Shreshtha Das on Online Hate, Self-Censorship, and Offline Safety in Canada

Shreshtha Das is a Researcher/Advisor on Gender with Amnesty International, focusing on gender, racial justice, refugees, and migrants’ rights. In this interview, they discuss Amnesty International’s research on xenophobic technology-facilitated gender-based violence against racialized migrant women and 2SLGBTQI+ people in Canada. Das analyzes online hate narratives, “great replacement” conspiracies, platform dynamics, anonymity, dehumanization, self-censorship, and the links between digital abuse, public participation, and offline safety.

In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen asks Shreshtha Das about how online hate affects racialized migrant women and 2SLGBTQIA+ people in Canada. Das describes how digital abuse drives self-censorship, professional loss, identity concealment, and fear for family safety. They connect online incitement to offline threats, doxing, vandalism, hijab-grabbing, and hate crimes, while outlining Amnesty International’s policy recommendations: intersectional law, survivor-centred support, cultural accessibility, legal aid, and community-based funding for marginalized survivors today across Canada now.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: A general principle in much scientific research, whether in the social sciences or the physical sciences, is that correlation is not causation. But if one controls for enough variables, one can make a compelling argument in a formal expert study.

So here we have online hate, online safety, self-censorship, and public participation. In other words, if someone experiences online hate, and then feels less safe offline because of that online hate, they may self-censor in professional or familial contexts. They may also reduce their public participation because they do not feel safe and have already developed a pattern of self-censorship.

If someone is in the political sphere as a public citizen in a democracy, they may not want to contribute as much if they are afraid for their safety and are already self-censoring.

So there are reasonable connections one can draw among these issues. What has Amnesty International found regarding racialized women, migrant women, and 2SLGBTQIA+ people in this context?

Shreshtha Das: Yeah, so we definitely saw the self-censorship you are talking about. Many people ended up leaving spaces they had spent years building for themselves.

For example, we spoke with independent journalists whose ability to pitch stories, build professional networks, and establish a public profile depended heavily on being active in digital spaces, sharing their work, and amplifying their reporting. When they are forced to leave those spaces, they lose professional opportunities, networking capacity, and visibility.

So that is one direct way in which self-censorship affects the professional growth of racialized migrant women.

The other point is that the presence of racialized migrant women in digital spaces is important because they are uniquely positioned to document and articulate their own experiences in ways others cannot fully do for them. When they leave these spaces, those lived experiences are also erased from public discourse. Instead, someone else becomes the person speaking about them or for them, rather than them being able to speak for themselves.

Digital spaces became especially important because they created opportunities for marginalized communities, including racialized migrant women, to communicate directly and represent themselves publicly.

One of the academics we interviewed said that much of what has historically been written about these issues, including in online spaces, has predominantly come from white academic women. She said it was important for her scholarship to exist so that the pivotal work being done by racialized women would not be erased. When racialized women are pushed out of these spaces or prevented from speaking for themselves, they are once again being spoken for instead of speaking in their own voices.

That has serious implications for political participation and public discourse.

Another form of self-censorship we observed involved fear for family members. Many people said they avoided posting photographs of celebrations or personal moments involving their families because they worried about exposing them to harassment. Public figures sometimes felt that attacks directed at them were, in some sense, an occupational risk, but that their families and friends did not deserve to become targets as well.

So self-censorship also means not being able to present one’s full self publicly.

One example that stayed with me involved someone working in a newsroom who, while recognizing that her position itself was a privilege, was still afraid to let colleagues know that she was a racialized migrant woman. She said that once people realized she was an immigrant, they might begin associating racist stereotypes with her.

So we also saw self-censorship at the level of basic identity itself, which obviously carries serious mental health consequences when people feel unable to openly claim who they are.

In terms of the online-to-offline connection, there are broader statistical trends, some of which we reference in the briefing, including significant increases in hate crimes targeting South Asian, Muslim, and Black communities in Canada.

But there were also many anecdotal examples. Amira Elghawaby, Canada’s Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia, told us she had received threatening calls from people claiming to know where she lived and warning her to expect attacks. She also described an incident while travelling privately, not for work, when someone approached her and accused her of spreading “Islamic narratives” in Canada, told her to “go back to your country,” and used racist and hostile language toward her.

