should be integrated into a shared national narrative. While Modood’s proposal is grounded in a genuine desire to promote harmony and belonging, it overlooks critical distinctions between cultural practices and their compatibility with fundamental democratic values. As an immigrant who fled the Islamic regime in Iran—a theocratic government that systemically suppresses freedom, enforces gender apartheid, and criminalizes LGBTQ+ existence—I deeply value the human rights protections guaranteed by liberal democracies like Canada. Yet, Modood’s inclusive vision risks inadvertently legitimizing practices that directly undermine those very freedoms. Multiculturalism ideally enriches societies by fostering understanding and belonging among diverse groups. Modood rightfully emphasizes the importance of minorities feeling integral to the national story. Yet, uncritically embracing all cultural practices threatens the democratic principles that drew me—and countless others—to Western nations in the first place. In my homeland, religious law restricted women’s rights, suppressed LGBTQ+ identities, and denied children basic protections. Seeking refuge in Canada was not simply a choice—it was a matter of survival and dignity. Watching Canada gradually accept certain parallel legal systems and cultural practices, even under the banner of multicultural inclusion, is deeply concerning. Modood argues that multiculturalism involves creating “strong equality, strong membership, and strong belonging” (2025, p. 5). However, he underestimates the scenarios where cultural norms inherently contradict democratic freedoms. While addressing majority anxieties is crucial, so too is acknowledging the justified fears of minority individuals—especially those who have fled cultural and political systems that deny basic rights. Not every cultural practice deserves equal recognition. Liberal democracies must set clear ethical boundaries that differentiate cultural pluralism from cultural relativism. Practices that undermine universal human rights cannot and should not be validated under the guise of inclusion. Authentic multiculturalism demands the courage to draw ethical lines. Inclusion must never become a vehicle for the oppression of the vulnerable. Only then can democracies uphold the very freedoms that make them worth migrating to. References Modood, T. (2025). Multiculturalism, nationalism and depolarisation. Nations and Nationalism, 31(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/nana.13124

Free Speech and the Crisis of Canadian Democracy The recent expulsions and deportations of student protesters in the United States have ignited a profound debate on free speech and academic freedom, raising concerns not only in the U.S. but in Canada and globally. Notably, Mahmoud Khalil , a Palestinian graduate student at Columbia University — was detained by ICE on March 8, 2025, after participating in pro-Palestinian protests. Around the same time, Rumeysa Ozturk , a Turkish-born PhD student and Fulbright Scholar at Tufts University, was arrested en route to an iftar dinner and transferred to a Louisiana detention center despite a judge’s order to keep her in Massachusetts. Meanwhile, Yunseo Chung , a 21-year-old junior at Columbia and South Korean permanent resident, was arrested during a sit-in and is now fighting deportation. This crackdown has extended beyond students. Reports indicate that professors are also relocating abroad due to increasingly restrictive environments. For instance, CNN reported that several high-profile Yale University scholars—including Jason Stanley, Timothy Snyder, and Marci Shore—are moving to the University of Toronto, citing threats to academic freedom in the U.S. Stanley even warned that America is at risk of becoming a "fascist dictatorship." These are not isolated moves; they reflect a growing trend and a warning sign for democratic societies worldwide. But is Canada immune to this trajectory? The answer is not so simple. In fact, Canada has its own troubling history. During the Harper administration, federal scientists were reportedly silenced and barred from speaking publicly about their research—something many believe still has lingering effects today. The CBC’s report , outlines how how political interference in science became a serious concern, underscoring that threats to academic freedom are not unique to any one ideology. Between 2006 and 2015, numerous government scientists reported being prevented from sharing climate change findings with the public or media without prior political approval. This erosion of transparency, coupled with massive cuts to environmental research and the closure of key scientific institutions, led to an outcry from the international scientific community and marked a significant breach in the principle of academic autonomy. Since October 2023, Canadian universities and major media outlets have faced backlash for disciplining individuals over pro-Palestinian views or criticism of Israel, highlighting a troubling pattern of suppressed speech. At CTV News and Global News , journalists were terminated after posting pro-Palestinian views online or engaging in related activism. These dismissals have been widely criticized by media rights organizations as politically motivated and indicative of a shrinking space for balanced reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In academia, multiple universities have taken disciplinary action against students and faculty. At the University of Ottawa , a medical resident was suspended over social media posts criticizing Israeli policies, sparking national backlash and a petition that garnered over 100,000 signatures. Vancouver Island University suspended two students for pro-Palestinian activism, prompting public appeals, faculty support, and widespread outcry over what many deemed unjust disciplinary action. At York University , faculty members were suspended following participation in protests related to Israeli military funding. The suspensions led to campus-wide demonstrations defending academic freedom. Meanwhile, McGill University called for police intervention after students organized a pro-Palestinian encampment. Police used tear gas and arrested fifteen students, prompting national debate about universities’ responsibilities to uphold free expression. These developments show a growing trend of institutions responding to controversial political speech with disciplinary measures rather than open dialogue. As tensions over global conflicts continue, these responses raise urgent questions about Canada’s commitment to upholding freedom of expression in both journalism and higher education. As of April 1, 2025, with Canada’s federal election approaching, academic freedom and free speech are largely missing from left-leaning party platforms. The Liberal Party focuses on curbing “online harms” through the proposed Online Harms Act (Bill C-63) , which would require platforms to remove harmful content and establish new enforcement bodies—yet makes no mention of protecting freedom of expression or academic freedom. And this is where the real danger lies. When laws and policies are written with vague language—such as "combatting disinformation" or "reducing hate"—they can easily be weaponized. Critics argue that the Act's broad definitions and stringent requirements could inadvertently suppress legitimate expression. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) has expressed concerns that the Act could lead to draconian rules and chilling effects on free expression, causing individuals to self-censor for fear of repercussions. They contend that the vague and broad statutory duties imposed on operators may not adequately consider users' rights to freedom of expression and privacy.​ In fact, in the recent years, hate speech laws have been cited as the most common justification for suppressing speech in various democracies. ​In Europe, countries like France and Germany have imposed broad bans on pro-Palestinian demonstrations, citing hate speech and public order concerns. Laws against hatred, offense, and insults have been significantly expanded in many democracies, leading to the suppression of protests, advocacy, and critical expression in a disproportionate and discriminatory manner.​ In the United Kingdom , authorities have restricted pro-Palestinian marches, citing public safety concerns and potential offenses under public order laws. Similarly, in Australia , police have sought to prohibit pro-Palestinian rallies, citing safety hazards and public order risks. These actions reflect a broader trend where legislation intended to combat hate speech is perceived to disproportionately suppress political expression and dissent, prompting debates about the balance between maintaining public order and safeguarding fundamental rights to freedom of expression and assembly. ​The increasing use of laws intended to combat hate speech to suppress political dissent and controversial viewpoints is a troubling global trend. Despite this, the Canadian Liberal Party has not prioritized adjusting its platform to address the potential for governmental overreach. This oversight suggests a lack of recognition that political power is transient; once expansive authorities are established, they may be misused by future administrations.​ ​Unfortunately, this deficiency in safeguarding freedom of expression permeates the political left. As of April 2025, neither the New Democratic Party (NDP) nor the Green Party has articulated clear commitments to uphold free speech or academic freedom. Their platforms emphasize combating hate and disinformation, yet the broad language employed could be subject to misuse, depending on interpretation.​ ​By contrast, the parties addressing free speech directly are on the political right. The Conservative Party of Canada promises to repeal legislation they consider limiting expression—including the Online Harms Act, Bill C-11, and related regulatory efforts—and to ensure academic freedom is protected from ideological interference. The People’s Party of Canada (PPC) , often described as far-right, pledges to restrict the definition of hate speech in the Criminal Code to expression that explicitly advocates the use of force against identifiable groups based on protected criteria, repeal existing laws seen as curtailing online free speech, and abolish public funding to Canadian media to eliminate state influence.​ While these statements are unusually direct, they also raise critical questions. Do these policies truly protect open discourse—or do they selectively defend speech aligned with their ideology? It’s worth remembering that Donald Trump also campaigned on defending free speech, yet his administration was widely criticized for silencing dissent and targeting protest movements.​ Ultimately, freedom of speech is not a left or right issue—it is a democratic cornerstone. Yet the silence from left-leaning parties in Canada is alarming. Laws without clear protections or definitions are easily exploited, especially when political winds change. By failing to address this risk, progressive parties are empowering future governments—possibly those they most fear—to use vague legal frameworks against speech they disapprove of. If democracy is truly what these parties champion, then protecting the right to dissent, to question, and to express unpopular views must be front and center in their platforms. Anything less invites the very authoritarianism they claim to oppose.

