[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Sheilbh]

1) Your quote makes it seem like you're attributing BB's words to me.

Sorry - not my intent, just laziness on quotes.

2) When people are taking to the streets in the name of fighting "radical gender ideology" (we had one protest n town just this weekend - using the same approach as the convoy sympathy protests we had during that time), when they're protesting at schools and doxxing teachers because they hate "radical gender ideology", when legislation is being passed to ensure trans kids don't get support - again in the name of fighting "radical gender ideology" - you think it's "not healthy in a democracy" to link those things to a politician who makes "fighting radical gender ideology" a speaking point?

Is this because the article used the term "rooted in"? Or is it because you're persuaded by BB's argument that Pierre Poillievre doesn't actually mean anything specific when he says he think we should "fight radical gender ideology" even though actual specific policy changes are being argued for by people using those exact terms.

Mainly the "rooted in". Those are weasel words to insinuate without publishing something actionable. Also cheaper than reporting on LGBT+ issues, because it's media commentary.

I also think it is unhealthy, particularly in a democracy, to move from talking about the thing to talking about discourse. It is, in it's way, like Poilievre saying "radical gender ideology" or, say, talking about "cultural Marxism" or queer theory (which is, at least, a real thing). I think it's not a massive leap to conspiracy-mindedness, constantly de-coding what people are "really" meaning/where that discourse has come from. I think it's the path to Russian politics where everything is codes, conspiracies, discourse and meanings beyond the meaning. I think it's a really dangerous slippery slope.

Talk about the thing - and I think that's the challenge to Poilievre too. It should be about making him uncomfortable by asking what he means and on the details and the facts.

If there's a problem, based on your description it seems it's one of of misaligned incentives in profit driven medical care rather than ideology.

This was an NHS clinic although money played a role in terms of state funding for that NHS Trust. The FT review with that section of that book (by a BBC journalist) on the Tavistock clinic, is good:
https://www.ft.com/content/a45a9a0b-5d2f-4c4a-b2ef-6a8796ea5d10

It has now been shut down partly because of failures in care, also in record keeping so once someone was treated by the clinic they were gone from the data. But also because the approach of having this single national centre of excellence in gender identity services for young people made sense when it was founded in 1989 - and even 2009 when it had under 100 referrals a year. When it was receiving thousands, it was clearly not working and the recommendation from the independent review which recommended it was closed is to establish specialist services distributed across the country (as well as better record keeping, better integration with counselling and other services and more research).

It's sadly not the profit motive (but it did becomoe a huge source of revenue for the trust because it appears to have started operating as a bit of a conveyor belt). Ideology I think plays a part - an activist charity (that I've actually organised a fundraiser for) seems to have been too involved to be healthy. But also a wider story of a funding crisis particularly for mental health treatments (it was in a mental health trust) and a huge increase in demand for this type of care and stretched staff.

Certainly this has recently become a major talking point and concern for the right wing across a number of countries.

Medical authorities in the UK, France, New Zealand, Finland and Sweden (the latter lot all under left-wing governments) have recommended against certain treatments such as puberty blockers for people under 18. In all cases they've basically said it should only be prescribed in exceptional circumstances, or in a research setting until there's more and better data (particularly in the long term). In the UK those recommendations have not come from anyone political but specialist NHS reviews - my understanding is they have also been made independently by clinicians in those other countries too.

The challenge, of course, is that the kids who may benefit are here now. So it's a decision that is balancing potential harms.

The other fact is that for a number of circumstances medical care providers are able to assess whether a minor has capacity to give consent.  That is that they both understand the decision they are making and have the mental capacity to determine the risks and benefits.  But more to the point, the medical professional must also make the medical judgment that the treatment is in the best interests of their patient.

Yeah I agree. People under 18 can have capacity to make decisions and give informed consent for medical treatment. I don't think there is any reason to in effect carve this specific treatment out of that.

Having said that, my understanding is, that there is very little data and there have been very few long term studies - which experts in trans care for young people are calling out for. And is also why Tavistock's failures around record-keeping and follow up for over 30 years of specialist care is a huge shame. They have a view but it is, from what I've read, caveated with the need for more research. The caveating doesn't necessarily survive in the press releases or activism around what is appropriate care, which is exactly what you'd expect. And other medical experts have reached a different view - on the same lack of underlying long term research.

