Letter to the Island Tides

Dear Editor,

Thank you to Elizabeth May for her May 3^rd article, “The Ongoing Attack on Charities”. I very much appreciate Elizabeth's representation in parliament and I am continuously impressed at her commitment to staying in touch with her constituents. Thank you Elizabeth!

There is one point in her article with which I disagree: when she suggests that Canadians are losing our sense of outrage in the face of suppression of dissent. This is not what I sense.

In my experience, Canadian democracy has operated on a good faith system: the assumption that politicians would try their best to do what was right for the public interest including those who did not vote for them. All we had to do was to vote, stay informed on the issues and politely speak our views. We always expected neglect from our leaders, but we expected them to at least make a show of trying.

The tables have turned rather abruptly though, with the emergence of tactics such as the willful misleading of voters away from their polling stations, secrecy of committee meetings and foreshortening of parliamentary debate. The threat to charitable organizations is just the next in a line of anti-democratic actions which this government is taking.

This quick shift from good faith to suppression of dissent has, I think, caught us all off guard. It is all too clear that we are talking to people who do not wish to listen. The abundance of online petitions and the opportunity to try and find our poling station every four years is obviously no longer enough for Canadians, the problem is that we don't know what else there is for us to do!

Sincerely,

Emily McIvor

Subjectivity and Alienation through Kony 2012

Walking home earlier today, I saw a Kony 2012 poster. The graphics were catchy, the message, popularized by abundant social media, very clear. What caught my attention the most however, was a catch phrase at the base of the sheet which stated, “(finally!) one thing we can all agree on.” I smiled sadly at the irony.

Kony 2012, the campaign, has in fact been immediately and hotly contested from many sides. The arguments against it include disgust at an effort to bring fame to someone responsible for the horrific recruitment and use of child soldiers in Uganda; impatience with simplistic solutions to remote and complex problems (the main one having been along the lines, “get 'im”) and concerns over political association and the financial background of the producing organization. All of these immediate and impassioned arguments sounded reasonable. But then so did the campaign video.

What I was left with after hearing abbreviated accounts of all this from my sons was an initial anxiety at the ferocity of the argument but also a general sense that there are in fact some important issues that we could all agree about. Among these: that the use of child soldiers is absolutely evil, that response to awful things in foreign countries may be complex and that being really clean and up-front about vested interests in any action is important.

In fact, despite the fact that members of my immediate family have taken opposite positions on this argument, the more I think about it, the more optimistic I feel. The campaign itself is evidence of an urgent awareness of moral right and wrong (something occasionally thought missing from modern life) and the criticism reflects active critical capacity among observers. The key to satisfaction over this popular political debate lies in three ideas: that there may not be one single universal truth; that it's okay if we disagree about really important things and that a creative discussion of the issues is essential.

Shifting the discussion from positions (answers) which are fixed and tend to be linked to identity (“It's right because it's my idea”) to interests which are more often common goals (keeping kids and communities safe) can help us to see the good in what others are saying. This allows us to see what we have in common with others and helps us to take our attention off the conflict and put it toward building unity and common purpose. Kony 2012, in their plea for one thing we can all agree on, voiced an anxiety which is relatively unique to modern thinking. The places we tend to get hung up are identity (a statement's validity depends on who said it) and alienation (feeling unable to join in the discussion).

Discussions like this are what poltics is and we are already doing it. All of our voices are important, all of our truths are a part of what it is to be one of a group which despite all thoughts to the contrary is the reality we live.