Iran’s mental health crisis has intensified in recent years, reflecting the country’s escalating political and socioeconomic challenges. In 2024 alone, approximately 7,000 individuals died by suicide, with an additional 130,000 suicide attempts recorded, underscoring the gravity of the situation (Parsine, 2024). These figures highlight a pervasive crisis, exacerbated by economic instability, high unemployment, and widespread social restrictions that have left many Iranians — particularly young people — feeling trapped and hopeless. This past month, high-profile suicides — including those of political activist Kianoosh Sanjari and teenage schoolgirls Aynaz Karimi and Arezou Khawari — have intensified calls to address Iran’s mental health crisis. Although these tragic events have sparked public discourse and renewed demands for mental health reform, the media’s emphasis on despair and suffering may unintentionally exacerbate the issue rather than alleviate it. Political Disillusionment and Its Psychological Toll Mental health deterioration in Iran has been especially pronounced in the aftermath of the “Women, Life, Freedom” movement. This protest initially raised hopes for significant social change but ultimately led to widespread disillusionment as anticipated change failed to materialize. Research shows that following each suppressed movement in Iran, mental health indicators decline significantly, reflecting a strong link between political stagnation and public despair. For instance, after the 2009 Green Movement, the Iranian Society of Psychiatrists documented a 25% increase in reported cases of anxiety and depression (Zarifkar et al., 2011). Similarly, after the 2019–2020 protests, a national survey revealed a 30% rise in PTSD symptoms and a 40% increase in reported depression, especially among young, urban populations (Amiri & Tavassoli, 2021). This recurring cycle of hope followed by disillusionment has intensified Iran’s mental health crisis, especially among younger Iranians who feel disempowered by unmet expectations and ongoing political stagnation. The Role of Media: Amplifying Despair and Injecting False Hope Media plays a significant role in shaping public attitudes toward life and national issues. Oppositional media outlets often use sensationalized portrayals of suicide and mental health tragedies to rally public sentiment against the regime. By spotlighting individual struggles, these outlets emphasize systemic failures within the political system, hoping to galvanize collective outrage. However, while this approach can raise awareness, it carries a high cost for public mental health. Studies show that constant exposure to negative news exacerbates stress, anxiety, and depression, leaving audiences feeling helpless and overwhelmed (Smith & Kalichman, 2018). Additionally, oppositional media has, at times, injected false hope and promises of immediate change, which can lead to public disillusionment when such changes fail to materialize. For example, during the 2022–2023 protests, some media outlets portrayed the demonstrations as the definitive end of the regime, leading to heightened expectations among the populace. When the anticipated swift changes did not occur, many individuals experienced increased frustration and despair, exacerbating the mental health crisis (Clingendael Institute, 2023). A Path Forward: Promoting Responsible Media and Supporting Resilience To address Iran’s escalating mental health crisis, adopting a more balanced approach to media reporting is essential. Media outlets, particularly those in opposition, should recognize their influence on public mental health and commit to responsible, constructive reporting. Effective strategies include: Balance Negative News with Positive Developments : Rather than solely emphasizing negative stories, media can also highlight community-driven initiatives, resilience-building efforts, and positive developments. This balanced approach can inspire hope and foster constructive public engagement. Avoid Sensationalizing Tragedy : When covering suicide and mental health issues, it is crucial to avoid sensationalism. Providing context alongside mental health resources can empower audiences to seek help or offer support to others, minimizing distress. Research shows that responsible coverage can prevent the “Werther effect,” where publicized suicides lead to imitation, particularly among vulnerable populations (American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, 2024). Highlight Available Mental Health Resources : Media should routinely provide information on mental health services and crisis helplines, offering immediate support for those in crisis. This approach can ensure that viewers are not left with only despair, but also with options for seeking help. Promote Stories of Resilience and Incremental Change : By focusing on real stories of resilience and incremental social progress, media can reinforce the idea that meaningful change is achievable, even in difficult circumstances. This shift can help rebuild hope and a sense of agency within communities. Conclusion Iran’s mental health crisis is deeply intertwined with the nation’s challenging sociopolitical landscape and the influential role of media in shaping public perception. Although many factors driving the crisis lie beyond the immediate control of Iranian citizens, the way media reports on these issues can significantly impact public resilience or despair. Through responsible reporting that emphasizes mental health resources, resilience, and progress, media can play a crucial role in fostering hope and contributing to a more engaged, resilient society. References American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. (2024). Guidelines for Reporting on Suicide . Retrieved from https://afsp.org/safereporting/ Amiri, M., & Tavassoli, S. (2021). Mental health outcomes following the suppression of public protests in Iran: A national survey . Journal of Iranian Psychiatry, 15(3), 245–256. Clingendael Institute. (2023). Opposition politics of the Iranian diaspora: Out of many, one? Retrieved from https://www.clingendael.org/publication/opposition-politics-iranian-diaspora-out-many-one-not-just-yet Deutsche Welle. (2024). Mental health and suicide rates in Iran . Retrieved from https://www.dw.com/ Iran Open Data. (2023). Regional suicide data in Iran . Retrieved from https://iranopendata.org/ Parsine. (2024). Iran’s annual suicide rates and statistics for 1403 . Retrieved from https://www.parsine.com/ Rouydad24. (2024). Comparison of Iran’s suicide rates with global averages . Retrieved from https://www.rouydad24.ir/ Smith, S., & Kalichman, S. (2018). Negative news and mental health: The psychological impact of media consumption on public wellbeing . Journal of Health and Media, 25(3), 204–219. Voice of America Persian. (2023). Economic factors contributing to Iran’s rising suicide rates . Retrieved from https://www.voanews.com/

