Good synopsis Justin. The dialogue issue has me torn. I've failed locally to move the needle with the hard core group. However what has started to happen is that many in the quiet minority have come to me privately to get my take on things. They figure I would "know what the facts are". Most recently it's been the 15 minute cities issue which is so conspiracy laden in my neck of the woods it almost defies belief. So while these people won't be standing up and giving speeches they will be engaging in conversation around the dinner table and in their social circles. What we are doing then is removing the opportunity for growth where we don't want growth. I look at it like management of a feral cat colony. Spay/neuter prevents growth and over time the colony size shrinks and eventually just disappears because most feral colonies don't to take non members kindly.
I think so much counter-misinfo and de-radicalization work has to happen local — whether it's at the bar, or at church, or in a neighborhood Facebook group. But it's slow, frustrating work. Glad to hear you're making a bit of headway. Keep me updated with how that goes!
I believe in the idea of there needs to be a "community of the dialogue"---a set of unspoken rules that both sides agree to, such as the exclusive use of both inductive and deductive logic (ie: reason and evidence). Once people stop accepting this necessity, all that's left is violence---implied or overt. That's the fundamental problem that things like the occupation put in the face of democracy. If people are trapped by ideologically-driven superstition (and let's face it, that's what the occupation was all about), all everyone else can do is get out the cattle prods, batons, and, tear gas.
Unfortunately, modern technology has created a engineered technology of demagogic rhetoric (think about how closely Poilievre must be parsing polling data) and taught journalism that clicks and the attention economy are more important that discerning truth from lies. I watched the mainstream media all through the occupation and I was appalled how rarely journalists did streeters where they really tried to pin down people to tell them why exactly they refused to get vaccinated or wear a mask. (I know, then they would either clam up or punch out the reporter's lights.) I can only assume they didn't want to say because ultimately there was no way they could say so without sounding ridiculous---and on some level they knew it.
In my personal life I've come to the conclusion that all I can do with the delusional people in my life is to shun them. If anyone intruded directly in my way, I'd treat them like livestock. They've lost the ability to think like a human being, so there are situations where I simply can no longer afford to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Getting onto the same wavelength is such a difficult proposition. It's great to say "let's stick to the facts" — but many anti-vaxxers are armed with a stack of facts. They just happen to be facts that are misinterpreted, incorrect, or strung together to weave a completely baseless narrative. At a certain point, you've drawn peer-reviewed science in a duel against a magic wand. I don't think people have an obligation to deal with folks beholden to conspiracy theories: Sometimes shunning is just the necessary tactic.
Thanks Justin for a thoughtful review of the report. I’m going to read through the volumes myself. As for dialogue, I have difficulty in believing that with such differing ideas of what a « fact » is, we would do anything more than go around in circles and become further entrenched in our positions and frustrations with the « other side ».
After spending years working in federal and provincial politics at both the riding level and in cabinet, one thing I do believe is that we need to start teaching civics better. I can’t count the number of riding cases I’ve had with people who had no idea what their MNAs office did and were so grateful when we solved a hydro or revenue file, smoothed over an immigration hiccup or helped their non-profit access program funding they didn’t know they could get. The same goes for understanding an MPs job, the role of the public service and, one area I am particularly focusing on with some of my local mayors and city managers, creating a course on how municipal governments run. But I digress.
The point is, I believe it is far more difficult to be caught up in conspiracy theories and misinformation when you understand how government works; know where to check to see what was really said in committee, in parliament, in a public health order, etc and use that knowledge to hold government to account. It also might help more people actually considering running for office and giving us representation that truly reflects our population.
I may be wildly off topic, but on my mind today after the report was released.
I don't think we can ignore the relationship between trust in government and belief in conspiracy theories.
I'm sort of hostile to the idea that civics education is much of a fix. I think rather than foisting the responsibility onto citizens, we should expect more from our government. MNAs offices, e.g., being more proactive and helpful would probably do a lot more than a new unit in high school to underline role of government and build trust.
