As reported in last week’s edition of THE EQUITY, the MRC Pontiac sent a letter requesting two Pontiac residents delete critical comments about the warden, mayors and other MRC employees from their Facebook pages. This is the third time over the past year in which THE EQUITY has reported that organizations sent letters from the RPGL law firm to threaten legal action against people who were critical of certain groups’ leadership.
Before going into the criticism, it is important to acknowledge that defamation and remarks that go too far are real issues and organizations and governments should have recourse. Politicians and government employees should not be harassed and name-calling is something that should be discouraged.
The question is when the line that calls for legal action is crossed. That answer may be hazy, however, it is clear that a decision like that should not be taken lightly. In this instance of last week’s incident, it is unclear whether calling a politician untransparent or a liar meets that standard.
To be clear, THE EQUITY does not know the full extent of the exchanges between the MRC and the recipients of the letter, and therefore can’t state definitively that genuine slander and harassment didn’t take place, but the point remains that politicians and civil servants need to expect some level of criticism and backlash.
People in elected positions often have a great deal of power, especially compared to the average person, and therefore that power warrants scrutiny and criticism. Sometimes that scrutiny and criticism will be unfair, inaccurate and malicious, but sometimes it won’t be.
Nastiness has always been a part of politics, and unfortunately should be viewed as almost unavoidable. That doesn’t mean it isn’t on the rise in our discourse and that everyone; including politicians, the media and citizens shouldn’t be very conscious of stopping and reversing that trend.
But words and actions that genuinely threaten civil discourse, like threats of violence, dramatic hyperbole, harassment and sophistry need to be separated from the core norms that democracy and public discourse need to function. Dissidence, persistence, different interpretations of the facts, disagreements about the allocation of resources and differing ideologies are all legitimate democratic values that can’t just be dismissed as negativity.
Using legal threats against critical voices, even if they are insulting or just being contrarian, should be avoided unless absolutely essential to the public interest. Not only are the power dynamics and financial resources between municipal governments or civic organizations and individuals often disproportionate, meaning legal action can be a serious threat to the average person’s finances, but it’s also just a very questionable use of public resources to shut down people who voice criticism or raise concerns. When actions like this are taken, the public needs to be convinced that powerful politicians aren’t just shutting down their opposition, which is a conclusion many people will jump to. In the end, it would probably be far less trouble to avoid unnecessary censorship in the first place rather than try to justify it.
Those who are elected to leadership positions, along with the media, need to be held to a higher standard in terms of their patience and receptibility to criticism. It’s important to note when disputes happen out in the open, everyone can see what’s going on and can make their own judgment about it. Usually you can tell when people are acting unfairly or uncivilly in public discourse. However, censoring them may prevent that perception.
The promise of democracy is that everyone can play a role in shaping public policy and discourse. While this promise may seem utopian these days, in order to achieve anything close to that ideal both institutions run by elected officials and the citizenry at large need to act out of mutual respect and commitment to shared principles. This means there are lines on both sides that shouldn’t be crossed. Hopefully, we can move towards an ethos that encourages better behaviour and a common commitment to democratic principles.
Brett Thoms
