There are places in the world where it is not safe to hold opinions that differ from those of the government. Where it is hazardous to your health to challenge the orthodoxy of those in power. Where some form of violence can be expected to ensue from daring to express a different view.
We have the good fortune to live at a time and in a place where this is not acceptable. In Canada, we are encouraged to debate ideas about the best path forward for our country. We even have a space dedicated to this purpose where our elected representatives are safe to express different opinions about the range of possibilities, to disagree and argue the issues without fear.
There is little doubt that a majority of Canadians believes that our freedom to engage in such civil discussion about the path our society takes is a crucial point of distinction for a country wishing to view itself as civilized. Yet, while we see it as precious, it is also fragile and must not be taken for granted.
In the country to our south, there is a struggle to hold on to civility in public discourse. There, a presidential candidate can allege that immigrants are eating people’s pets and incite, perhaps purposefully, actions on the ground that threaten civility and even lives. In Springfield, Ohio, immigrants were threatened with violence, schools and hospitals closed, and the governor pleaded with the public to come to their senses.
This happens when political leaders disparage people at a personal level, making it acceptable to consider them as unworthy of the respect and protection humans in a civilized society normally expect. Whether directed at political opponents, journalists, foreigners, or people of various ethnicities or faiths, it is a tactic proven the world over to build political support by inciting fear, anger and ultimately violence against some segment of society they have characterized as a threat. It is used by people who choose to build their own power by stepping on others.
Canada’s leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, as he introduced himself to the visiting US president last year, is following this playbook page by page. He makes politics as personal as possible, engaging in the most juvenile form of name-calling and making ridiculous accusations about his opponents’ motivations.
Last week, no sooner had he impugned the motivations of the leader of another party in the House than that leader was harassed with an amplified version of the same allegation. While this is vastly different in degree, it is disturbingly similar in kind to events on Capitol Hill a few years ago following the then outgoing president’s excoriations of his country’s electoral process.
This is the mark of a politician who seems to have nothing of any real substance to contribute to the issues under debate. For all his many years in Parliament – enough to rack up almost a quarter-million-dollar pension – he would appear to have misunderstood what the institution is all about. Its very name derives from the French word ‘parler’ which means ‘to talk’. By reverting to personal attacks and name-calling, his actions only stifle meaningful conversation, which is to mock and express disdain for parliament.
He is certainly not the first nor by any means the only politician to stand in the House and reduce the level of debate to a barrage of personal attacks. But as a leader of a major national party and a want-to-be prime minister, he bears a particular responsibility for setting the tone of parliament and for public discourse in this country.
As long as he sees his chances of winning the next election as optimized by attacking opponents at a personal level rather than debating the merits of their arguments, he will likely continue to do so. But whether this proves to be a winning strategy is really up to us, the voters.