I'm constantly telling people who are having difficult getting a passport or receiving benefits or regulating their immigration status to call up their MP — they're often dazzled by the idea that their local politician can actually pull levers and help them.
I've also had friends/colleagues/acquaintances who have had great experiences dealing with their local politicians' office, and who come away with a lot more faith in the system; vs. people who have a terrible experience (get ignored, brushed off, etc) who lose a lot of that faith.
I think that’s a bit of a leap from what I wrote. I never suggested foisting a new civics class on high schools. I too think it is incumbent on government to be more proactive and helpful to its citizens which is why what I’m working on is a program to help local mayors and city managers make municipal government more accessible and understandable to its citizens. None of us knows what we don’t know and while what I seek is greater outreach by municipal government, the citizens and groups I am talking to as part of my research are also excited about acquiring a better understanding of how things work. I got involved in politics in my late 30s and was embarrassed by my lack of knowledge of who did what at any level of government. If asked, I would not have known who to call for help with an issue. I’m grateful for the people who answered every dumb question while never making me feel stupid.
So I think that when I see opponents of municipal governments go from “the mayor hasn’t gotten back to me with an answer about the new stop sign I want” TO “she’s a self-serving b*itch, doesn’t care about the citizens and is running the city like a dictator,” there is something I can do to at least explain that it's a hell of a lot faster to get things moving inside the city when you call the city manager directly, rather than writing the mayor and then waiting for the mayor to go talk to the city manager, get input from the city manager and then get back to you. You can still believe that the mayor is a self-serving b*tch, but you won’t be able to say so because you chose to take a circuitous route to make your request and are waiting for the process to play out.
No elected official should be giving any citizen the brush off. It’s unacceptable. On any issue big or small. And if they’ve been around a long time, shame on them. But there is also no school or class on how to be an elected official or staffer and how to run a riding office. You get elected for the first time and you learn on the job how to serve and respond to your constituents. That in itself is another problem for another day.
Sorry, wasn't trying to be dismissive. There are folks out there who pitch education as a kind of cure-all.
But we're speaking the same language about democratic representation. The constant trend towards defending elected officials' offices is worsening this trend. More capacity inside those offices means better training, more service, etc. Pushing out better, easy-to-understand, guides on how to navigate government — I.e. go to the city manager first — absolutely helps that along.
"If the convoy leaves Ottawa this weekend (the first one) we will hold a free vote in the house of commons on whether to rescind the border vaccine mandate (which was useless in any event)"
That way, the people of Canada could hold their own MP to task. That a government that received 30% of the popular vote would impose these mandates and implement the EA without consulting the majority seems wrong to me.
Maybe we're both suffering under the same democratic optimism, but I tend to think free votes in that style could help release the pressure from all manner of polarizing issues in this country.
One thing I’ve found very frustrating in the pandemic discourse - and it really is common on both sides - is the refusal to admit that one’s preferred policies have any legitimate downsides.
I thought that the so-called lockdowns should have been longer and stricter than they were. I think I still believe that now, though I’ve gotten a bit less certain. But I have no problem at all with the “genuine hardship” excerpt. It shouldn’t be hard to acknowledge these things.
I think that locking down was an appropriate sacrifice to ask of people during a serious shared emergency that was no one’s fault and didn’t care how we felt about it. It was good policy, I think. I would have gone further, and for my own part I did. But it wasn’t easy or pleasant. I’m still coming to terms with some of the effects that it on me.
But being on the “pro-lockdown” side of things (and pro-mask, etc.) I see so much casual dismissal of people’s problems, so many people written off as “whiny babies” or something, and I can’t imagine how that’s supposed to be persuasive to very many people.
I have a friend who had a harder time with “lockdown” than I did. He doesn’t support the convoy, but he sympathizes with some of its supporters more easily than I do. I find it very helpful to pick his brain sometimes on what their perspective might be on a given issue.
Sounds like the report addresses these things well.
