Words Matter: Why Definitions Matter in Public Debate
Certain words appear more and more often in public discussion. Terms such as harassment, defamation, and abuse of power can significantly influence how people view a situation, a public debate, or another person.
That is why definitions matter.
Harassment
Harassment generally involves threatening, intimidating, stalking, or seriously abusive conduct directed at a person.
In Canadian law, criminal harassment focuses on conduct that causes someone to reasonably fear for their safety. It is often associated with stalking, threats, repeated intimidation, unwanted obsessive conduct, or even publishing private information with malicious intent
Harassment does not automatically include:
- Criticizing elected officials
- Questioning government decisions
- Filing complaints
- Contacting oversight agencies
- Attending public meetings
- Persistent advocacy
- Peaceful protest
- Discussing public officials or government actions online
Those activities may be uncomfortable, frustrating, or politically inconvenient. That alone does not make them harassment.
Defamation
Defamation generally involves false statements presented as fact that seriously damage another person’s reputation.
In Canadian law, truth is a complete defence to defamation. The law also provides protections for fair comment, opinion, and responsible communication on matters of public interest. Criticism, satire, political commentary, strongly worded opinions and even insults are not automatically defamatory simply because they are embarrassing, unwelcome, or uncomfortable.
Public debate often involves disagreement. Defamation involves false statements of fact.
Those are not the same thing.
Abuse of Power
Abuse of power generally refers to the improper use of authority for purposes it was never intended to serve such as retaliation, selective enforcement, targeting individuals unfairly due to race or stereotyping, ‘punishing’ political opponents, applying rules differently depending on who is involved
At the same time, not every unpopular decision, policy disagreement, or administrative mistake constitutes an abuse of power.
The existence of disagreement does not prove misconduct.
Concerns about abuse of power generally arise when residents believe authority is being exercised inconsistently, unfairly, or for purposes unrelated to the public interest.
Misinformation
Misinformation generally means false, inaccurate, or misleading information that is shared as if it is true, regardless of whether the person sharing it intended to deceive anyone. It is different from an opinion, criticism, disagreement, political advocacy, asking questions, or making an honest mistake. Not every statement a government dislikes, disputes, or finds uncomfortable is misinformation. The term can be misused when governments apply it too broadly to dismiss public criticism, discourage scrutiny, control the narrative, or pressure people into silence.
In a democratic society, the proper response to misinformation should usually be transparency, evidence, correction, and open debate — not using the label as a weapon against dissent.
Why This Matters
Public debate works best when people focus on evidence, facts, conduct, and outcomes rather than labels.
- A resident who criticizes a council decision is not automatically harassing anyone.
- A journalist who publishes uncomfortable facts is not automatically defaming someone.
- A resident who files a complaint is not automatically vexatious or acting in bad faith.
- A government that discourages criticism by broadly labelling dissent, questions, or scrutiny as “misinformation” is not automatically protecting the truth.
- Likewise, a decision someone disagrees with is not automatically an abuse of power.
Healthy communities depend on open discussion, good-faith disagreement, and a shared understanding of what words actually mean.
Words matter. Their meanings matter too. And so does the conversation itself. When disagreements or differences of opinion occur, retreating to a safe distance doesn’t advance the conversation, particularly when it’s the system or an organization taking the position. Systems with the flexibility to open a dialogue to difficult conversations can move the community forward in ways that taking a hard line position position will not.
