Technology’s Contribution to Deference in Canada

As was discussed in lecture for this course, Canadian citizens have always been fairly deferent to authority and government. Many experts have suggested this political behaviour derives from the American Revolution—an event which involved the American people challenging colonial Britain for independence. Rather than also becoming a revolutionary colony intent on independence, scholars explain Canada (then British North America) became counter-revolutionary and thus our deferent political tendencies were born. Today, Canadians are still considered more deferent than Americans; however, recent polls and surveys suggest more and more citizens are becoming less trusting of authority (government, police, etc.) and are instead questioning it.

Why are more and more Canadians questioning authority? At first I thought of the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and how its emphasis of individual rights and freedoms may have influenced Canadians to re-examine the actions of state actors and security forces. The implementation of the Charter can arguably be said to have caused or sparked a shift in Canadian values: this value-change may have instigated Canadians to re-evaluate preexisting notions of what authoritative behaviours were acceptable in society (ex: if and when a police officer can use a taser-gun). Even if this is the case, I wondered: How are Canadians able to see or examine the actions of police, security guards, military officials or politicians without personal experience and interaction with said actors?

The answer is technology. Usually it is the media who delivers information to the public concerning the government and security forces, but that information can be biased, politically slanted, or even reflective of what governments want the public to believe or see. This reality is why I point to technology specifically. Nowadays, citizens are using their cellphones to capture pictures and videos and are uploading footage to the internet—public domain open to anyone and any opinions. As information is no longer controlled by the media or government, but by everyday citizens, people are beginning to see new perspectives and new sides of the authority they are so deferent to.

The best example I can come up with is the G20 Summit in Toronto. I watched CP24 for almost two days while the protests were going on, witnessing hooligans smashing windows, burning police cars, and destroying the city I so dearly love. While watching the footage, I felt enraged such activity was occurring; I—along my family, who were watching with me—supported the police fervently as they attempted to crack-down on the criminality. When I saw reporters getting arrested mistakenly, and peaceful protestors shooed away by police, I supposed such actions were necessary to ensure peace. I fully supported the Toronto police in that moment.

Soon after the event, videos taken by protesters began popping up on the internet. After watching from the perspective of someone involved in incident, I began to formulate a very different opinion of Toronto police. I was horrified by videos depicting police mercilessly beating on protesters, particular officers threatening assertive female protestors with rape (I can still hardly believe that one…), and some undercover officers even instigating fights with protesters. Many of the pictures and videos snapped by everyday citizens depicted police officers in very negative lights, and it was then that I began to question how legitimate some of our authority figures and forces really are.

I happen to think that technology has significantly contributed to deference in Canada, as it is the reason I have become less deferent myself.

Is Question Period Conducive to Women?

Before my “Canadian Democracy” seminar a few weeks back, students were required to read an article by M.P. Michael Chong called “Rethinking Question Period and Debate in the House of Commons.” This article made a number of suggestions as to what could be done to improve Question Period by first pointing out what was inherently wrong with it. Chong focused on three critiques in particular: that Question Period is rhetorical, incomprehensible, and is not conducive to women. Though I tend to agree with the first two assessments (questions are often answered with questions, and the sheer noise level can be deafening), the feminist in me cannot agree with Chong’s last deduction.

In his article, Chong equates Question Period to a “testosterone-laden, anger-filled screaming match characterized by aggressive body language” and won by “those who can yell the loudest”—a reality which he implies deters female politicians from participating in Question Period and deters women in general from joining politics: I take issue with this inference.

To me, Chong’s argument sounds sexist. Characterizing passion—which can be mistook for aggressiveness—and assertiveness (accompanied often by loudness) as purely male attributes, or attributes inherent to the natures of men (testosterone), is quite frankly an erroneous postulation. His line of argumentation can be summarized like this: “Question Period is punctured with loud, determined, forceful and—at times—angry discussion; therefore, men tend to dominate Question Period.” This is nonsensical and chauvinistic (though Chong may not be aware of it). It denotes that women are shy wallflowers too delicate and modest to ever raise their voices high enough to compete in such debate and that they cannot thrive or function in the face of loudness or brazenness because it is not in their natures to do so. The assumption that men function better in such a setting than women do is what I like to call stereotypical bullshit.