In recent years, the Democratic Party has increasingly aligned with establishment interests, including financial and corporate elites, prominent cultural figures, and the military-industrial complex. This shift has positioned the party as a representative of elite interests rather than a voice for the working class, contributing to the rise of populist sentiments, including right-wing populism represented by Donald Trump. The party's realignment diverges sharply from anti-establishment movements like Occupy Wall Street, which could have offered a progressive alternative by addressing economic inequality and corporate influence in politics. Corporate Funding and Lobbyist Influence Data highlights the Democratic Party's growing reliance on substantial donations from large industries, raising concerns about its commitment to working-class interests. In the 2024 election cycle, Democrats raised approximately $1.7 billion, with over 51% of large donations—exceeding $100,000—going to Democratic candidates (OpenSecrets, 2024). Notably, the securities and investment sector contributed over $123 million, with additional substantial contributions from real estate and law sectors (OpenSecrets, 2024). Influence from tech, pharmaceutical, and agribusiness sectors has intensified. Tech giants like Google, Amazon, and Meta collectively contributed over $45 million in 2024, up from $32 million in 2020 (OpenSecrets, 2024). The tech industry also spent $96 million on lobbying, particularly focusing on issues like antitrust reform and data regulation (OpenSecrets, 2024). Major lobbying groups in this sector include the Information Technology Industry Council and the Internet Association, which advocate for favorable legislation impacting their business interests. The pharmaceutical sector, represented by companies like Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Merck, donated over $75 million, a 20% increase from 2020, coinciding with Democratic resistance to comprehensive healthcare reforms such as Medicare for All (OpenSecrets, 2024). This sector invested over $267 million in lobbying efforts aimed at influencing healthcare legislation, with key lobbying organizations like the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and the Biotechnology Innovation Organization playing significant roles (Center for Responsive Politics, 2024). Agribusiness, represented by corporations like Monsanto and Cargill, contributed $23 million to Democratic candidates in 2024. This financial support coincided with lobbying expenditures of approximately $135 million aimed at shaping food security and agricultural policies (Center for Responsive Politics, 2024). Lobbyists from the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Farmers Union work to influence legislation that favors large-scale agricultural practices. The cumulative effect of these lobbying efforts and financial contributions raises concerns that Democratic policies may prioritize corporate agendas over those of working-class Americans. As the party continues to receive financial backing from these powerful sectors, questions arise regarding its ability to address the needs of its traditional base, potentially fueling anti-establishment sentiment and driving segments of the electorate toward alternative movements. Alignment with the Military-Industrial Complex The Democratic Party's increasing alignment with powerful industries has notably shifted toward military interests, raising concerns about its focus on war at the expense of critical domestic issues. Notable neoconservative figures, including Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol, have shifted their support toward Democrats, particularly in response to foreign policy stances that advocate for military engagement in regions like Ukraine and support for NATO initiatives. In a significant endorsement, over 100 former neoconservative officials and military leaders, including Cheney and Kristol, publicly backed Kamala Harris during the 2024 election cycle, emphasizing a growing perception that the Democratic Party has become the party of war, mirroring traditional Republican policies (Schwartz, 2024). During the 2020 election, a similar trend was observed as numerous neoconservatives, including Kristol and former George W. Bush administration officials, endorsed Joe Biden, signaling a bipartisan shift among establishment figures toward Democratic candidates who support military engagement and interventionist foreign policies (The New York Times, 2020). In the 2024 election cycle, defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin and Raytheon contributed over $45 million to Democratic candidates, reflecting a 30% increase from 2020 (Center for Responsive Politics, 2024). This bipartisan support for military expansion is underscored by the $850 billion defense budget approved for 2024, which prioritizes military spending over critical domestic needs. In stark contrast, funding for domestic disaster relief, particularly in response to recent storms affecting numerous Americans, amounted to approximately $5 billion—highlighting a significant disparity in government priorities (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2024). A 2024 Pew Research Center survey revealed that 63% of Americans believed the U.S. government should prioritize addressing domestic issues over international military commitments (Pew Research Center, 2024). This disconnect between military expenditures and domestic support has fueled criticism of the Democratic Party's relationship with elite interests and military contractors, suggesting the party is more focused on pro-war rhetoric than on aiding the working-class Americans who have historically formed its base. Currently, under Democratic leadership, the U.S. has been involved in various military operations and support for conflicts, including: Ukraine : Ongoing military support in the conflict against Russia. Syria : Continued airstrikes against ISIS and other groups, with a military presence aimed at stabilization efforts. Israel : Backing military operations in Lebanon and Palestine, and now Iran, including the provision of arms and diplomatic support during ongoing conflicts. This convergence of neoconservative support and increased military spending positions the Democratic Party as the party of war, starkly contrasting with the beliefs of their traditional supporters who prioritize peace and diplomacy. Celebrity Endorsements and Media Visibility High-profile endorsements from celebrities and significant media backing further reinforce the perception of the Democratic Party as an elite-driven organization. During the 2024 election, celebrities like Meryl Streep, Taylor Swift, and Chris Evans publicly endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris, highlighting the party’s alignment with Hollywood and affluent cultural figures (USA Today, 2024). Mainstream media endorsements from outlets such as The New York Times and The Philadelphia Inquirer added to this image, but they also strengthened perceptions that the party represents affluent, urban, and well-connected constituencies rather than grassroots voices. Limited Economic Impact of Identity Politics While the Democratic Party has emphasized identity politics over the past decade, this focus has not resulted in significant economic advancement for low-income individuals within these identity groups. For example, the poverty rate among Black Americans stood at 18% in 2024, nearly unchanged since 2014, despite an increased political emphasis on racial equity (Pew Research Center, 2024). Hispanic Americans experienced only a slight decrease in poverty rates, and income inequality within these communities continued to widen (U.S. Census Bureau, 2024). Furthermore, over 22% of LGBTQ+ adults lived below the poverty line in 2023, a rate higher than the general population, with transgender individuals facing a staggering poverty rate of 29% (Williams Institute, 2023). The