Another example involved a journalist covering the war in Gaza. After she was doxed online by a local Canadian politician, including the identification of her family’s restaurant, the restaurant was later vandalized and its windows smashed. According to the interviewee, police did not conduct what the family felt was an adequate investigation afterward.

So we are seeing direct links between online incitement and offline intimidation or attacks against people targeted in these campaigns.

Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free

We are also seeing incidents such as hijab-grabbing targeting Muslim women, attacks on mosques, and related forms of harassment and violence. Much of this is connected to the normalization of hateful rhetoric online.

Jacobsen: So regarding the political and policy responsibilities Amnesty International has identified: people often talk about rights and obligations, but these are ethically nuanced and multifaceted issues.

What are some of the policy and political responsibilities of Canadian governments, at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels, to address these forms of online xenophobia and technology-facilitated abuse, and to reduce the mental health burden and lack of safety experienced by individuals within the communities you have discussed?

Das: Yeah, there are a range of policy recommendations we have made to different levels of government in Canada.

First of all, there is currently no comprehensive law addressing technology-facilitated gender-based violence, especially one that takes an intersectional approach rather than a race-neutral one. So one of our primary recommendations is the development of comprehensive legislative and policy measures that recognize intersectional harms and allow for meaningful investigation and responses to TFGBV.

One of the most important recommendations we want governments to take seriously is the need for meaningful consultation with diverse groups of women, racialized women, and diverse 2SLGBTQI+ communities. Their lived experiences need to shape how policies are designed and implemented.

As we noted earlier, TFGBV exists within broader xenophobic and discriminatory narratives. So efforts to address xenophobic TFGBV cannot happen in isolation from the structural conditions allowing these narratives to flourish. Any meaningful strategy must also address systemic racism, misogyny, homophobia, discrimination against Indigenous peoples, and broader patterns of xenophobia.

This also means governments and public institutions should actively challenge harmful narratives when they are spread by politicians, public figures, or media outlets. Governments should take timely steps to disseminate accurate information, support public education, and help build a deeper understanding of the contributions of racialized migrant communities.

When harmful narratives emerge, governments should publicly denounce them, acknowledge the harms they cause, and actively counter misinformation and scapegoating narratives. And, of course, public officials themselves should refrain from reproducing such rhetoric.

Another major area of recommendation concerns survivor-centred responses.

Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free

We are calling for holistic and culturally relevant support systems for survivors of online violence. That includes accessible helplines, shelters, support services, and systems that do not rely exclusively on traditional criminal justice responses. Immediate support, redress, and long-term care need to be central.

A key point here is that access to support often depends on whether services are culturally relevant and community-based. That is why decentralized funding is so important. Community organizations working directly with migrant and racialized communities often have the knowledge, outreach capacity, and trust necessary to provide meaningful support.

So governments need to move beyond short-term project funding and invest more substantially in strengthening community-based organizations already engaged in this work.

Overall, I would say the core recommendations are these: centre racialized women and 2SLGBTQI+ communities in policymaking; avoid one-size-fits-all approaches; recognize that traditional criminal justice systems do not work equally well for everyone; and ensure that responses are holistic, survivor-centred, and allow for multiple understandings of what justice can look like.

Canada has already done important work, including through Indigenous frameworks and conversations around justice. Those broader understandings also need to inform how responses to TFGBV are designed and implemented.

Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Shreshtha.

—

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is a Writer-Editor for The Good Men Project with more than 1,800 publications on the platform. He is the Founder and Publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343; 978-1-0673505) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN, 0018-7399; Online: ISSN, 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), Humanist Perspectives (ISSN: 1719-6337), A Further Inquiry (SubStack), Vocal, Medium, The New Enlightenment Project, The Washington Outsider, rabble.ca, and other media. His bibliography index can be found via the Jacobsen Bank at In-Sight Publishing comprised of more than 10,000 articles, interviews, and republications, in more than 200 outlets. He has served in national and international leadership roles within humanist and media organizations, held several academic fellowships, and currently serves on several boards. He is a member in good standing in numerous media organizations, including the Canadian Association of Journalists, PEN Canada (CRA: 88916 2541 RR0001), and Reporters Without Borders (SIREN: 343 684 221/SIRET: 343 684 221 00041/EIN: 20-0708028), and others.