By Dara Jerde
In a jaw-dropping display of political overreach that could only come from the fevered imagination of a local official desperate for relevance, a city councillor from Victoria, British Columbia, has reportedly called on Prime Minister Mark Carney to enact measures so extreme they sound like the plot of a dystopian satire. The demands are twofold: first, to ban the social media platform X, a digital haven for free speech and unfiltered debate; and second, to officially designate supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump as an “extremist organization.” This isn’t just a wild swing at controversy—it’s a full-on assault on reason, practicality, and the foundational principles of democratic society. Let’s unpack this absurdity piece by piece, because it deserves nothing less than a thorough dissection.
The Attack on X: A Misguided Crusade Against Free Speech
Start with the call to ban X. For the uninitiated, X is the platform that rose from the ashes of its predecessor, Twitter, under the stewardship of Elon Musk, and transformed into a space where anyone—politicians, activists, conspiracy theorists, or your average Joe—can say what’s on their mind, often without the heavy-handed moderation of yesteryear. It’s messy, chaotic, and occasionally infuriating, but that’s the point: it’s a reflection of human thought in all its unvarnished glory. To this councillor, however, that’s not a feature—it’s a bug. The idea seems to be that X, by allowing people to speak freely, is somehow a threat to the social order, a breeding ground for ideas too dangerous to be heard.
But let’s get real. Banning X in Canada wouldn’t just be a logistical nightmare—it would be a direct attack on the very concept of free expression that Canada claims to uphold. Are we to imagine Canadian border agents inspecting phones for the X app, or ISPs blocking access like some authoritarian firewall? The councillor might as well demand the government outlaw sunlight because it occasionally causes sunburn. X isn’t perfect—misinformation spreads there, as it does everywhere—but the answer to bad ideas has always been better ones, not censorship. Shutting down an entire platform because you don’t like what’s being said is the kind of move you’d expect from a dictator, not a city councillor in a quaint coastal capital known more for its tea shops than its tyranny.
And what’s the endgame here? Does the councillor think silencing X will suddenly make everyone agree with their worldview? History suggests otherwise. When you suppress speech, you don’t eliminate dissent—you amplify it, driving it into darker corners where it festers unchecked. The irony is that X itself would be the perfect place for this councillor to argue their case, if they had the stomach for an open debate. Instead, they’ve opted for the nuclear option, proving they’re more interested in control than conversation.
Labeling Trump Supporters as Extremists: A Masterclass in Overreach
Now, let’s tackle the second half of this fever dream: declaring Trump supporters an “extremist organization.” This isn’t just hyperbole—it’s a deliberate attempt to criminalize a group so broad and diverse it defies definition. Donald Trump’s base spans millions of Americans, from hard-core MAGA rally attendees in red hats to suburban moms who liked his tax cuts, to disillusioned blue-collar workers tired of being ignored by coastal elites. Lumping them all into one “extremist” category isn’t just lazy—it’s laughably detached from reality.
Think about the implications. An “extremist organization” label is the kind of thing reserved for groups like the KKK or ISIS—entities with clear structures, ideologies, and often a track record of violence. Trump supporters, by contrast, aren’t a monolith. They don’t have membership cards, secret handshakes, or a headquarters you can raid. They’re just people—some loud, some quiet—who happen to back a polarizing figure. Are we seriously suggesting that a 60-year-old retiree in Ohio waving a Trump 2024 flag is equivalent to a terrorist plotting an attack? Or that a Canadian who retweets Trump’s latest zinger is suddenly a national security threat? The mental gymnastics required to make this leap are Olympic-worthy.
And how would this even work? Would Canada start deporting tourists who admit to voting for Trump? Set up a hotline for neighbours to snitch on suspected “extremists” based on their bumper stickers? The councillor’s proposal collapses under the weight of its own absurdity when you try to picture it in practice. It’s not a policy—it’s a tantrum, a way to signal virtue without grappling with the messy reality of political disagreement.
Victoria’s Councillor: Out of Touch and Out of Their Depth
This whole episode raises a bigger question: What’s going on in Victoria that’s led to this? The city, nestled on Vancouver Island, is a postcard-perfect place—think flower baskets, historic architecture, and a laid-back vibe that attracts tourists by the boatload. Its city council is supposed to focus on mundane but vital tasks: fixing roads, managing budgets, addressing housing shortages. Yet here’s one of its elected officials, veering wildly off-script to weigh in on a U.S. president and a global tech platform. It’s as if a small-town mayor decided their top priority was banning TikTok and declaring Biden fans a cult.
One can’t help but wonder what local issues were sidelined for this stunt. Is Victoria so utopian that its leaders have nothing better to do than meddle in international politics? Or is this just a councillor with too much time on their hands and a Twitter feed full of outrage bait? Either way, it’s a disconnect so glaring it’s almost comical. Prime Minister Mark Carney—assuming he’s even in office by the time this councillor’s plea reaches his desk—has bigger fish to fry: inflation, climate policy, trade deals. The odds of him taking this seriously are about as high as Victoria seceding to join the U.S. as Trump’s 51st state.
The Bigger Picture: A Symptom of a Polarized Age
To be fair, the councillor’s outburst didn’t come out of nowhere. We live in polarized times, where Trump and platforms like X are lightning rods for strong emotions. To some, Trump represents a dangerous demagogue, and X is the megaphone amplifying his influence. The councillor might genuinely believe they’re protecting democracy by sounding this alarm. But good intentions don’t excuse bad ideas, and this one’s a doozy. If you’re worried about division, the last thing you do is ban speech and vilify entire swaths of people—that’s how you deepen the rift, not heal it.
Canada has its own challenges—economic uncertainty, healthcare strains, reconciliation with Indigenous communities—that deserve real attention. Fixating on a foreign leader’s supporters and a social media app feels like a bizarre distraction, a way to dodge the hard stuff by chasing a headline. And let’s not kid ourselves: this isn’t about safety or unity. It’s about power, about silencing voices that don’t fit the approved narrative. The councillor might not see it that way, but the optics are unmistakable.
A Proposal Too Ridiculous to Take Seriously
In the end, this whole saga is less a serious policy pitch and more a cry for relevance—or maybe just a really bad day on X. It’s the kind of statement that thrives in an age of click bait and culture wars, but it falls apart the second you apply a shred of logic. Prime Minister Carney, if he’s wise, will toss this into the “thanks, but no thanks” pile and get back to running the country. As for the councillor, maybe it’s time to step away from the keyboard and take a stroll through Victoria’s Butchart Gardens. A dose of fresh air might do wonders for perspective—because this idea? It’s not just ridiculous. It’s a caricature of itself.
Dara Jerde is a a freelance writer for Veritas Expositae
You can reach her at dara.jerde@veritasexpositae.com
Comentarios