Democratic Party's focus on identity-based issues, while important, has often overshadowed the pressing economic disparities that persist in these communities. Additionally, the speech control and political correctness that accompany diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives have alienated less educated groups who may not be familiar with the academic roots of these movements. This alienation creates a sense of exclusion and resentment among those who feel that the party prioritizes elite narratives over the lived experiences of ordinary Americans. A recent survey indicated that 64% of Americans believe that DEI initiatives have gone too far, suggesting a growing backlash against these sentiments (Harris Poll, 2024). As a result, the emphasis on identity politics has failed to effectively address the underlying economic challenges facing marginalized communities. Without a balanced approach that considers both identity and economic needs, the Democratic Party risks further alienating those it seeks to support, ultimately undermining its own objectives for equity and justice. Demographic Shift Toward Affluent, Urban, and Educated Voters Democratic support has shifted towards high-income, urban, and college-educated demographics. According to a 2024 report from Pew Research, 55% of voters earning over $100,000 now support Democrats—a 12% increase from 2016 (Pew Research Center, 2024). The party also enjoys substantial backing from college-educated voters, with 63% favoring Democrats compared to just 41% among non-college-educated voters (Pew Research Center, 2024). This demographic shift aligns the party with more affluent and educated groups, creating a disconnect with rural and working-class communities who feel their concerns are overlooked. Missed Opportunity for an Anti-Establishment Message As the Democratic Party increasingly earns a reputation as the party of the establishment, it is no surprise that the populist messaging championed by figures like Donald Trump has gained traction. This trend reflects a broader rise in populist sentiment not only in the U.S. and North America but throughout the West. If the Democratic Party hopes to reclaim relevance and support, embracing a more populist message is essential. Populism is not a new phenomenon for the Democratic Party; both Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders have effectively utilized populist rhetoric in their campaigns. For instance, Obama’s 2008 campaign centered on themes of "hope" and "change," explicitly challenging the status quo and corporate influence in politics. He famously called for a government that works for ordinary Americans rather than the wealthy elite. Similarly, Sanders’ campaign highlighted the influence of Wall Street on politics and championed policies like Medicare for All and tuition-free public college, positioning these proposals as means to combat the entrenched interests of the wealthy. His message resonated with many working- and middle-class voters who felt sidelined by the political establishment. The Occupy Wall Street movement galvanized public discontent over economic inequality and corporate greed. A 2016 Gallup poll indicated that 57% of Americans supported the anti-establishment, anti-corporate messages associated with Occupy Wall Street and Sanders, underscoring a clear demand for policies that prioritize economic equity over elite interests (Gallup, 2016). Had the Democratic Party fully embraced this populist, anti-corporate platform, it could have effectively addressed the concerns of working-class voters and countered right-wing populism with a compelling progressive economic agenda. As the Republican Party has witnessed a surge in populist figures since the rise of the MAGA movement, it becomes evident that Trump is not an anomaly but part of a broader trend. To redefine their brand and regain their supporters, Democrats must return to their populist roots and focus on issues that resonate with everyday Americans. Emphasizing a grassroots approach and advocating for policies that genuinely reflect the needs and aspirations of the working and middle classes could help the party reconnect with its base and provide a viable alternative to the populist movements gaining ground on the right. Conclusion With increased corporate donations, substantial support from defense contractors, and a growing reliance on elite endorsements, the Democratic Party's strategy increasingly aligns with establishment interests. This shift has raised concerns among traditional supporters who feel their needs are being overshadowed by the priorities of wealthy donors and influential lobbying groups, leading to a disconnect between the party and its historical base. Here’s a revised conclusion incorporating quotes from Bernie Sanders' recent statements about election results: Conclusion To address the divide between the Democratic Party and its traditional base, a shift toward grassroots economic issues is essential. Sanders emphasizes the need for the party to "listen to the needs of working families" and "focus on the issues that matter most to ordinary people" (Sanders, 2024). By actively engaging with communities to understand their specific challenges and aspirations, the party can prioritize initiatives that tackle economic inequality, job creation, and accessible healthcare, which are vital for regaining the trust of voters who feel neglected by current political dynamics. Additionally, reevaluating the party’s relationship with elite sectors is crucial. While collaboration with influential industries can secure funding, it is important to ensure that "the voices of ordinary citizens must not be drowned out by corporate interests" (Sanders, 2024). Advocating for stricter regulations on campaign financing and lobbying practices could help restore balance and integrity to the political process. By embracing this grassroots-oriented strategy, the Democratic Party can position itself as a true advocate for the working and middle classes. This approach not only offers a genuine alternative to rising anti-establishment movements but also reinvigorates the party's identity as a champion of progressive change, capable of addressing the pressing economic and social issues facing America today. References Cambridge University Press. (2020). The polarization of the rich: The new Democratic allegiance of affluent Americans and the politics of redistribution. Perspectives on Politics. Center for Responsive Politics. (2024). Defense industry donations to political parties. OpenSecrets. Gallup. (2016). Public support for anti-corporate messaging of Occupy Wall Street. Gallup. Harris Poll. (2024). Public sentiment on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. Harris Poll. OpenSecrets. (2024). 2024 election donor demographics. OpenSecrets. OpenSecrets. (2024). Political parties and industries – Democratic Party contributions. OpenSecrets. Pew Research Center. (2023). Public opinion on identity politics and economic priorities. Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center. (2024). Demographic shifts in voter alignment and political support. Pew Research Center. USA Today. (2024). Top contributors to presidential candidates in 2024. USA Today. U.S. Census Bureau. (2024). Income inequality statistics by race and ethnicity. Williams Institute. (2023). LGBTQ+ poverty rates and economic disparities. ·       Sanders, B. (2024). Statement on recent election results.

