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.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/02/28/g20-report-inquiry-toronto.html "G20 'rights violations' require public inquiry: Report"
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2011/02/25/ottawa-police-video.html "Ottawa officer punches suspect in video"
Although the video footage captured on tech. Devices at the G20 Summit was real and often disturbing, I still fully support to Police force in their actions at the Summit. The mandate of the Police force was to protect the city and to maintain peace - this is a police officer's job. For the most part, these officers succeeded. Had they not been present and active at the summit, further damages would have been caused and the police force would have been greater scrutinized for their lack of action. Given the scale of this operation and the unforeseen circumstances, many of the officers believed that they were doing everything that they were supposed to do. Many of these officers did not handle these situations as effectively as they could have, but you must also consider all of the stress and fear that they were experiencing themselves and what effect this would have had on rational behaviour: We all make mistakes sometimes.
ReplyDeleteIf people choose to oppose the actions of cops at the G20 summit and their attempts to protect the public, then these individuals should stop calling upon the police in times of need. If you hate cops so much then don't call them!
I appreciate your comment, Ryan. I am by no means insinuating that I hate police officers (I have a few family members who are police officers in both York Region and Mississauga), but merely pointing out that, just because police officers are authority figures, it doesn't mean they should go unquestioned. All authority figures should be held to account, no matter their role. I wanted to use the G20 as an example of how, through technology, citizens are now seeing another side of authority figures and are beginning to question them more than ever. I personally think this is a good thing, as it holds them to account and helps their roles to evolve in tandem with society's values.
ReplyDeleteBy no means am I condemning ALL police officers, or making generalities which suggest they all take part in some of the lewd and controversial acts mentioned above. You are right in mentioning that the G20 is a special situation, but it does not change the fact that offenses by police officers concerning civil liberties and human rights were committed.
Great point! I do understand what you're saying. In our constitution (the highest law of the land, if you exclude religious belief), the preamble does refer to a "God", which (if you disregard the interpretation of "God" according to each individual) refers to the Christian God the fathers of our constitution believed in when they drafted the document.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I'm sure there are many different reasons which may explain why Canadians are becoming less deferent to authority. We've merely pointed to a few possibilities!
This comment is posted on behalf of "Ally", who has attempted to post twice. Each time her comment has showed up in my email, but for some reason has not properly shown up on the blog. My response to her comment is the above comment.
ReplyDeleteAlly says:
Hey!
I would argue that the reason why many Canadians are questioning authority is due to religion.
This came up in one of my class discussions. Within Canadian law it holds that God (with a capital G) holds the highest form of authority. This would suggest that all law is based upon Christian morals and values. This would then lead one to think that Canada therefore is a Christian country and NOT multi-cultural.And this is where most people have a problem with authority. It stems in the idea that if Canada is a multi-cultural country than why does Canadian law refer to their God as being the highest authority. It then becomes that Canadian law is not inclusive of other religions and trickles down to society as everything they do will be based on Christian morals.
For example, Why does an atheist have to live by the laws of what is right and wrong according to the Christian God if they do not even believe that a such a God exists?
Hopefully this makes sense? or you are able to grasp a bit of what I am trying to say!