I’m not personally a confrontational person, but put me in a position where I have to defend something I believe in to a man who’s yelling at me from across the floor, and I’m going to yell right back in his face. I know many women who would do the exact same.

My suggestion to Chong: Argue that the conduct of Question Period is not conducive to effective debate and therefore not to politicians—especially those who’d rather have civil conversations rather than irrational vocal battles.

Martha Hall Findlay certainly can hold her own just fine!

Resentment of Aboriginal Peoples in Canada

I was reading a CBC article today about a conference that took place in Winnipeg which discussed how the legacy of residential schools have and are currently affecting Aboriginal people, and as I was reading the comments beneath the news story, I was shocked by how many of them were negative, unconstructive and downright ignorant. 

The overall narrative of the story was that residential schools severely damaged those Aboriginal people involved (taken away from families, physical and mental abuse, etc.) and as a result a legacy of resentment and anger has pervaded within Aboriginal communities and on reserves—an unfortunate reality which has negatively impacted Aboriginal youth. Some of the comments include: “This "self-pity" gongshow has gone on long enough. Start to contribute to society & you'll see how much it will improve”, “[Aboriginals] need to move forward and get integrated into Canadian society and not try and blame other people for their troubles. Suck it up”, and “I don't see why the government doesn't just give EVERYBODY all the money they want [sarcastic]”. I can tell you with 100% certainly that Aboriginal people, Aboriginal scholars, and those who have studied Aboriginal politics and history (aka INFORMED citizens) would find these comments deeply insulting and inconsiderate.

I find this particular political behaviour (citizen resentment of Aboriginal people) to be incredibly unsettling, and when ignorant comments—many bordering on hate—are made about Aboriginal people by other Canadians, I can’t help but feel disgusted. It’s amazing how oblivious some citizens are of Canada’s history: a history which is blemished by instances of Aboriginal abuse and exploitation by many Canadian (and pre-confederate) governments.

Yes, it is true that a disproportionate amount of Aboriginal people commit crimes. Yes, it is true that many bands, reserves and communities are seeking money from the federal government. Yes, it is true that many Aboriginal nations are legitimately upset and interested in self-determination…but does that make it O.K. to mock or criticize Aboriginal people and disregard a history of maltreatment? Is it fair to generalize and call Aboriginal people greedy, ungrateful or whiny? Last time I checked, the social and economic conditions on reserves are horrendous, and the standard living for an Aboriginal person is significantly lower than that of an average Canadian. Wouldn’t you complain if were treated like a second-class citizen?

Canadians who make ignorant statements about Aboriginal people need to get off of their high horses and enroll in educational courses about Canadian history (with ABORIGINAL perspectives represented) before they open their mouths. Reading comments like the ones mentioned above seriously make me embarrassed to be Canadian.

Do Canadian Polygamy Laws Violate the Charter?

In Bountiful, B.C., discussions concerning the activities of a particular Mormon sect have resurrected a unique debate about a practice which today is considered by society to be so outlandish and reprehensible that a law prohibiting it was passed in 1890 under John A. Macdonald’s Government: that practice is polygamy. Polygamy, a custom which is traditionally associated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints—or Mormons—is commonly understood to be religious-based marital practice which involves one man and multiple women (wives). While polygamy is often depicted by the media as a practice prevalent in small Mormon cults native to especially southern or “hick” states in the United States, is not an American phenomenon; rather, it is also practiced in Canada, the Middle East and Africa (only a few examples).

Although Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada explicitly bans polygamy (Section 290 also prohibits ‘bigamy’) and carries a sentence of five years in prison, there has not been a  successful prosecution of polygamy in over 60 years, and there remains no statistics pertaining to how many polygamous unions exist in Canada: yet, the law still exists. This made me wonder: Is a law banning men (or women) from entering into a consensual relationship where other partners are involved really fair? If a person isn’t forced into such a relation, what harm is there in polygamy? Shouldn’t individuals decide and shape their relationships, rather than the government?