Celebrity and Media Support for Harris In the 2024 presidential election, Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign received substantial backing from prominent figures in Hollywood, the music industry, and mainstream media outlets. High-profile celebrities, including Meryl Streep, Harrison Ford, Julia Roberts, Robert Downey Jr., Scarlett Johansson, Chris Evans, Beyoncé, Taylor Swift, and Bruce Springsteen, publicly endorsed Harris, aiming to mobilize younger audiences and fans. Additionally, influential publications such as The New York Times , The Philadelphia Inquirer , and The Houston Chronicle  formally endorsed Harris, praising her qualifications and policy positions (Pew Research Center, 2024). Media’s Role in Shaping Harris’s Public Image Beyond traditional news outlets, Harris also benefited from appearances and favorable mentions on popular talk shows and late-night programs. Hosts like Jimmy Fallon, Stephen Colbert, Seth Meyers, Jimmy Kimmel, and The Daily Show  cast her in a positive light, often highlighting her policies and framing her as a forward-thinking, progressive leader. This favorable treatment contributed to a broader media landscape that supported Harris, with television networks such as MSNBC, CNN, and ABC providing extensive coverage. Shows like The Rachel Maddow Show  and Anderson Cooper 360°  emphasized her leadership and vision, thereby reinforcing her appeal among liberal and younger demographics (Pew Research Center, 2024; Media Tenor, 2024; AllSides, 2024). Bias in Media Coverage Mainstream media coverage exhibited a notable bias, evident in the differences in tone and focus between Harris and her opponent, Donald Trump. According to Pew Research, 60% of stories about Harris were positive, with an emphasis on her leadership and policies, while only 30% of Trump’s coverage was positive, with much of his portrayal centered on controversies (Pew Research Center, 2024). Similarly, Media Tenor found that Harris’s media representation was 60% positive, 25% neutral, and 15% negative, in contrast to Trump’s 30% positive, 20% neutral, and 50% negative coverage (University of Rochester, 2024). Analysts suggest that "scandal fatigue" may have normalized Trump’s controversies, leading media and audiences to regard these issues as background noise (Wall Street Journal, 2024). Some commentators also highlighted gender bias in Harris's coverage, noting a focus on her appearance and likability—traits less emphasized in male candidates (Wall Street Journal, 2024). Audience Interpretation and Stuart Hall's Theory Stuart Hall’s encoding-decoding theory provides a framework for understanding audience responses to Kamala Harris's 2024 campaign. According to Hall, audiences interpret media messages in three ways: dominant-hegemonic, negotiated, and oppositional readings. In a dominant-hegemonic reading, audiences align fully with the intended media message. Negotiated readings involve partial agreement, with audiences adapting the message based on personal beliefs. Oppositional readings involve rejecting the message entirely, often resulting in interpretations that challenge or oppose the original intent. The Challenge of Oppositional Readings Applying Hall's framework to Harris’s campaign raises questions about shifting audience engagement with media. As election results are finalized, a closer analysis is required to identify which social sectors interpret mainstream media messages oppositionally and whether this trend is reversible. Donald Trump’s landslide victory, despite extensive media criticism, suggests that a significant portion of the public now distrusts media narratives, perceiving them as biased or dismissive of their concerns. This oppositional reading is frequently observed in authoritarian regimes, where citizens are skeptical of state-controlled media. For example, citizens in the former Soviet Union, contemporary Iran, and Venezuela under Maduro often read state media critically, seeking alternative sources to counter perceived propaganda. Alarmingly, similar trends are emerging in the West, where increased media censorship may be contributing to public skepticism. For instance, 62% of Americans feel the news is "censored" (Pew Research Center, 2023), 54% of the UK public believes media freedom has declined (Ofcom, 2023), and Canadian government agencies have increased content takedown requests by 30% over the past year (Canadian Journal of Communication, 2024). A Call to Reassess Media Censorship and Public Trust The rising trend of media censorship in the West is driving public distrust and fostering oppositional interpretations, which threatens democratic discourse and erodes trust in public institutions. If left unchecked, this divide between media and the public may weaken the foundation of an informed citizenry. To address this, policymakers, media leaders, and citizens must prioritize transparency and accountability. Governments should protect media independence from corporate or political influence, while media organizations need to balance reporting to rebuild public trust. Moreover, critical media literacy and open debate should be promoted to empower individuals in assessing information accurately. Strengthening these standards will help bridge divisions and ensure that media can support a healthy, democratic society by preserving an open, balanced public discourse. References AllSides. (2024). Media bias in the 2024 election cycle: A closer look at coverage trends.  AllSides. Canadian Journal of Communication. (2024). Governmental influence and media censorship in Canada.  Canadian Journal of Communication. Media Tenor. (2024). Analysis of media tone in 2024 U.S. presidential campaigns.  Media Tenor. Ofcom. (2023). Media freedom and public perception: Annual report.  Ofcom. Pew Research Center. (2023). Public perceptions of media censorship.  Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center. (2024). Media coverage analysis of the 2024 presidential election.  Pew Research Center.

Introduction Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives are ubiquitous across corporate, educational, and governmental institutions. While these efforts are often ridiculed by the political right as symbolic or superficial, a more urgent critique is needed from the political left—particularly against the neoliberal logic underlying many DEI initiatives. Rather than driving systemic change, these programs often prioritize surface-level metrics and corporate reputation over meaningful equity. Neoliberalism commodifies identities, turning DEI into a labor management tool, leaving structural inequalities unchallenged. Sara Ahmed, a scholar in feminist theory and race studies, critiques diversity in her work by pointing out how it becomes a “cuddly, politically correct” concept that creates the appearance of inclusiveness while maintaining systemic inequities (Ahmed, 2009, p. 44). This article explores how DEI, under neoliberal influence, has been reduced to metric-driven performance that commodifies identities without addressing the root causes of inequality. Diversity as a Marketable Asset: The Illusion of Inclusion Within neoliberal frameworks, diversity becomes a tool for reputation management rather than systemic transformation. Organizations often deploy DEI initiatives to cultivate an image of inclusiveness, using diversity as a marketing strategy to attract consumers or talent, while making minimal substantive change. Ahmed (2009) critiques such initiatives as “shiny apples with rotten cores”—policies that appear progressive but leave discriminatory structures intact (p. 45). The limitations of DEI efforts are evident in the slow progress in leadership diversity and pay equity. For example, the global gender economic gap remains severe, with experts estimating it will take another 95 years to close racial and gender leadership gaps (Hatch, 2023). In Canada, despite investments expected to grow to $15.4 billion by 2026, only 10.4% of senior management roles are held by visible minorities, and 52% of Indigenous employees report facing systemic discrimination (Discussion Paper on Systemic Racism, 2023). These shortcomings reflect the superficiality of diversity quotas, where companies prioritize meeting metrics over engaging in meaningful discussions about privilege and systemic inequality. Tiffany Dombowsky (2024) critiques this pattern, noting that “diversity is often reduced to a buzzword,” masking the lack of institutional change. Several