The one area I find a little concerning is the massive gender imbalance which has been flagged by people who are doctors specialising in care for trans young people. My understanding is that's new and it's only present in teenagers.

[Jacob]

Yes, this is something that is happening now in the appropriate medical circumstances.

I will post the same case I linked for BB which describes what must occur for that medical treatment to occur.

https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/ca/20/00/2020BCCA0011.htm

Thank you for that.

I lack the lawyer's facility for quickly extracting key points from several hundred pages of legal documents, so I'm reduced to asking:

• How old was the child in this case?
• How long did the process take, from diagnosis to actual treatment?
• If one was inclined to look for "radical gender ideologists" pushing children into getting irreversible medical treatments for gender dysphoria for ideological reasons, who are the most likely candidates here? I presume it's a combination of medical professionals and psychiatrists? Are those people operating independently, or are there a number of second opinions involved?
• And - this is probably not in the caselaw, but maybe someone knows - how many kids are getting this kind of treatment without parental consent in Canada? Are we talking one child every five years? Are we talking fifty kids a month? What's the order of magnitude here?

[crazy canuck]

Jacob,

Here are the facts in this case which answers part of your question

AB has identified as male since he was 11 years old. At 12, he began to socially transition, enrolling in school under a chosen male name and using male pronouns with his teachers and peers.

[12]         Around 13 years of age, after two years of consistently identifying as male, AB's persistent discomfort with his body led him to want to take steps to appear more masculine. With the support of his mother, AB went to see a registered psychologist, Dr. IJ, for a number of sessions.

[13]         Following these sessions, Dr. IJ finalized an assessment and treatment plan for AB. The plan concluded that AB met the diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria. As described in the consent form signed by AB, gender dysphoria is a recognized medical condition where a person experiences significant distress because the gender identity they experience differs from their genetic or biological gender, and how others perceive them.

[14]         Dr. IJ found that AB would be a good candidate for hormone treatment, and referred him to the BC Children's Hospital (BCCH) for further assessment.

[15]         In August 2018, AB met with pediatric endocrinologist Dr. GH at the Gender Clinic at BCCH. Dr. GH conducted a further assessment of AB and again determined that masculinizing hormone treatment was both reasonable in the circumstances and in AB's best interests.

[16]         He explained the nature, consequences, and foreseeable risks and benefits of the treatment to AB, presenting a detailed consent form that laid out these risks. AB decided to proceed with the treatment, and signed the form. AB's mother, who supported him throughout this process, also signed the form.

[17]         Upon learning AB's father was not aware he was pursuing this treatment, Dr. GH postponed its start in order to present information to AB's father, CD.

[18]         CD emailed the clinic a few days later expressing his opposition to the proposed treatment.

[19]         From August to December 2018, a social worker at the clinic made "numerous attempts" to set up a meeting between Dr. GH and CD to discuss the proposed treatment. CD did not attend at the clinic and did not engage with the medical team.

[20]         On 1 December 2018, Dr. GH and social worker UV sent a letter to CD. The letter addressed CD's disagreement with the treatment and explained that, under s. 17 of the Infants Act, minors are permitted to consent to their own medical treatment.

[21]         The letter explained that the consent of a parent is not required to administer health care to a minor where the health care provider is satisfied the minor understands a treatment's nature and consequences, and has concluded the health care is in the minor's best interests. It informed CD that the BCCH medical team had assessed AB and found him capable, meaning CD's consent was not required for AB to proceed with treatment.

[22]         After litigation commenced, Dr. GH took further steps to ensure his capacity assessment of AB was correct. He asked for an opinion from the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) Ethics Service, which examined his finding of capacity and agreed that AB demonstrated capacity to understand the treatment.

[23]         The ethics opinion suggested that, while not necessary, Dr. GH may wish to have an additional capacity assessment done by a provider outside the current care team in order to assuage CD's concerns and improve family dynamics.

[24]         Dr. GH referred AB to Dr. MN, a psychiatrist at BCCH in the BC Mental Health Centre, who assessed AB and found that he demonstrated a detailed understanding of the risks and benefits of the treatment. Dr. MN further assessed AB's mental status, finding he displayed reasonable judgment and insight.