The lockdown was very different for different people. Those who could work from home and keep their jobs thought it was fine or didn't go far enough. I know my barber, whose whole family worked at the salon, had to shut his doors and got no help from his landlord has a different opinion, as do my offspring who both lost their jobs. Those people who had to work through the unknown for shitty pay (clerks, delivery people, nurses etc) would also have a different view. And many of them had children who were locked out of schools which made everything worse. So sure maybe the lockdown made you feel secure and you think it was appropriate for you but try on a different pair of shoes and you may understand why the convoy appealed.
Enjoyed reading your comments Justin. Full disclosure first - I subscribe to you as part of my attempt to access a broader range of perspectives that are different than mine, so I can improve on my understandings and interactions in what in my little world have become often-serious splits in relationships with family & friends due to our ever-increasing polarizations. Given that, watching you in the documentary and reading your comments has helped me better see another view/side of the convoy story. My limited perspective comes from having observed the entire Ottawa and Coutts situations from start to finish, from a distance. But I did attend almost all major public protests out here in BC because I wanted to find out more about who/what I saw as an incredible, cross-Canada grass roots level of public support and involvement...which methinks has gone virtually unnoticed/unreported by the mainstream media. Part of me feels a lot of people in positions of power and communications are underestimating how many of us disgruntled Common Joes reside outside of the big cities...but that could also be wishful thinking on my part. I don't agree with all you say, but have no desire to challenge any of your comments, nor even the decision of the Commission. To me, by far the most important thing will be to see whether the politicians, public, and you/others will treat the next significant Canadian protest in the same way...because there is sure to be one. And there are an increasing number of people who will be watching at least a wee bit closer. By the way, my congratulations to you on participating in the documentary.
We often chide the folks who took part in those protests for being irrationally angry — and I think it's a really complex situation. To some degree, as you've not doubt read in this newsletter, we shouldn't give an inch to the folks who demand that we throw out science and legitimize the view that vaccines are dangerous or deadly. They're welcome to that view, but they can't force us to abide by it.
*But* there's lots of areas where the frustration from that broader movement was incredibly warranted. In my view, we didn't get nearly angry enough over the anti-scientific and punitive lockdowns and curfews that were being imposed in Ontario, Quebec, and elsewhere. I generally disagree that vaccine mandates fall into that category, but I think reasonable people can disagree.
We've also done far too little introspection over the irrational and unfair anger that we've felt towards anti-vaxxers. I think, with the benefit of hindsight, it wasn't fair to blame them for the continued spread of the virus nor the state of our ERs.
As for the next protest: I have always been of the opinion that the state is too ham-fisted when it comes to shutting down protests. Having been clubbed and handcuffed by cops earlier in my career, it comes from first-hand experience. I am adamant that the protesters in Ottawa were given an amount of leeway and deference to protest that few other protest movements have been given — and maybe that's not such a bad thing. Protest, so long as it doesn't unduly infringe on other peoples' rights to safety and security, should be celebrated a lot more than it currently is.
I hope you keep reading and engaging! I absolutely don't want to be preaching to the choir.
I think the lockdowns etc were badly used in many places. Here in BC, especially on Vancouver Island, I felt we had a very different pandemic than across the country. We were shut down for a few weeks and then remained mainly open except for restaurants,bars, and gyms that really took a beating that was wrong I thought. My husband worked in an elementary school and continued working. We had a later Spring Break and once schools opened up again then never closed again. Other places were unfortunately opening and closing over and over. Also curfews were beyond the pale! In all struggles people need hero’s and villains and our PM became villain number one, even though the unfair lockdowns and mandates were provincial jurisdiction. There is a very unhealthy hatred of Trudeau senior, including friends of mine, who cannot get past his son being in office. This hatred drives the anger that drives the fear that drives people to do things I really don’t think they would normally even dream of doing. Easy pickings for those with deeper and darker motives. I hope we can all move on from this but don’t know when and how that will happen.
The killer sentence for me was that they were "victims and perpetrators of misinformation". Frustrating indeed.