Many claim there is an inherent “danger” associated with polygamy (secretive communes forcing underage girls to marry old men, child abuse, sexual slavery, etc.), but wouldn’t de-criminalizing such a law actually help to stop the possibility of such dangers occurring? By decriminalizing such a law, abused women and children might feel more comfortable turning to police, shelters and friends, no longer having to fear discrimination or legal ramifications, and actual hazardous relations would likely become more easily identifiable.

Though I would never consider entering into a polygamous relationship myself, I think the public and government should learn more about polygamy and try to gain an understanding of the practice before prematurely deciding its illegality. Using the argument that “men and women are equal, and therefore polygamy disadvantages women” is a hypocritical one, for stripping a woman who desires a polygamous marriage of such a choice is also disadvantaging her (ex: the rights of a woman desiring a polygamous marriage are not equally respected to the rights of a woman desiring a monogamous marriage). Who are we to decide how women or men (with a choice) should shape their relationships? If gay marriage is tolerable in Canada, why is polygamy not? Are they not both examples of non-traditional unions involving consenting adults? (Remember: Some Canadian citizens today still do not support gay marriage, yet the law was passed.)

Arguments fashioned through the lenses of the majority (Western perspectives) tend to always disadvantage or diminish minority opinions. I think this fact should be kept in mind when the Superior Court of B.C. determines the constitutionality of Canada’s polygamy laws. It doesn’t seem right to punish those individuals peacefully or happily living in polygamous relationships (or those desiring too) for the wrongdoings of particular Mormon groups (stories are often sensationalized in the media), and it certainly doesn’t seem ‘Canadian’ to take away individual choice.

Whatever happened to Trudeau’s statement about the government having no business in the bedrooms of the nation?

Is Miley Cyrus a Criminal?: Salvia in Canada

In December of 2010, a strange video depicting pop princess Miley Cyrus smoking a bong and incoherently giggling hit the internet; a video which resulted in every major media outlet circulating a story which either questioned whether the teenage pop-star had a potential drug addiction or discussed how the video had affected her “good girl” reputation. Though most who initially watched the video assumed Miley was smoking weed, she was, in fact, smoking salvia—a legal psychoactive drug available for purchase in both the United States and Canada. Up until Miley’s scandal in December, I—along with many of my friends—had never heard of salvia before. 

Likely due to Cyrus’ embarrassing episode, the legalization of salvia has suddenly become a topic of debate in Canada. Recently, the federal government has made a move to criminalize hallucinogenic salvia and include the herb—which today can be purchased online or in “head shops” around the country—in a category of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. When I first heard of the government’s intention to criminalize salvia, I thought to myself: Is such a law really necessary? What is the difference between salvia and marijuana, and—if the plant is potentially dangerous to society—why was it not criminalized before now? 

After conducting some slapdash research, I learned that many of the long-term effects of salvia are still unknown (this is cited as one of the reasons health professionals want it criminalized); however, the short term effects are simple, and potentially more hazardous to users than the short-term effects of marijuana. Salvia divinorum, also known as “diviner’s sage” or “diviner’s mint”, is a psychoactive plant which can produce hallucinations, vivid visions and—depending on the potency of the dose—can even cause an individual to become “disassociated” from themselves (individuals report having encounters with “beings”, travelling to other planets or time, etc.). Many sites warn that users tend to find their experience with the drug to be more “scary than fun”, and advise users to ingest or smoke salvia in groups. 

In contrast, the short-term effects of marijuana are euphoria, relaxation, changes in perception, the mild enhancement of senses, talkativeness, giggling, increased appetite or—at higher dosages—altered attention span, sense of time, mental perception and memory. Personally, these effects seem to me to be less dangerous than those of salvia, yet marijuana remains the criminalized drug out of the two. How can this be? 