If one was inclined to look for "radical gender ideologists" pushing children into getting irreversible medical treatments for gender dysphoria for ideological reasons, who are the most likely candidates here? I presume it's a combination of medical professionals and psychiatrists? Are those people operating independently, or are there a number of second opinions involved?

You will see from the facts above, a number of health care professionals are involved.  One would have to believe in conspiracy theories to conclude they are all in on it.  The only other option is to take the position that there is no such thing as gender dysphoria and the medical teams are just honestly mistaken.  I think it is the latter position that most of the anti-treatment sentiment comes from.  Hence BB's observation that he believes people will just grow out of it. 

[crazy canuck]

Having said that, my understanding is, that there is very little data and there have been very few long term studies - which experts in trans care for young people are calling out for. And is also why Tavistock's failures around record-keeping and follow up for over 30 years of specialist care is a huge shame. They have a view but it is, from what I've read, caveated with the need for more research. The caveating doesn't necessarily survive in the press releases or activism around what is appropriate care, which is exactly what you'd expect. And other medical experts have reached a different view - on the same lack of underlying long term research

Yes, more research would certainly be helpful and as I understand it is ongoing, at least in this Province.  But as you said in your post, there are minors now who are in need of the treatment.

[Jacob]

Sorry - not my intent, just laziness on quotes.

Sure. But imagine how galling it must be for BB to have his eloquence misattributed to someone like me.

Mainly the "rooted in". Those are weasel words to insinuate without publishing something actionable. Also cheaper than reporting on LGBT+ issues, because it's media commentary.

It's not media commentary, though. It's analysis of political rhetoric, political positions, and political activism.

I also think it is unhealthy, particularly in a democracy, to move from talking about the thing to talking about discourse. It is, in it's way, like Poilievre saying "radical gender ideology" or, say, talking about "cultural Marxism" or queer theory (which is, at least, a real thing). I think it's not a massive leap to conspiracy-mindedness, constantly de-coding what people are "really" meaning/where that discourse has come from. I think it's the path to Russian politics where everything is codes, conspiracies, discourse and meanings beyond the meaning. I think it's a really dangerous slippery slope.

I broadly agree. I just don't think that's what's happening here, in spite of the phrase "rooted in" being used.

Talk about the thing - and I think that's the challenge to Poilievre too. It should be about making him uncomfortable by asking what he means and on the details and the facts.

They are talking about the thing. They are not talking about codes, they are talking about what's happening in terms of legislation and physical actions in the world, and what arguments and rhetoric are being used to justify those actions:

In the United States, "gender ideology" and "indoctrination" rhetoric has inspired right-wing Republican governors like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Texas Governor Greg Abbot to pass restrictive education laws. Meanwhile, anti-LGBTQ+ groups like Moms for Liberty have campaigned to ban books from libraries and called police on librarians.

This has contributed to a culture of paranoia that appears to be inciting threats and acts of physical violence. For example, harassment, death threats and bomb threats targeting schools and children's hospitals have been linked to the targets of LibsofTikTok, a far-right account that aggregates content about teachers and the LGBTQ+ community.

... again, that's the thing right there.

This summer, ADL and GLAAD published a report that found hundreds of examples linking anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric to incidents of violence and harassment.

"A large number of them were conducted by perpetrators who were directly citing tropes from this gender ideology narrative," Moore said. "We know these conversations happening online are directly translating into harm against these communities, whether that be in the form of bomb threats, whether that be in the form of death threats, or doxxing against teachers.

... that's also the thing.

In Canada, anti-vaccine activists and other anti-public health groups began disrupting school board meetings during the pandemic in opposition to vaccines and face masks.

But when the pandemic began to recede and public health measures started lifting, rather than return to the old normal, these groups simply pivoted to a new target.

...

In June 2023, out-of-town anti-LGBTQ+ activists, far-right livestreamers and right-wing media personalities organized rallies targeting three Ottawa-area schools in an event explicitly billed as an "education over indoctrination" or anti-"gender ideology" rally.

Campaign Life Coalition, Canada's biggest anti-abortion group, mobilized supporters to show up, linking it to efforts to "resist LGBT indoctrination in schools," while right-wing outlets like True North described it as a "protest against gender ideology."

... that's also the thing right there.