The US "Jan 6 committee" took testimony from the deep Ohio accent of Stephen Ayres, who talked about being tricked by Trump to come to the Capitol and enter it, for which he was convicted. What the committee, not wanting their helpful witnesses to be disparaged, didn't mention, is that the guy was propagating misinformation himself, the same day and the next day:
...doing videos about how it was only Antifa that invaded the Capitol, though he'd been there himself. That's pretty brazen lying. So, how do you tell such lies, while thinking, "But everything I've been told about how I had to come here, including how I have to help out with blaming Antifa, that's all true".
It's right out of 1984 and double-think, holding two opposite truths in your head at once.
Incidentally, the question that can only be answered about the EA, until people write their memoirs in 20 years, is whether they gave a crap about everything Canadians were going through, or only dropped it because two American politicians said that we were not a reliable trading partner, were causing them to close factories, maybe we should not build cars together any more.
Only what was discussed in private on the last two days before it dropped, would tell that tale.
Ayres is a pretty good candidate for the rare intersection of bug-eyed *and* shameless. The effort to both take credit for Jan6 and say someone else was responsible is some pretty impressive derangement.
Greetings all. As usual Justin, a great overview of the whole darned thing and I might also add a very entertaining read ( not to trivialize or make light of the events that unfolded across our nation one year ago).
I’d like to comment just a tad on something I heard from Gary Mason on CBC’s special edition of, “ At Issue” that aired Friday February 17. He made reference and took slight exception to Rouleau’s comment in the report that stated how the PM’s words, “ a small fringe minority” incited more rage and anger by many in the protest. I agree with Gary when he stated that the alienation and palpable anger towards
Justin Trudeau long predates this latest national crisis at least in western provinces, specifically Alberta. This anger requires no stoking whatsoever. Having lived in Edmonton since 1979 after leaving Toronto I can honestly say that “ F*** Trudeau” virtriol and accompanying visuals have long been a part of the physical and vernacular landscape. The bad blood and history of PET is very much alive in this province.
Initially I was beyond shocked and though not accepting of it all, I have come to realize that it is deep and exists. This is generational anger that is cultivated in family dinner hours and popular coffee hangouts . At times I’m very discouraged. How to personally navigate the when and how to have meaningful respectful dialogue when such anger dominates the narrative?
And as an aside, I’ve worked in education with the most marginalized adult learners in our systems and although the understanding of their obstacles and needs was a mix of pedagogy and compassion, these fellow citizens of this great country present us with an even much greater challenge.
There's no doubt that anger and frustration predates our current Trudeau. I grew up on the other side of the country, in Cape Breton: We've got a particular strain of frustration and alienation back home, too. But that's why it requires politicians to keep that frustration and alienation in their heads at all times, so they don't — unwittingly or intentionally — inflame that sentiment. (See: Harper, "culture of defeat.")
I think people have a really easy time getting angry at a guy behind a podium on TV. I think they have a harder time getting genuinely mad at someone who shows up on their doorstep, or who walks into Timmy's. Maybe it's optimism, but I think the solution to that frustration is still inter-personal. (And, well, a lot of other stuff, too.)
Good overview, but I'm finding your stuff on the state a bit weak because it isn't broken down to federal and provincial responsibility. I would argue part of the problem that ended with the need to invoke the emergencies act was because the Ontario and Alberta provincial governments refused to act. This needs to be stated.
Charlotte: Not all right-wing news outlets are created equal. Andrew Lawton is a journalist in a way that Viva Frei is not, e.g.
And we can't ignore the growing audience for these broadcasters. People are flocking to these upstart media outlets because they believe they are the only real source for truth in our society. If we don't try and have a conversation with those folks, they are going to be living in an information bubble.
I think we are way past fears of "legitimizing." We need to find a way to break down barriers, not put them up, while still staying committed to facts, science, and reality.
