Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau was in Winnipeg when someone broke into his home in Ottawa. Photo: THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick/Files Ever so slowly, or perhaps not so slowly, Canadian political dialogue is devolving into a mosh pit where even the vilest personal attacks are more or less routine. Anonymity – on newspaper comment streams, on Twitter and in other social media — is surely a factor. But it’s not the only one. And there are, rather amazingly, remedies available for this particular problem.
Why aren’t they being applied? Is it because we collectively, secretly, enjoy the wallow?
Early Saturday, while Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau was in Winnipeg, someone broke into his home in Ottawa, where his wife and three small children lay sleeping, moved some stuff around, and left a threatening note. The contents of the note have not been disclosed. Police are investigating.
Most people who suffer home invasions describe it as akin to an assault or violation. Breaking into someone’s house in the night, for the sole purpose of intimidating or frightening a woman and her children, is the worst kind of cowardice, base almost beyond comprehension. Reaction to such an act, without exception you’d think, would be revulsion.
But no. On Twitter – home to all important Canadian political debate now that Question Period in the Commons has become a set piece – some revelled in the news. Hug-a-terrorist Justin Trudeau, targeted by home-invading thugs; what fun! There were Tweets mockingly tying the break-in to Trudeau’s stance on marijuana. Maybe the burglars were after pot! Ho ho. Others tried, clumsily and with the hackneyed spelling so common in Twitter’s nether parts, to be sardonic.
Some prominent conservative commentators stepped in to stem the flow of bile: “Pardon me if I don’t join the chorus mocking break-in at Trudeau home,” radio and TV host Charles Adler tweeted Saturday. “Not a fan of his politics and that’s irrelevant. This is about his family.” Bob Plamondon, a conservative author, weighed in: “Would scare the hell out of me – protection should be provided.” By Sunday morning, as far as I could see, the foulest Tweets had been airbrushed away.
Now, here’s what’s interesting about the episode: The venom wasn’t one-sided. As quickly as Trudeau haters popped up to dine out on the break-in, Stephen Harper-haters piled on with their own equally anile attacks — alleging variously that Conservative party stooges carried out the break-in, that Prime Minister Harper personally bore full responsibility, and that Harper himself is a [insert unprintable here]. Tweeters who spew venom at Harper alone are Liberal partisans, primarily, because the Dipper haters have a distinguishing feature: They despise both Harper and Trudeau equally.
Let’s dispense with the obvious, which is that no one can credibly blame the isolated act of a criminal or nut on anyone but the nut. Two Quebec elections ago a gunman opened fire during then-premier Pauline Marois’s victory speech, killing Denis Blanchette, 48, and critically wounding Dave Courage, 27. Attempts were made at the time to cast that as political. But these can have little traction, unless the violence is explicitly politically incited. No one in the current Canadian political sphere has ever come remotely close to inciting violence against a candidate or his family, thank goodness.
But the reactive bilge water on Twitter? That does have feed stock. The Conservative party has since April of 2013 indulged in organized mockery and vilification, aimed at Trudeau personally. The intent of this messaging is to belittle and demean. That is not something the Conservative party can disavow. Nor can they deny that their attack ads – against Trudeau, and predecessors Bob Rae, Michael Ignatieff and Stephane Dion — have contributed to a debasing of Canadian political dialogue. Debasement is the whole point of the ads.
At the same time, neither the Liberal or New Democrat camps have done much – read, nothing – to stem the thriving trade in Harper demonology in social media. The personal loathing of Harper routinely expressed on Twitter by some partisans is beyond mindless.
What could be done? Quite a bit. To begin, the prime minister, to whom all Canadians look for leadership, could ditch the stupidest of his party’s attack ads and begin speaking positively, regularly and publicly about how he hopes to build a better country. He’ll have an ideal opportunity to do so this week, as he embarks on his annual Arctic summer tour, traditionally a moment when, according to the spin, he gives free rein to his gentler side.
Second, all the parties, their MPs and officials could aggressively block their own partisans who engage in personal debasement in social media. The standard should be the law against defamation – which still applies, even on the web, though enforcement is all but impossible – and time-tested standards of common courtesy and decency.
Third, online anonymity, in social media and news comment streams, should be abolished. That is a step that publishers can take. It would require some re-jigging, and might crimp online traffic at the outset. But it would have an immediate salutary effect on the quality of public debate in Canada, and would also target bullies.
Let individuals be responsible for what they say; everything they say. Then, watch how the haters creep back into the shadows.
No comments:
Post a Comment