In no way is that anywhere near "codes, conspiracies, discourse and meanings beyond the meaning" as you suggest. It's talking about things that are happening right now - in our communities, at our schools - what people are doing to push a specific political agenda and the the rhetoric that the people using to justify that agenda and rallying support. And then the article shows how a specific  politician is using that exact same rhetoric.

This was an NHS clinic although money played a role in terms of state funding for that NHS Trust. The FT review with that section of that book (by a BBC journalist) on the Tavistock clinic, is good:
https://www.ft.com/content/a45a9a0b-5d2f-4c4a-b2ef-6a8796ea5d10

It has now been shut down partly because of failures in care, also in record keeping so once someone was treated by the clinic they were gone from the data. But also because the approach of having this single national centre of excellence in gender identity services for young people made sense when it was founded in 1989 - and even 2009 when it had under 100 referrals a year. When it was receiving thousands, it was clearly not working and the recommendation from the independent review which recommended it was closed is to establish specialist services distributed across the country (as well as better record keeping, better integration with counselling and other services and more research).

It's sadly not the profit motive (but it did becomoe a huge source of revenue for the trust because it appears to have started operating as a bit of a conveyor belt). Ideology I think plays a part - an activist charity (that I've actually organised a fundraiser for) seems to have been too involved to be healthy. But also a wider story of a funding crisis particularly for mental health treatments (it was in a mental health trust) and a huge increase in demand for this type of care and stretched staff.

I see, thank you for the clarification.

How big a part would you say "gender ideology" (radical or otherwise) was involved in events there? You make it sound like the place was shut down so the services could be redistributed rather than being an example of... something bad.

Medical authorities in the UK, France, New Zealand, Finland and Sweden (the latter lot all under left-wing governments) have recommended against certain treatments such as puberty blockers for people under 18. In all cases they've basically said it should only be prescribed in exceptional circumstances, or in a research setting until there's more and better data (particularly in the long term). In the UK those recommendations have not come from anyone political but specialist NHS reviews - my understanding is they have also been made independently by clinicians in those other countries too.

The challenge, of course, is that the kids who may benefit are here now. So it's a decision that is balancing potential harms.

Seems fine to me. But as you seem to imply, different doctors could reach a different conclusion of best practices without being driven by "gender ideology", I'd think.

[Barrister]

Sorry - not my intent, just laziness on quotes.

Sure. But imagine how galling it must be for BB to have his eloquence misattributed to someone like me.

Wow.

We don't have to have this conversation if you don't want to.

Hell I can leave Languish if my input isn't welcome.

[Sheilbh]

Sure. But imagine how galling it must be for BB to have his eloquence misattributed to someone like me.

I just almost always blind quote after the first because lazy

I think we'll disagree on the article to be honest. I think "rooted in" is doing an awful lot of work implying something they don't come out and say.

I see, thank you for the clarification.

How big a part would you say "gender ideology" (radical or otherwise) was involved in events there? You make it sound like the place was shut down so the services could be redistributed rather than being an example of... something bad.

So it's complicated - the book is very good. It is largely based on interviews by clinicians who worked Tavistock, but also tells the story of seven young people who were treated there. Some have transitioned and are very happy, some transitioned but are still struggling and one de-transitioned.

The Tavistock clinic was shut down on the recommendation of an independent review commissioned by the NHS (and chaired by a leading paediatrician). There are competing narratives of why - and the answer is both. The review noted that the model may have been appropriate from 1989-2014, it isn't any longer. It also noted significant failures in care and follow up. A big issue was what they call "diagonstic overshadowing" - that someone comes in with multiple coexisting issues including gender and once gender was mentioned everything else was parked.

One wider issue in that review is that it highlights that the largest group being referred to Tavistock (four times the next), and I believe this is observed internationally, are AFAB teenagers whose gender related distress starts in adolescence and who have multiple other mental health problems. That is also the group for whome we have least data and evidence on what's the best treatment. My understanding is that the studies we have are small but also largely (but not overwhelmingly) about AMAB teenagers who have had long standing gender dysphoria or gender questioning issues and do not present with any other mental health issues and are also relatively small numbers.