Good synopsis Justin. The dialogue issue has me torn. I've failed locally to move the needle with the hard core group. However what has started to happen is that many in the quiet minority have come to me privately to get my take on things. They figure I would "know what the facts are". Most recently it's been the 15 minute cities issue which is so conspiracy laden in my neck of the woods it almost defies belief. So while these people won't be standing up and giving speeches they will be engaging in conversation around the dinner table and in their social circles. What we are doing then is removing the opportunity for growth where we don't want growth. I look at it like management of a feral cat colony. Spay/neuter prevents growth and over time the colony size shrinks and eventually just disappears because most feral colonies don't to take non members kindly.
I think so much counter-misinfo and de-radicalization work has to happen local — whether it's at the bar, or at church, or in a neighborhood Facebook group. But it's slow, frustrating work. Glad to hear you're making a bit of headway. Keep me updated with how that goes!
Feral cats? Great analogy!
I believe in the idea of there needs to be a "community of the dialogue"---a set of unspoken rules that both sides agree to, such as the exclusive use of both inductive and deductive logic (ie: reason and evidence). Once people stop accepting this necessity, all that's left is violence---implied or overt. That's the fundamental problem that things like the occupation put in the face of democracy. If people are trapped by ideologically-driven superstition (and let's face it, that's what the occupation was all about), all everyone else can do is get out the cattle prods, batons, and, tear gas.
Unfortunately, modern technology has created a engineered technology of demagogic rhetoric (think about how closely Poilievre must be parsing polling data) and taught journalism that clicks and the attention economy are more important that discerning truth from lies. I watched the mainstream media all through the occupation and I was appalled how rarely journalists did streeters where they really tried to pin down people to tell them why exactly they refused to get vaccinated or wear a mask. (I know, then they would either clam up or punch out the reporter's lights.) I can only assume they didn't want to say because ultimately there was no way they could say so without sounding ridiculous---and on some level they knew it.
In my personal life I've come to the conclusion that all I can do with the delusional people in my life is to shun them. If anyone intruded directly in my way, I'd treat them like livestock. They've lost the ability to think like a human being, so there are situations where I simply can no longer afford to give them the benefit of the doubt.
What a sad world we find ourselves in---.
Getting onto the same wavelength is such a difficult proposition. It's great to say "let's stick to the facts" — but many anti-vaxxers are armed with a stack of facts. They just happen to be facts that are misinterpreted, incorrect, or strung together to weave a completely baseless narrative. At a certain point, you've drawn peer-reviewed science in a duel against a magic wand. I don't think people have an obligation to deal with folks beholden to conspiracy theories: Sometimes shunning is just the necessary tactic.
Thanks Justin for a thoughtful review of the report. I’m going to read through the volumes myself. As for dialogue, I have difficulty in believing that with such differing ideas of what a « fact » is, we would do anything more than go around in circles and become further entrenched in our positions and frustrations with the « other side ».
After spending years working in federal and provincial politics at both the riding level and in cabinet, one thing I do believe is that we need to start teaching civics better. I can’t count the number of riding cases I’ve had with people who had no idea what their MNAs office did and were so grateful when we solved a hydro or revenue file, smoothed over an immigration hiccup or helped their non-profit access program funding they didn’t know they could get. The same goes for understanding an MPs job, the role of the public service and, one area I am particularly focusing on with some of my local mayors and city managers, creating a course on how municipal governments run. But I digress.
The point is, I believe it is far more difficult to be caught up in conspiracy theories and misinformation when you understand how government works; know where to check to see what was really said in committee, in parliament, in a public health order, etc and use that knowledge to hold government to account. It also might help more people actually considering running for office and giving us representation that truly reflects our population.
I may be wildly off topic, but on my mind today after the report was released.
I don't think we can ignore the relationship between trust in government and belief in conspiracy theories.
I'm sort of hostile to the idea that civics education is much of a fix. I think rather than foisting the responsibility onto citizens, we should expect more from our government. MNAs offices, e.g., being more proactive and helpful would probably do a lot more than a new unit in high school to underline role of government and build trust.
I'm constantly telling people who are having difficult getting a passport or receiving benefits or regulating their immigration status to call up their MP — they're often dazzled by the idea that their local politician can actually pull levers and help them.