The answer is that salvia is simply not as well-known as marijuana and, relatively speaking, medical experts and police have not reported significant cases of salvia-related health concerns or public offense issues. Despite the fact that not as many cases of salvia-related offences have been reported as other drug-related offences, I think—after considering the hallucinatory aspect of salvia and reading some of the warnings found in the Salvia Divinorum User's Guide (accessed through Wikipedia)—the Canadian government is justified in attempting to criminalize the drug. Salvia, when taken in high or pure dosages by an irresponsible individual, may endanger both the individual and other citizens (salvia + responsibility = problem).

,

Election Polls: Do They Really Tell Us Anything?

As speculation concerning whether or not the Liberals and NDP will topple Harper’s Conservatives in March by voting “non-confidence” in the Government’s proposed budget—a move which would then trigger an election—polls claiming to represent citizen party preference are simultaneously beginning to crop up on news programs and in newspapers nation-wide. 

In one such random poll, executed by EKOS research (released to CBC), statistics suggest that the Conservatives currently have a substantial lead over the Liberals in terms of support, the party up almost 12.5 points. When asked whether these numbers were worrisome, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff responded, “Polls don’t matter.” Though such an answer is perhaps expected from a leader whose party isn’t ahead in said poll, Prime Minister Harper also brushed off the numbers (which were in his favor!), saying “Polls go up, polls go down.” Harper and Ignatieff’s indifference to polls made me wonder: Do political polls concerning party preference accurately represent the political opinions of Canadians? Furthermore, do they provide Canadians with a true picture of how fellow citizens feel about the government or opposition? 

Personally, I don’t believe public opinion is as tangible or uniform as most might expect. Some consider public opinion to be the opinion of the majority or an aggregation of individual opinions, while others consider public opinion to be media or elite opinion. Certain scholars even argue that public opinion is a fiction, constructed by the media or government to conform society to elite decisions. Regardless of this debate, it should be mentioned that actually measuring public opinion (whether it be fictitious or not) presents its own problems. According to how the information is collected (face-to-face interview, over the phone, internet, mail-back survey, Facebook, etc.), some people may not provide pollsters with their true answers (problem of anonymity, coercion, leading questions) or may change their opinions after the polls have been conducted. Additionally, experts suggest that most “undecided” voters don’t even pick who they are voting for until the day of the vote. These inconsistencies—coupled with the highs and lows of elections (from one week to the next, citizens may change their minds or be swayed by events, advertising, etc.)—seem to render polls fairly useless, especially if their utility is based upon predicting election outcomes or events.

All in all, I think polls attempting to gauge or measure public opinion or party preference can be quite irrelevant (especially before an election has even been called) and the variety of results to be telling of how inaccurate polls can really be (riddled with sampling biases, errors, etc.). If political leaders are skeptical of polls, shouldn’t we be, too?

If the above poll is trying to suggest that the Conservatives are going to win the next Canadian election, I think such an assertion it is way too premature.

Summer Lovin': Prince William and Kate Middleton Visit Canada

Following the announcement of Prince William’s engagement to his beau of eight years, Kate Middleton, in November, Prime Minister Stephen Harper invited the happy couple to Canada following their April nuptials. Surprisingly, the royal couple has accepted the Prime Minister's offer and are now slated to make their first official visit to Canada in June—a visit which also marks their first official overseas stopover as a couple. Travelling from Atlantic Canada to the West Coast (and even taking a quick trip to the Artic!), the couple’s presence will no doubt draw crowds of Canadian admirers and political loyalists—perhaps even larger crowds than the Prince’s grandmother attracted only a year ago.

When I heard Prince William and his fiancée were coming to Canada, I couldn’t help but feel excited; I even quietly hoped they would make an appearance in Toronto. Though I don’t love the fact that Canada remains a constitutional monarchy (The Queen is seriously our Head of State? Really?), the prospect of British royalty visiting Canada seemed an exhilarating one. I began to think: You know, it really isn’t so horrible that Canada is still traditionally tied to Britain. Our colonial history is the reason Canada is the country it is today, and I happen to like that country! Canada’s British history also makes us different from Americans; a plus, since I’d rather be affiliated with Britain than the United States.