There was a review in 2005 internally and that identified concerns from some doctors that patients were being moved onto treatment very quickly, without adequate assessment and without much talking about this. But that review basically identified a dispute between the mental health practitioners in the service and the endicronologists. The author of that review who was a doctor in the clinic has talked about around that time the "pressure" to prescribe puberty blockers increasing - in part this was from some trans activists. The leading charity for trans young people in the UK, Mermaids, became quite involved with the Clinic and seem to be involved in a way that wasn't appropriate or ethical. Obviously they help provide referrals but they also pushed for physical treatments. And as I say - full disclosure - I've organised events raising money for Mermaids and done some pro bono work with them and think they're very well motivated and most of the people are good - I am also aware they're under investigation and there seem to have been significant safeguarding failures.

From what I understand in the book there is also a wider fight around this time globally between mental health specialists and endicronologists and the Dutch studies which were actually quite restrictive became good practice without the restrictions. I think the doctors involved absolutely think that what they are proposing is the right call. In 2014 referrals really shoot up (they're climbing by 50% a year after 2009 and then double) and the clinic adopted a policy of prescribing puberty blockers and also started prescribing it to younger people. They had started a research study to investigate what was the best treatment but didn't wait for the data and started to adopt a more one size fits all approach. Again the context of rising referrals and stretched staff is relevant here.

Doctors also report feeling unable to voice concerns and there are, over the 18 years from 2005, repeated whistleblowers. In part that is possibly just classic NHS closing ranks/cover-up a failing service. I think part of it is also to do with ideology. They are doctors who are working in a gender identity clinic and absolutely do not want to be/fear being (mis-)perceived as transphobic. But also they report pressure from families who absolutely love and were trying to do the best for their kids but had done research online and had reached the conclusion this was the treatment and if you weren't getting it your child wasn't being taken seriously.

The big thing the clinicians really worried about was that diagnostic overshadowing. That the patients they were dealing with were not like those in the studies and were also generally coming with many other health issues beyond gender - and a physical treatment for their gender dysphoria was seen, perhaps, as the solution to the exclusion of a more holistic treatment. Again that's why the review has called for this regional hubs that are integrated with mental health treatment because most of the patients have coexisting problems - and again there's an NHS issue here because the NHS is not great at that holistic thing.

Seems fine to me. But as you seem to imply, different doctors could reach a different conclusion of best practices without being driven by "gender ideology", I'd think.

100% I think there is a balance of harms that is really difficult. I don't think one set of doctors are right wing culture warriors, nor do I think the other is driven by "gender ideology" - and I don't think either has anything but the best interests of their patients at heart.

But in terms of ideology, for example, my understanding is the call is for more research, better data - particularly around the most common type of referral (AFAB, gender dysphoria coinciding with adolescence, mental health conditions) and in the meantime both sets of doctors making what they think is the ethical decision in that balance of harms. I think there are activists within the culture war row who are taking that difference and removing all the caveats and I think there's a lot of certaintyy/not much call fo research.

[Barrister]

I wanted to mention another famous/infamous example of youth gender care over-reach: that of Washington University (which confusingly is located in St Louis, not Washington state or Washington DC).  There was a "whistle-blower" Jamie Reed who worked at the gender clinic but became public saying proper protocols were not being followed, that there was a huge upswing in children born as women identifying as men who had numerous comorbidities but were being rushed onto hormones.

https://www.thefp.com/p/i-thought-i-was-saving-trans-kids

It's worth noting that Jamie Reed is married to a trans man, so can hardly be accused of transphobia.

There's also Dr. Erica Anderson, who is a clinical psychologist who works primarily in the area of gender transition, and is herself a trans woman, who has also questioned a lot of what is going on in youth gender transitioning.

https://quillette.com/2022/01/06/a-transgender-pioneer-explains-why-she-stepped-down-from-uspath-and-wpath/



Since this is the Canada thread - I am going to concede I know nothing about the state of youth gender transition in Canada.  That is - I know nothing about whether the standard of care is terrific, or it is terrible, or somewhere inbetween.  It certainly is possible that in Canada we are much better at following WPATH guidelines and we are not rushing kids onto hormones.  But given the examples in our two culturally closest neighbours I don't think it's out of line to ask questions.

[Jacob]

Here's the thing, it's perfectly fine to ask questions and to want to ensure that we have the best possible practices in terms of how and when medical procedures are undertaken.

What's less fine is turning it into another scoreboard in the culture war. If you actually cared about trans people, you'd go about ensuring that process is done as seriously and professionally as possible without turning into a political football or fearmongering about "radical gender ideologists".