I've also had friends/colleagues/acquaintances who have had great experiences dealing with their local politicians' office, and who come away with a lot more faith in the system; vs. people who have a terrible experience (get ignored, brushed off, etc) who lose a lot of that faith.
I think that’s a bit of a leap from what I wrote. I never suggested foisting a new civics class on high schools. I too think it is incumbent on government to be more proactive and helpful to its citizens which is why what I’m working on is a program to help local mayors and city managers make municipal government more accessible and understandable to its citizens. None of us knows what we don’t know and while what I seek is greater outreach by municipal government, the citizens and groups I am talking to as part of my research are also excited about acquiring a better understanding of how things work. I got involved in politics in my late 30s and was embarrassed by my lack of knowledge of who did what at any level of government. If asked, I would not have known who to call for help with an issue. I’m grateful for the people who answered every dumb question while never making me feel stupid.
So I think that when I see opponents of municipal governments go from “the mayor hasn’t gotten back to me with an answer about the new stop sign I want” TO “she’s a self-serving b*itch, doesn’t care about the citizens and is running the city like a dictator,” there is something I can do to at least explain that it's a hell of a lot faster to get things moving inside the city when you call the city manager directly, rather than writing the mayor and then waiting for the mayor to go talk to the city manager, get input from the city manager and then get back to you. You can still believe that the mayor is a self-serving b*tch, but you won’t be able to say so because you chose to take a circuitous route to make your request and are waiting for the process to play out.
No elected official should be giving any citizen the brush off. It’s unacceptable. On any issue big or small. And if they’ve been around a long time, shame on them. But there is also no school or class on how to be an elected official or staffer and how to run a riding office. You get elected for the first time and you learn on the job how to serve and respond to your constituents. That in itself is another problem for another day.
Sorry, wasn't trying to be dismissive. There are folks out there who pitch education as a kind of cure-all.
But we're speaking the same language about democratic representation. The constant trend towards defending elected officials' offices is worsening this trend. More capacity inside those offices means better training, more service, etc. Pushing out better, easy-to-understand, guides on how to navigate government — I.e. go to the city manager first — absolutely helps that along.
Great anolgy and well out togther Justin! You also did it so fast. Lol. 👌
My contention remains that had Trudeau said
"If the convoy leaves Ottawa this weekend (the first one) we will hold a free vote in the house of commons on whether to rescind the border vaccine mandate (which was useless in any event)"
That way, the people of Canada could hold their own MP to task. That a government that received 30% of the popular vote would impose these mandates and implement the EA without consulting the majority seems wrong to me.
Maybe we're both suffering under the same democratic optimism, but I tend to think free votes in that style could help release the pressure from all manner of polarizing issues in this country.
and isn't that the point of representation in a democracy?
I'd agree!
One thing I’ve found very frustrating in the pandemic discourse - and it really is common on both sides - is the refusal to admit that one’s preferred policies have any legitimate downsides.
I thought that the so-called lockdowns should have been longer and stricter than they were. I think I still believe that now, though I’ve gotten a bit less certain. But I have no problem at all with the “genuine hardship” excerpt. It shouldn’t be hard to acknowledge these things.
I think that locking down was an appropriate sacrifice to ask of people during a serious shared emergency that was no one’s fault and didn’t care how we felt about it. It was good policy, I think. I would have gone further, and for my own part I did. But it wasn’t easy or pleasant. I’m still coming to terms with some of the effects that it on me.
But being on the “pro-lockdown” side of things (and pro-mask, etc.) I see so much casual dismissal of people’s problems, so many people written off as “whiny babies” or something, and I can’t imagine how that’s supposed to be persuasive to very many people.
I have a friend who had a harder time with “lockdown” than I did. He doesn’t support the convoy, but he sympathizes with some of its supporters more easily than I do. I find it very helpful to pick his brain sometimes on what their perspective might be on a given issue.
Sounds like the report addresses these things well.