Now I wonder: If a critic like myself was able to feel a glimmer of hope for our constitutional monarchy just because of William’s marriage to Kate, how many other critics will feel that way, too? Do all Canadians need is a fresh face to revive support for their constitutional system? With the possibility of a younger, more modern prince becoming figure-head of Canada, will more citizens become enamoured by our constitutional monarchy? I am very curious to see if support fluctuates following the royal couple’s visit to Canada.

In closing, I would like to make it known that I won’t protest Prince William’s face replacing Queen Elizabeth’s on our coins. ;)

The Obama Effect: The More Talk Show Appearances, The More Votes?

Is it just me, or are politicians more involved in popular culture than ever before? Perhaps I just never noticed until recently, but it seems more and more political candidates—namely those in the running for prime minister—are half-acting on political programs (more often than not shows which are satirical in nature), appearing on talk shows and sitting for interviews. Though this new political trend seems to be more prominent in the United States, party leaders in Canada are nevertheless garnering more air-time than ever before. The question is: Are politicians doing these appearances because they believe it will help their parties acquire voter support, or are they just famewhores?

Ever since Obama won the American presidential election of 2008, I wondered how much of his involvement in popular culture enterprises such as The View, Oprah and Saturday Night Live earned him votes. Though he was already dominating the media (you can draw your own conclusions as to why that was), Obama accepted invitations to many talk shows and comedic programs. Did incorporating himself into popular culture contribute to his historical win? In a society where most people now find themselves glued to their televisions and laptops, choosing to watch their favorite shows instead of watching the news, I imagine it did. Rather than just watching “Obama the politician” participate in organized debates and deliver speeches from behind a podium, the American public were able to consider “Obama the human being” through his popular culture appearances; appearances which made him more relatable to the general public (most of whom would rather watch Entertainment Tonight than Fox News).

I think Obama’s campaign has resulted in a lot of politicians coming up with alternative strategies to appeal to the public, and I don’t think that is necessarily a bad thing. Hearing political leaders rant and rave in the House of Commons (or should I say, Coliseum) or watching them battle it out during televised debates can be, in a word, tiresome. I’ll be the first to confess that I like when politicians let their hair down and get involved in shows like The Rick Mercer Report and This Hour Has 22 Minutes. Though their appearances may be rehearsed or satirical, it’s a nice reminder that politicians are actually human beings with senses of humor and not screaming ideological robots. 

Despite the entertainment factor, are appearances of such a nature irrelevant? Perhaps. But in a time of public indifference, I think it makes sense to try and engage voters in a new and fresh way. Why not appeal to a person’s sense of humor, rather than their cynicism? Though some appearances can be downright gimmicky, political comedy routines are more than often punctured with actual messages. It isn’t difficult to discern the ideology behind the witticism.

The question of whether light-hearted appearances on late-night television actually work to win over voters is one I don’t think I can answer. All I know is, for a card-carrying Liberal who’d rather eat dirt than see Stephen Harper win another election, I found his stint on The Rick Mercer Report to be oddly hilarious. After seeing his adorable daughter scream alongside Mercer while hidden under a make-shift fort, Harper gained a few points with me (Of course, prorogation knocked him back again. What’s the saying? One step forward, two steps back?). By participating in comedic sketches (thereby poking a little fun at themselves) and letting reporters into their homes, politicians like Stephen Harper, Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton certainly make themselves more relatable.

In closing, I believe as our political behaviours change, so too should the strategies of our elected officials. I for one enjoy leader appearances. Sleepovers, chick flicks and 100 year old eggs certainly make politics more interesting!

Political Ignorance

Warning: Those who are indifferent are taking a gamble, for they are relying on the assumption that their wants and needs match those of the citizens who are choosing to vote.

