Prince Edward County Mayor Steve Ferguson recently responded publicly to an online attack directed at him in the Globe and Mail comments section. In a June 19 response to a column by Tony Keller, a County resident compared Mayor Ferguson to dictators Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un. The comment—posted under a real name—was both deeply inappropriate and profoundly personal.
The mayor was right to be upset. But this moment also highlights a deeper issue in our civic life: when public discourse becomes so vicious, anonymity becomes a necessity—not a threat.
If this happens to the mayor, what chance do the rest of us have?
Let’s be honest: when people see the kind of personal attacks directed at a public figure, it makes them think twice before speaking up themselves. Many in the County choose to post anonymously not because they’re trying to mislead anyone, but because they’ve seen how nasty the conversation can get—and they want to protect their families, their jobs, and their peace of mind. You need not look too far. The July 16 editorial published by the Picton Gazette—ironically titled “County Fake” is an example of the vitriol online.
Here’s the question: Is this the kind of civic discourse to be advocating for? One where public criticism must come with your full name, even if it exposes you to the same kind of vitriol Mayor Ferguson is now enduring? Because if even a sitting mayor isn’t safe from unhinged public comparisons in a national newspaper, what protection does a private citizen have?
Anonymity is a shield, not a weapon
Critics often claim that anonymous speech leads to toxicity. But in this case, the comment was not anonymous—and yet it was still vile. So the real issue isn’t whether a person signs their name—it’s whether they engage in good faith.
Most residents who post anonymously do so because they’re concerned about retaliation and vitriol, not because they want to be reckless. And in small communities like PEC, that’s a valid fear. Anonymity allows people to raise concerns, ask questions, and share perspectives they otherwise wouldn’t.
We still stand by our Audit of Media Coverage in PEC. We stand by our overall conclusions: The media coverage of the Picton Gazette has consistently aligned with those in power and development. We challenge the Gazette to present us with evidence to the contrary. We believe the Gazette was upset with our coverage and chose to focus on topics such as anonymity and a witch hunt on minor snippets about events which admittedly contained errors and have subsequently been removed from Countyfirst.ca.
There are laws to deal with abuse
Anonymous advocacy and expression is constitutionally protected in Canada. Under Sections 2(b) and 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, individuals are guaranteed the freedoms of expression and association. These rights include the ability to contribute to public discourse—particularly on matters of governance—without mandatory disclosure of identity.
Canadian courts have further recognized the legitimacy of anonymous public interest expression. In Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that commentary on matters of public importance—especially when grounded in fact and offered in good faith—deserves protection, even when critical of institutions or private entities. The Court underscored that open debate on public matters is a cornerstone of a free and democratic society.
Canada has a legal framework to address online harassment and defamatory speech—whether anonymous or not:
- Criminal Code Section 264 prohibits threatening or repeated unwanted communication.
- Civil defamation law offers remedies if someone publishes false and harmful claims.
- Cyberbullying legislation (e.g. Bill C-13) allows for investigation and enforcement against malicious digital conduct.
We already have the tools to deal with bad actors. What we don’t need is to discourage honest, concerned residents from participating in civic life because they’re afraid of what might follow.
Respectful dissent should be safe—for everyone
Mayor Ferguson wrote that “freedom of speech is the bedrock of any functioning democracy” and that “critique and disagreement are not only expected, but they are also necessary.” He’s absolutely right.
But if we want more respectful public debate, we have to create space where people feel safe contributing to it. That doesn’t start by demanding names. It starts by fostering a culture where voices are judged by the merit of their ideas—not by whether they’ve signed on the dotted line. If you are fine tagging your name on everything, do so. But don’t impose your will or judgement on others who don’t want to be compared to dictators Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un.
Anonymity isn’t the enemy of democracy. It’s often the only way everyday people can participate in it without fear.