However, I note that the current rage is about what is happening in schools. Things like pronoun use, curricula, and anti-bullying protections. None of those have anything to do with medical procedures of any kind.

We are seeing protests at schools. We are seeing protests against school board policies.

The "but what about kids hypothetically being pushed into medical procedures too soon" argument has nothing to do with the actual debate at hand. What we are seeing is an insistence (backed up by legislation in Saskatchewan) that kids who are being abused at home need to get the approval of their abusers to get any kind of support when it comes to being trans.

What we're seeing is a concerted effort to remove policies that provides any support to trans youth in the school system. That's what people taking to the streets in the name of fighting "gender ideology" are doing.

The medical system is neither here nor there in regards to what's happening, except as a way to gin up revulsion in people who cannot stomach the idea of trans people existing.

[Grey Fox]

Why is a radical gender idealogy doctor a bad thing?

Around here, we have assisted medical death and some doctors refuses to administer it and no one is accusing them of having a radical life idealogy in a negative sense.

[Barrister]

What's less fine is turning it into another scoreboard in the culture war. If you actually cared about trans people, you'd go about ensuring that process is done as seriously and professionally as possible without turning into a political football or fearmongering about "radical gender ideologists".

See, this is why we can't have nice things.

You've engaged with precisely nothing I actually said.  Instead you attack my motives, saying I don't care about trans people, and that I'm actually trying fearmonger about "radical gender ideologists".

There's nothing I can actually do to refute your argument, because you didn't make an argument.  You just said I was lying about my motives, and then inserted what you thought I was saying instead of what I actually said.

Bless your heart, Jacob.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think he was talking about you Beeb.  Impersonal you.  One.  Polly Ever.

[Jacob]

I don't think he was talking about you Beeb.  Impersonal you.  One.  Polly Ever.

That's exactly it.

[Jacob]

See, this is why we can't have nice things.

You've engaged with precisely nothing I actually said.  Instead you attack my motives, saying I don't care about trans people, and that I'm actually trying fearmonger about "radical gender ideologists".

There's nothing I can actually do to refute your argument, because you didn't make an argument.  You just said I was lying about my motives, and then inserted what you thought I was saying instead of what I actually said.

Bless your heart, Jacob.

1) Agreed. This is why we can't have nice things.

2) To be explicit: I didn't mean you personally, I'm talking about Poillievre who's decided to pick up the banner for the need to combat "radical gender ideology" - and Scott Moe, who's apparently proven that picking on vulnerable trans youth is a political winner for the Conservatives.

The structure of the two paragraphs in question was "If you do this (which you're doing), that's fine", "if you do this other thing (which you're not doing, but which is what Poillievre is doing IMO), then that's shit."

You personally are a sweet-natured and kind individual who, I'm confident, wishes no harm on anyone, whatever their race, gender, ethnicity, or sexuality. I have not doubt about this.

3) In my opinion you're the one failing to address the points I'm making, changing the subject. If you remember, I started the subthread and you wished to engaging with me. As far as I'm concerned the topic is what's actually happening in Canada right now - and that is primarily an attack on protections for trans youth in schools. The topic of the correct approach for irreversible gender corrective treatments for minors is a digression.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm trying to keep the focus on the topic I started - that trans youth are being sacrificed to score points the culture war, and that Poillievre (and Scott Moe and others) are there stoking the fires.

Not once have you addressed the point I've made repeatedly - that people are protesting in the streets to oppose "gender ideology" and what they mean is pronoun use in schools and policies that protect vulnerable trans youth. That is the context in which Poillievre is talking about "radical gender ideology" - a context in which Scott Moe passed legislation to ensure that trans youth with abusive or hostile parents cannot get support in schools.

4) Next time you decide that it's one of those occasions where you "find value in exchanging views" with me, I ask that you attempt to read my posts charitably before getting pissed off; and that you make at least one attempt to confirm that I'm attacking you personally and putting words in your mouth before you get upset about it. A simple "let me get this straight - are you saying that I don't care about trans people and am fear mongering" would do the trick.

[Barrister]

Google signs deal with Canadian government - will contribute $100 million per year to news outlets.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/google-online-news-act-1.7043330

Does this put pressure on Facebook to follow suit?  Facebook/Mets is already blocking links to news outlets, something google had not done.  Facebook without news is a less useful site, at least for me.