The lockdown was very different for different people. Those who could work from home and keep their jobs thought it was fine or didn't go far enough. I know my barber, whose whole family worked at the salon, had to shut his doors and got no help from his landlord has a different opinion, as do my offspring who both lost their jobs. Those people who had to work through the unknown for shitty pay (clerks, delivery people, nurses etc) would also have a different view. And many of them had children who were locked out of schools which made everything worse. So sure maybe the lockdown made you feel secure and you think it was appropriate for you but try on a different pair of shoes and you may understand why the convoy appealed.
Enjoyed reading your comments Justin. Full disclosure first - I subscribe to you as part of my attempt to access a broader range of perspectives that are different than mine, so I can improve on my understandings and interactions in what in my little world have become often-serious splits in relationships with family & friends due to our ever-increasing polarizations. Given that, watching you in the documentary and reading your comments has helped me better see another view/side of the convoy story. My limited perspective comes from having observed the entire Ottawa and Coutts situations from start to finish, from a distance. But I did attend almost all major public protests out here in BC because I wanted to find out more about who/what I saw as an incredible, cross-Canada grass roots level of public support and involvement...which methinks has gone virtually unnoticed/unreported by the mainstream media. Part of me feels a lot of people in positions of power and communications are underestimating how many of us disgruntled Common Joes reside outside of the big cities...but that could also be wishful thinking on my part. I don't agree with all you say, but have no desire to challenge any of your comments, nor even the decision of the Commission. To me, by far the most important thing will be to see whether the politicians, public, and you/others will treat the next significant Canadian protest in the same way...because there is sure to be one. And there are an increasing number of people who will be watching at least a wee bit closer. By the way, my congratulations to you on participating in the documentary.
Thanks for the comments Ken!
We often chide the folks who took part in those protests for being irrationally angry — and I think it's a really complex situation. To some degree, as you've not doubt read in this newsletter, we shouldn't give an inch to the folks who demand that we throw out science and legitimize the view that vaccines are dangerous or deadly. They're welcome to that view, but they can't force us to abide by it.
*But* there's lots of areas where the frustration from that broader movement was incredibly warranted. In my view, we didn't get nearly angry enough over the anti-scientific and punitive lockdowns and curfews that were being imposed in Ontario, Quebec, and elsewhere. I generally disagree that vaccine mandates fall into that category, but I think reasonable people can disagree.
We've also done far too little introspection over the irrational and unfair anger that we've felt towards anti-vaxxers. I think, with the benefit of hindsight, it wasn't fair to blame them for the continued spread of the virus nor the state of our ERs.
As for the next protest: I have always been of the opinion that the state is too ham-fisted when it comes to shutting down protests. Having been clubbed and handcuffed by cops earlier in my career, it comes from first-hand experience. I am adamant that the protesters in Ottawa were given an amount of leeway and deference to protest that few other protest movements have been given — and maybe that's not such a bad thing. Protest, so long as it doesn't unduly infringe on other peoples' rights to safety and security, should be celebrated a lot more than it currently is.
I hope you keep reading and engaging! I absolutely don't want to be preaching to the choir.
I think the lockdowns etc were badly used in many places. Here in BC, especially on Vancouver Island, I felt we had a very different pandemic than across the country. We were shut down for a few weeks and then remained mainly open except for restaurants,bars, and gyms that really took a beating that was wrong I thought. My husband worked in an elementary school and continued working. We had a later Spring Break and once schools opened up again then never closed again. Other places were unfortunately opening and closing over and over. Also curfews were beyond the pale! In all struggles people need hero’s and villains and our PM became villain number one, even though the unfair lockdowns and mandates were provincial jurisdiction. There is a very unhealthy hatred of Trudeau senior, including friends of mine, who cannot get past his son being in office. This hatred drives the anger that drives the fear that drives people to do things I really don’t think they would normally even dream of doing. Easy pickings for those with deeper and darker motives. I hope we can all move on from this but don’t know when and how that will happen.
The killer sentence for me was that they were "victims and perpetrators of misinformation". Frustrating indeed.