corporate examples illustrate how DEI efforts become tools for managing reputation rather than effecting reform: Toyota: In 2024, Toyota scaled back DEI initiatives, including withdrawing from LGBTQ+ campaigns, to avoid backlash. The company reoriented its efforts toward STEM education and workforce readiness, focusing on business priorities over inclusivity (HRD America, 2024; Fox Business, 2024). Bud Light: Following a campaign with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney, Bud Light faced boycotts, causing significant sales losses. Anheuser-Busch distanced itself from the promotion, highlighting the fragility of performative DEI efforts under public pressure (Fox Business, 2024). Target: In response to backlash during Pride Month 2023, Target pulled LGBTQ+ merchandise, demonstrating how companies sacrifice DEI efforts to maintain public favor and protect profits (HRD America, 2024; Advocate, 2024). Starbucks: Workers accused Starbucks of restricting Pride displays, triggering strikes. Employees argued that the company’s actions were more about public relations than meaningful support, underscoring the limits of tokenism and corporate-driven DEI (Fox Business, 2024). Tokenism and Emotional Labor in Neoliberal DEI Programs Tokenism—the practice of elevating individuals from the most privileged segments of marginalized communities—remains a frequent byproduct of neoliberal DEI initiatives. Ahmed (2009) refers to this phenomenon as “sanitized diversity,” where companies highlight diversity superficially without changing power structures (p. 49). Walmart: The company emphasizes diversity by promoting minority executives, yet it continues to face criticism for labor practices that disproportionately impact marginalized workers through low wages and limited career advancement. Amazon: Similarly, Amazon has promoted diversity in leadership but faces scrutiny for the poor conditions in its warehouses, where many minority workers are employed. This discrepancy between leadership diversity and structural inequality reflects the limitations of tokenism (Discussion Paper on Systemic Racism, 2023). These examples show how DEI efforts often focus on optics and reputation management, relying on privileged segments of marginalized groups to symbolize inclusion while leaving systemic barriers intact. Marginalized employees are still 3.3 times more likely to leave due to feelings of exclusion (Discussion Paper on Systemic Racism, 2023). Challenging the Neoliberal Framework: Toward Structural Transformation While diversity quotas aim to enhance representation, research shows that forcing rapid diversity without addressing systemic barriers can lead to backlash and burnout. A study by the Stanford Social Innovation Review found that 55% of minority hires in quota-driven workplaces reported feeling unsupported, with 30% higher turnover rates than other employees. Further complicating DEI efforts is the limited effectiveness of implicit bias training. Research by Lai et al. (2014) shows that bias suppression programs often result in temporary shifts in awareness with little lasting behavioral change. In some cases, these interventions even reinforce stereotypes, triggering resistance among participants (Liera, 2020). A sustainable strategy for bias reduction requires embedding equity across organizational systems and fostering organic interactions among diverse colleagues. Daily, authentic interactions are more effective in reducing biases than structured training programs (Berkeley Greater Good Science Center, n.d.). Coqual’s findings support this, showing that inclusive work environments increase perceptions of fairness by 21% and trust by 18%. Achieving systemic equity requires time and sustained effort. Organizations must focus on addressing educational gaps, eliminating structural barriers, and developing advancement pathways to tackle implicit biases. Shortcuts, like diversity quotas, can undermine merit-based hiring, damaging trust and employee engagement (Catalyst, 2023; Hatch, 2023). Embedding Equity for Long-Term Change Embedding equity across recruitment, retention, and promotion systems fosters sustainable change. This approach ensures that diverse talent is recognized for merit rather than superficial metrics, preventing employees from being labeled as “diversity hires.” As underrepresented groups work alongside their peers, implicit biases naturally diminish (Coqual, n.d.). Several factors enhance the effectiveness of this approach: Long-Term Relationship Building: Daily interactions foster trust and familiarity, reducing biases more effectively than formal training programs (Coqual, n.d.). Cultural Shifts Through Representation: When marginalized employees are present at all levels, they drive cultural transformation and reinforce equity across the system (Catalyst, 2023). Mentorship and Networking Opportunities: Natural advancement of diverse employees opens doors for others through mentorship and professional networks, creating a self-sustaining cycle of inclusion (Discussion Paper on Systemic Racism, 2023). Ultimately, merit-based integration leads to sustainable DEI outcomes. Employees are valued for their competence, building trust and credibility across the organization. This strategy reduces turnover, increases engagement, and ensures that DEI efforts are meaningful and embraced over time (Hatch, 2023; Harvard Business Review, 2020). References Ahmed, S. (2009). The politics of diversity: Reframing diversity work in neoliberal times . Racial and Ethnic Studies, 32 (1), 43–50. Berkeley Greater Good Science Center. (n.d.). Reducing bias through authentic interactions. Retrieved from https://greatergood.berkeley.edu Catalyst. (2023). Experiences of LGBTQ+ and Black employees in corporate environments . Retrieved from https://www.catalyst.org Coqual. (n.d.). Research on inclusive environments and trust . Retrieved from https://coqual.org Discussion Paper on Systemic Racism. (2023). Government of Canada. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca Fox Business. (2024). Toyota pulls back on DEI policies after backlash . Retrieved from https://www.foxbusiness.com Hatch. (2023). Bold leadership and pathways to parity . Retrieved from https://www.hatch.com Harvard Business Review. (2020). Diversity hiring quotas: Impact on retention and workplace culture . Harvard Business School Publishing. HRD America. (2024). DEI policies and public backlash: A case study . Retrieved from https://www.hcamag.com

From Nazi Germany to Iran’s Monarchist Revival Donald John Trump, Reza Pahlavi, Benjamin Netanyahu, Viktor Mihály Orbán, Marine Le Pen, Adolf Hitler This article explores how national humiliation and loss of status can lead to the rise of extremist ideologies. In The Status Game , author Will Storr argues that the human craving for status underpins much of our behavior, from innovation to conflict. One key manifestation of this, as Storr highlights, is how collective humiliation can drive nations toward radical movements that promise to restore their lost pride and power. Storr uses Nazi Germany as a prominent example. Following the deep national humiliation caused by the Treaty of Versailles and the economic devastation after World War I, Adolf Hitler’s rise was fueled by promises to restore Germany’s greatness. Hitler’s appeal to the collective pride of a diminished nation and his pledge to unite the people for revenge and power led to one of the most devastating extremist movements in history. Germany’s loss of status created fertile ground for radicalization and militarism (Storr, 2021). The same psychological mechanism can be observed in modern contexts, particularly in Europe and the United States. In the U.S., Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) movement capitalized on economic and cultural grievances, particularly among rural and working-class communities that felt sidelined by globalization and demographic changes. Trump’s message of a revitalized, powerful America resonated with those who felt left behind, promising to restore the nation’s former glory and dignity. Similarly, far-right nationalist parties across Europe have surged as feelings of displacement, exacerbated by immigration and economic inequality, fuel a desire to reclaim lost national identity. goo This pattern of seeking restored dignity is also evident in Iran, where opposition groups increasingly turn to the country’s ancient national identity in response to the Islamic Republic’s