I was watching a video clip from the Rick Mercer Report on Youtube the other day, and the segment’s title, “Everything you wanted to know about Canada, but were afraid to ask”, got me around to thinking about political ignorance in Canada. Being a 4^th year political science student who was taught the ins and the outs of the Canadian system and warned to critically assess the actions of the government (despite any partisan allegiances I may have), I am confident when I say that I am anything but politically ignorant. Though I may not read the news every day, and may not have a thorough understanding of every policy issue that comes to light, I have a good grasp of how both the government and Government function, and I take the time to become acquainted with current events and contentious policies. I won’t profess to be a political expert, but I know I am more politically aware and active than most young adults my age.

What put this unfortunate reality into perspective for me was the prorogation of Parliament in 2010 (or Dec of 2009, if you’re going to get all technical on me). While the heated debate surrounding prorogation unfolded in both the media and my department’s classrooms, I was exposed to both sides of the discussion. Being a member of a political party myself, as well as an executive member of my party’s on-campus student club, I may have been exposed to the debate even more than the typical political science student. When I choose to participate in a protest in downtown Waterloo, I began inviting other students to join me, including my roommates—none of whom were political science students. Two of my three roommates politely declined, but the third (also a member of my partisan club) was interested in joining. Only problem was, she hadn’t a clue what the prorogation of Parliament was, or why it was problematic.

Now, being an anthropology student new to politics, I could hardly fault her for being unaware of the process or its implications. When I sat down and explained, demonstrating how the process was being used by our elected Prime Minister to avoid the prospect of a coalition government and to side-step important questions surrounding the Afghan detainee issue, she was shocked. Wasn’t the prime minister proroguing Parliament so that the Canadian government wouldn’t appear divided or at odds during the Olympic Games—a time when Canada should appear united? This nonsensical excuse for prorogation was propagated by the Conservative Government and the Prime Minister, but how many citizens were actually aware of the Government’s true intentions? Was anyone aware that bills in the process of being passed were dropped? Did anyone know Harper was going to use prorogation to appoint a throng of party-approved Senators? It scared me to think so many citizens and voters were unaware of what was really going on; passive, like so many students, to the point of choosing not to care what happened either way. Most people I invited to the protest didn't even bother to ask what prorogation was.

Students and teenagers aside, I’ll bet your bottom dollar there were just as many adults who hadn’t a clue what was going on. Employed, mortgage-paying, child-supporting adults with a lot to lose should the government see fit. What’s their excuses for being uninformed? I know not everyone has the luxury to attend university, and many will choose an alternative program to political science out of interest, but there is still television, the radio and newspapers. The media—however they prime or frame the issues—can provide a general idea of how the government functions. But even with the availability of media, students and adults alike choose to be indifferent and ignorant. Yes, I know women with small children spend most of their time looking after them, but they still make time for their soap operas, don’t they? Men still make time for their favorite sports, too. (Stereotypical example, but you get my point. No excuses!!) Those who argue Canadian politics is boring also don’t have a leg to stand on in my books: I could say swimming is boring, but I still learn how to swim so I don’t drown when a tsunami off the coast of Lake Ontario pulls me out to sea, don’t I?!?

Is it really that difficult to make your homepage cbc.ca and scan over the hot-topic issues, or switch your television channel to the news while you prepare dinner? Why not listen to the a.m. radio on your way to work, or have a friendly political chat ‘round the water cooler at work? Don’t own a television, computer or car? Buy a bloody newspaper and go through the first couple pages. What do they go for these days? Fifty cents? A dollar?

What I’m trying to communicate is how dangerous political ignorance is. This is one political behaviour that should be curbed at once, and every citizen has the individual responsibility to do so (and that means you too, students!). If people don’t make themselves aware, one of these days they are going to wake up and feel the consequences of a government out of touch with popular opinion and instead functioning on the elite attitudes of those who took the time to vote and become acquainted with the system.

…Anybody else think civics classes should be more than just a half a semester long?

Negative Campaign Advertising

With the call for a federal election looming, partisan campaign ads are beginning to air on Canadian television stations. Many new commercials concerning the Government’s ‘Action Plan’ have appeared, the advertisements selling the plan’s incentives to the Canadian public and attempting to demonstrate the positive outcomes of it. These advertisements, however, are not the only early indications of an election.