The US "Jan 6 committee" took testimony from the deep Ohio accent of Stephen Ayres, who talked about being tricked by Trump to come to the Capitol and enter it, for which he was convicted. What the committee, not wanting their helpful witnesses to be disparaged, didn't mention, is that the guy was propagating misinformation himself, the same day and the next day:
https://lawandcrime.com/u-s-capitol-breach/ohio-man-who-said-antifa-was-responsible-for-jan-6-pleads-guilty-to-storming-the-capitol/
...doing videos about how it was only Antifa that invaded the Capitol, though he'd been there himself. That's pretty brazen lying. So, how do you tell such lies, while thinking, "But everything I've been told about how I had to come here, including how I have to help out with blaming Antifa, that's all true".
It's right out of 1984 and double-think, holding two opposite truths in your head at once.
Incidentally, the question that can only be answered about the EA, until people write their memoirs in 20 years, is whether they gave a crap about everything Canadians were going through, or only dropped it because two American politicians said that we were not a reliable trading partner, were causing them to close factories, maybe we should not build cars together any more.
Only what was discussed in private on the last two days before it dropped, would tell that tale.
Ayres is a pretty good candidate for the rare intersection of bug-eyed *and* shameless. The effort to both take credit for Jan6 and say someone else was responsible is some pretty impressive derangement.
Greetings all. As usual Justin, a great overview of the whole darned thing and I might also add a very entertaining read ( not to trivialize or make light of the events that unfolded across our nation one year ago).
I’d like to comment just a tad on something I heard from Gary Mason on CBC’s special edition of, “ At Issue” that aired Friday February 17. He made reference and took slight exception to Rouleau’s comment in the report that stated how the PM’s words, “ a small fringe minority” incited more rage and anger by many in the protest. I agree with Gary when he stated that the alienation and palpable anger towards
Justin Trudeau long predates this latest national crisis at least in western provinces, specifically Alberta. This anger requires no stoking whatsoever. Having lived in Edmonton since 1979 after leaving Toronto I can honestly say that “ F*** Trudeau” virtriol and accompanying visuals have long been a part of the physical and vernacular landscape. The bad blood and history of PET is very much alive in this province.
Initially I was beyond shocked and though not accepting of it all, I have come to realize that it is deep and exists. This is generational anger that is cultivated in family dinner hours and popular coffee hangouts . At times I’m very discouraged. How to personally navigate the when and how to have meaningful respectful dialogue when such anger dominates the narrative?
And as an aside, I’ve worked in education with the most marginalized adult learners in our systems and although the understanding of their obstacles and needs was a mix of pedagogy and compassion, these fellow citizens of this great country present us with an even much greater challenge.
There's no doubt that anger and frustration predates our current Trudeau. I grew up on the other side of the country, in Cape Breton: We've got a particular strain of frustration and alienation back home, too. But that's why it requires politicians to keep that frustration and alienation in their heads at all times, so they don't — unwittingly or intentionally — inflame that sentiment. (See: Harper, "culture of defeat.")
I think people have a really easy time getting angry at a guy behind a podium on TV. I think they have a harder time getting genuinely mad at someone who shows up on their doorstep, or who walks into Timmy's. Maybe it's optimism, but I think the solution to that frustration is still inter-personal. (And, well, a lot of other stuff, too.)
Good overview, but I'm finding your stuff on the state a bit weak because it isn't broken down to federal and provincial responsibility. I would argue part of the problem that ended with the need to invoke the emergencies act was because the Ontario and Alberta provincial governments refused to act. This needs to be stated.
Absolutely. There was a lot to focus on, and I was on deadline! Doug Ford's total inaction and invisibility deserves a ton of separate scrutiny.
Charlotte: Not all right-wing news outlets are created equal. Andrew Lawton is a journalist in a way that Viva Frei is not, e.g.
And we can't ignore the growing audience for these broadcasters. People are flocking to these upstart media outlets because they believe they are the only real source for truth in our society. If we don't try and have a conversation with those folks, they are going to be living in an information bubble.
I think we are way past fears of "legitimizing." We need to find a way to break down barriers, not put them up, while still staying committed to facts, science, and reality.