perceived failures on the global stage. The growing popularity of monarchist figures like Reza Pahlavi, son of the last Shah, reflects a desire to return to a time of perceived greatness before the 1979 revolution. Pahlavi offers an alternative to theocratic governance, promoting a vision of Iran as a secular, proud nation respected internationally. A 2022 Gamaan survey revealed that 22% of Iranians preferred a constitutional monarchy, with support for Pahlavi increasing, especially in light of the regime’s suppression of the Woman, Life, Freedom movement (Gamaan, 2022). This nostalgia is further fueled by pro-Pahlavi documentaries, often aired on ambiguously funded satellite channels, which reinforce the narrative of Iran’s glorious past. In the absence of independent media, these narratives fill a void, amplifying support for a return to pre-revolutionary ideals. Before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran, under Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, was regarded as a progressive, influential power in the region. The Shah promoted national pride by emphasizing Iran’s imperial past, most notably through the 1971 celebration of the 2,500th anniversary of the Persian Empire. This event symbolized Iran’s resurgence as a modern nation with deep historical roots, further legitimizing the Shah’s rule on the international stage (Axworthy, 2013). However, the 1979 revolution drastically altered Iran’s trajectory, replacing the Shah’s nationalism with a revolutionary religious ideology. The Islamic Republic’s policies led to international isolation, and many Iranians have since felt the weight of national humiliation due to human rights violations and regional conflicts. In response, opposition groups increasingly invoke symbols from Iran’s ancient Achaemenid Empire and Zoroastrianism, seeking to reclaim Iran’s historical dignity and presenting a vision of a secular, modern Iran (Axworthy, 2013; Gamaan, 2022). The rise of nationalist sentiment in Iran, as in other parts of the world, demonstrates the power of status and pride in shaping political movements. However, the embrace of historical nostalgia as a solution to present challenges comes with risks. When nations look to the past for answers, they may overlook the complexities of their current realities, and in the process, fall into the trap of repeating history. Just as nationalist and extremist ideologies can mobilize people by promising a return to greatness, they can also lead to dangerous cycles of authoritarianism and exclusion if not critically examined. This warns of the dangers that come with seeking status restoration through narrow and often exclusionary ideologies (Storr, 2021). References Axworthy, M. (2013). Revolutionary Iran: A history of the Islamic Republic . Oxford University Press. Gamaan. (2022). Survey on political attitudes in Iran. The Gamaan Institute. Retrieved from https://www.gamaan.org/ Storr, W. (2021). The Status Game: On social position and how we use it . William Collins.

As someone who has worked in the Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) space, I was initially wholeheartedly committed to driving the systemic change that this work so often promises. However, it didn’t take long before I began to experience what is commonly referred to as "Diversity Fatigue." This term captures the exhaustion and disillusionment that comes from working within systems that promote diversity rhetorically, but ultimately fail to deliver meaningful change. What makes this more frustrating is that, at least in Canada, the government is fully committed to this work. Under the Employment Equity Act, the Canadian government provides companies with labor market availability data on various identity groups, including women, Indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, and visible minorities. This data is meant to help organizations align their workforce representation with societal demographics, making the process of refining systemic change straightforward, at least in theory (Government of Canada, 2022). Moreover, there are global frameworks like the Global Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Benchmarks (GDEIB), which offer best practices for every level of systemic change. These benchmarks provide actionable strategies to foster inclusion, improve hiring processes, and ensure that equity and diversity are integrated into an organization’s core functions. The GDEIB emphasizes areas such as Recruitment, Advancement and Retention, Job Design and Compensation, and Work-Life Integration, etc., providing a holistic approach for companies looking to genuinely increase diversity (Global Diversity, Equity, Inclusion Benchmarks, 2021). Despite these resources, in my experience, the real issue lies with tokenism. While organizations might boast about their diverse hires, many of the individuals being selected are those from the most privileged segments of marginalized groups. As Ahmed (2009) points out, diversity can often function as a "shiny apple with a rotten core" (p. 45), where organizations appear progressive without actually challenging systemic inequalities. I have frequently witnessed this pattern, where those selected for roles are often immigrants who speak flawless English with no accent, individuals with the least noticeable or limiting disabilities, or people who have a distant trace of Indigenous ancestry but lack any direct lived experience of marginalization for at least a couple of generations. This tokenism often prevents truly marginalized candidates from getting a seat at the table. It’s not that these candidates aren’t applying—although even if they weren’t, it should be the company’s responsibility to proactively seek them out and address the barriers that keep them from applying—but rather that the system fills diversity quotas with the most privileged individuals before more vulnerable candidates even have a chance. To me, the issue is not just the language we use—though I recognize that glossy terms often create temporary optimism. The problem is that many of these terms give people false hope that change is on the way. A clear example of this in today’s political landscape is Kamala Harris, who is frequently tokenized as a person of color to portray the Democratic Party as inclusive, even though the systemic issues remain unaddressed. This is neoliberalism at its height, where diversity is commodified and used for branding purposes rather than real change. Ultimately, while I appreciated examining EDI efforts through the lens of language, I believe the real issue lies in tokenism, which stems from identity politics and how intersectionality is being interpreted within our capitalist society. Tokenism, in this context, reduces complex identities to simplified categories, allowing organizations to appear diverse without addressing the deeper structural inequities that persist. References: Ahmed, S. (2009). Embodying Diversity: Problems and Paradoxes for Black Feminists. Race Ethnicity and Education, 12(1), 41–52. Government of Canada. (2022). Employment Equity Act Annual Report. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/employment-equity.html Global Diversity, Equity, Inclusion Benchmarks (GDEIB). (2021). Best Practices for DEI Systems. Retrieved from https://centreforglobalinclusion.org/gdeib/