Recently, while I was watching a program on CBC, a political commercial I recognized from back in 2009 aired. In the commercial, Michael Ignatieff—leader of the federal Liberal party—was scrutinized due to his past employment outside of Canada (at Harvard University in the United States). A slew of interview clips of him professing his love for the United States were highlighted in the video, implying that Ignatieff considers himself to be an American and has only returned to Canada out of selfish desire for power. This message, crafted by Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, is meant to persuade voters that Ignatieff is anti-Canadian, and therefore not qualified to run the country.

Complimenting these televised attack ads, another video criticizing Ignatieff appeared on the Conservative’s website, depicting the leader making statements (later deemed to have been taken out of context) which endorsed raising taxes and provoking an election which would result in monetary loss during a time of economic ‘crisis’. Strangely enough, this incriminating video—which incorporated pieces of a speech Ignatieff delivered at a Liberal caucus retreat—disappeared from the website only a day later, sans explanation as to why. Journalists  later speculated that the video’s “unethical” and blatantly erroneous nature prompted the public and even some ‘soft’ Conservatives to regard it as distasteful—making it more damaging to the Conservatives than effective against the Liberals.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/conservatives-yank-anti-ignatieff-attack-ads-amid-torrent-of-criticism--114825424.html

These latest events made me wonder: If negative advertisements—which, in fairness, have been used by both the Conservatives and Liberals—don’t make the accusing party look good per say, but merely the opposing party look bad, why are they used at all? Do parties or prime ministers really want to be elected to power on the basis of default, or solely upon their ability to make an opposition leader look incompetent? In the case of the Conservative’s attack on Ignatieff, they neither attack Liberal policies nor the Liberal Party in general; just the leader. As a young voter with a critical mind (thanks to my university education!), such ploys for votes seem absolutely desperate. Does a party honestly have so little to draw upon in terms of positive policies or rationale criticism of opposing party policies that it has to make farfetched claims about opposition leaders?

In light of these attack ads, I also began wondering how negative advertising affected Canadian political behaviour or, more specifically, citizen views of government. I myself consider negative advertising to be repugnant and utterly desperate when unjustified (Would I consider attacks on a leader justified if the leader was involved in illegal or immoral acts? Probably.), but do other citizens feel the same way I do, or are they naïve enough to vote according to which leader emerges from the mud-slinging less soiled? With campaigns these days reduced to ‘he said she said’ nonsense and the slandering party leaders, it really isn’t hard to believe why Canadian society has become so politically cynical.

What ever happened to rational debate about party policy? Why don’t parties emphasis their platforms—thereby building positive campaigns that excite citizens and prompt them to vote—instead of crafting objectionable ads that criticize opposition leaders for irrelevant things like previously working out of the country or physical defect (COUGHCHRETIENCOUGH)? Of course political competitors want to seem better than their opponents, but do they seriously think the best way of achieving their goals is to insinuate opposition leaders are anti-American or flagrantly use out-of-context statements?
 

We deserve some respect from our government. It’s an insult to think some politicians and strategists believe citizens to be so witless and gullible to buy into forged videos or nonsensical criticism of party leaders. Sure, there will always exist ignorant, unquestioning voters (and non-voters), but to assume most of the population is comprised of them is an offensive mistake. If the government wants to improve voter turnout and address the Canadian culture of cynicism, political parties should probably start by respecting one another and producing civilized campaigns that build up their own ideas rather than vilifying opposition leaders.

End of the day, if you’re going to attack, attack a party’s policies. If you’re going to attack a leader, narrow it to the leader’s actions within the parameters of their leadership.

For example: their decision to prorogue Parliament.

Some Interesting Quotes to Consider

"There would be no society if living together depended upon understanding each other." - Eric Hoffer

Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation. - Oscar Wilde

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. - Douglas Adams

Cynical, no? Do quotes like these really represent Canadian citizens, or explain some of their political behaviours?