The Woman, Life, Freedom movement in Iran, which arose after the tragic death of Mahsa Amini in 2022, has highlighted a key tension in global human rights discussions: the fear of Islamophobia is hindering vital dialogue on the systemic oppression of women and LGBTQ+ individuals in Islamic societies. As women in Iran protest the state-enforced hijab and broader systems of gender apartheid, many activists have noted that their voices are being silenced on international platforms out of fear that critiques of these practices might be perceived as Islamophobic. Despite the clear violations of human rights, many international platforms have hesitated to fully support Iranian women, fearing accusations of Islamophobia. Critics argue that by framing this fight for autonomy as an attack on Islam, the regime and its allies — both within and outside of Iran — use ‘Islamophobia’ as a weapon to silence opposition (Amnesty International, 2023). Islamophobia vs. Legitimate Critique Many media outlets and activists have shied away from engaging deeply with the movement, fearing accusations of religious or cultural insensitivity. As Yasmine Mohammed argues in Unveiled , this avoidance can make Western liberals complicit in the oppression of women in Islamic societies by failing to challenge authoritarian practices that violate human rights (Mohammed, 2019). Islamo-Trauma: The Unheard Struggles Mohammed’s concept of “Islamo-trauma” highlights the emotional and psychological toll endured by women and marginalized groups under oppressive regimes. This trauma, caused by laws that control freedom of dress and expression, is often ignored due to fears of appearing anti-Islamic. Similarly, Ayaan Hirsi Ali discusses the trauma caused by strict Islamic laws, from forced marriage to female genital mutilation (Ali, 2006). Both activists emphasize that combating Islamophobia must not come at the expense of addressing real human rights abuses. Weaponizing Islamophobia to Silence Dissent A critical question emerges: who is perpetuating the conflation of legitimate human rights critique with Islamophobia? Evidence suggests that regimes like Iran weaponize Islamophobia to deflect international criticism and suppress dissent. By framing opposition to gender apartheid and religious oppression as Islamophobic, these regimes protect their interests while stifling voices calling for reform (Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, 2023). Islamophobia and Counter-Narratives Iranian leaders frequently argue that Islamophobia is a Western tool designed to marginalize Muslims and undermine Islamic governance. This rhetoric is used not only to rally domestic support but also to appeal to global Muslim audiences and Western critics of discrimination. By framing international critiques as part of a broader effort to delegitimize Islamic identity, Iranian officials shift attention away from internal human rights abuses, presenting themselves as defenders of Islamic values (Armanios & Karim, 2021; Moghaddam, 2020). Western Platforms and Narratives Iran has strategically leveraged Western media and academic platforms to reinforce its narrative, often framing criticisms of its policies as rooted in Western Islamophobia. Figures like Javad Zarif, Iran’s former foreign minister, have played a pivotal role in this strategy. Zarif frequently linked Western critiques of Iran to Islamophobic attitudes, using this framing to portray Iran as a victim of Western imperialism. In international forums and media appearances, he characterized U.S. sanctions and foreign policy as part of a broader, Islamophobic attack on Islamic governance. This approach helped to build alliances with Western intellectuals and critics of Islamophobia, effectively deflecting attention away from Iran’s internal human rights abuses (Khazaei, 2022; Sadeghi, 2021). Evidence indicates that the Iranian regime has successfully utilized the concept of Islamophobia in Western media discourse to shield itself from criticism. Through outlets like Press TV and sympathetic figures in both academia and Western media, the regime has consistently framed opposition to policies — such as the compulsory hijab and crackdowns on protests — as products of Western Islamophobia. According to Khazaei (2022), Iranian state media portrays criticisms of Iran’s gender policies and religious laws as part of a broader effort by the West to undermine Islamic culture and governance. Examples of Journalists and Commentators Perpetuating the Narrative Seyed Hossein Mousavian , a former Iranian diplomat now teaching at Princeton University, has been accused of using his platform in Western media to downplay human rights abuses in Iran. His narratives often align with Tehran’s, framing criticisms of compulsory hijab and gender segregation as stemming from Western hostility and Islamophobia, rather than legitimate concerns about human rights violations (Moghaddam, 2020). Similarly, Negar Mortazavi , an Iranian-American journalist, has employed the Islamophobia narrative to counter voices protesting compulsory hijab. She has framed opposition to such policies as being influenced by Western biases, which minimizes the genuine struggles of Iranian dissidents, particularly women (DW, 2023). Medea Benjamin , co-founder of the anti-war group Code Pink, has also been criticized for defending Iran’s human rights record by framing Western critiques as Islamophobic. In one interview, she remarked: “The West’s portrayal of Iran’s human rights abuses is often rooted in Islamophobia, where Islamic practices are misrepresented to serve a Western political agenda” (Sadeghi, 2021). This framing minimizes the repression of women and dissidents, suggesting that opposition is driven by cultural misunderstanding rather than legitimate human rights concerns. Trita Parsi , founder of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), has used Western platforms to defend Iran by attributing critiques of its domestic policies to Western Islamophobia. In one of his speeches, he argued: “Many of the Western criticisms of Iran are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Islamic governance and are colored by Islamophobic prejudices” (Moghaddam, 2020). This narrative shifts attention away from Iran’s internal repression, focusing instead on perceived Western hostility. Hamid Dabashi , a professor at Columbia University, has frequently critiqued Western narratives about human rights in Iran, framing them as Islamophobic and neocolonial. He asserted: “Western narratives of human rights abuses in Iran are often thinly veiled forms of Islamophobia, designed to undermine the legitimacy of Islamic governance” (Dabashi, 2020). By framing the conversation within an anti-colonial context, Dabashi effectively deflects attention from the regime’s repressive practices. Conclusion The Iranian regime’s manipulation of rhetoric, particularly through the lens of Islamophobia, reveals a sophisticated strategy designed not only to deflect criticism but to sway some of the most influential elites in Western governments. By employing human rights-related key phrases and buzzwords that resonate with progressive, left-leaning audiences, the regime positions itself as a victim of Western imperialism rather than an oppressor. This tactic has proven especially effective in appealing to Western intellectuals and policymakers, who prioritize anti-discrimination and cultural sensitivity, thus turning potential critics into inadvertent allies. The brilliance of this approach lies in the regime’s ability to reframe discussions of its own human rights violations in a way that resonates with the very values of its critics. This strategy has gained considerable traction, particularly within independent Western media, in the aftermath of October 7, as Israel’s relentless retaliation in Gaza has intensified. By tapping into the rising wave of anti-imperialist sentiment, the regime has successfully aligned itself with those sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, positioning itself as a champion of resistance against Western hegemony. However, that is a topic deserving of its own deeper exploration. In this war of narratives, where perception is key, even well-intentioned actors may find themselves inadvertently supporting an authoritarian regime. It falls to discerning minds and critical observers to recognize when rhetoric is being artfully wielded to mask oppressive practices. Only through thoughtful scrutiny and intellectual vigilance can one avoid becoming a mere pawn in the sophisticated game of ideological manipulation and deflection. References Ali, A. H. (2006). Infidel: My life . Free Press. Amnesty International. (2023). Iran: International community must stand with women and girls defying compulsory veiling . Armanios, F., & Karim, S. (2021). Islam: A worldwide encyclopedia . ABC-CLIO. Dabashi, H. (2020). Post-orientalism: Knowledge and power in a time of terror . Routledge. DW. (2023). Interview with Negar Mortazavi . Deutsche Welle. Iran Human Rights Documentation Center. (2023). Crackdown in the North: Suppression of the Woman, Life, Freedom Movement in Gilan and Mazandaran Provinces . Khazaei, B. (2022). Media framing of protests in Iran: Islamophobia as a narrative tool. Iranian Studies Journal , 53(4), 678–698. Moghaddam, A. (2020). Islamic political systems and human rights . Cambridge University Press. Mohammed, Y. (2019). Unveiled: How Western liberals empower radical Islam . Free Hearts Free Minds. Sadeghi, N. (2021). Weaponizing Islamophobia: How Iran uses Western discourse to stifle dissent. Middle East Quarterly , 28(2), 98–115.