Menu

Why newspapers need to close their comments sections

February 4, 2013 By Conversation, First Nations 8 Comments

Imagine you are stuck in traffic.  By the side of a road is a billboard that changes it’s message every five minutes.  You glance over at it and read this:

“Some claim. One race in Canada should not have to work for a living.  That this race should receive millions in funding without accountability.  That the elite of this race should be allowed to defraud their regular people.  How can anyone support this?  How can anyone slam Conservatives for not supporting this like the NDP/Liberals?”

How would you feel?  Would it make you angry?  Would it make you happy?  Would you wonder how a message like that – containing three of five common racist assertions against First Nations peoples, got put up on a billboard for thousands to see?

The billboard is by the side of a road, and the person who has written that has done nothing to warrent the eyeballs that are staring at it. They didn’t pay for the space, they haven’t had their comment fact checked for accuracy.  They haven’t even signed their name.  It appears that no one even cares if it is hate speech.

And then what if a headline on the billboard declared “Join the Conversation!” and had an ad attached to it? Would you feel like there was a conversation to be had?  Would you wonder who was profiting?

This is exactly what comments sections on newspaper web site are.

The above is an actual comment from an anonymous poster that has been allowed to stand in an article about how the Conservative government refuses to make legislative changes to Bill C-45, which is what the Idle No More movement has been protesting.

As a practitioner of real conversation, it drives me crazy that the Globe and Mail among other outlets invites us to “Join the Conversation.”  What happens on newspaper websites is not a conversation.  It is shrill hit and run racism, unsubstantiated opinion, outright lies and conjecture.  It is often targeted personally (the comments against Teresa Spence and Shawn Atleo in recent weeks have been shocking) and  it cheapens the idea of conversation and free speech and poisons the environment of public service for those who wish to enter it.

The fact that newspaper comments sections are moderated matters not at all.  I don’t believe newspapers are doing society any favours by allowing this kind of discourse to happen.

I am not advocating for a restriction on free speech.  What bothers me about this is that anonymous posters are using the reputation of newspaper to get views on their comments.  These posters have done nothing to warrant thousands of people reading their vitriol.  So why do newspapers cultivate market share, and then allow this stuff to stand?  Money?  The longer you linger on a page – and outrage is a cheap thrill – the better the bottom line.  Pandering to the basest forms of rhetoric works for papers.  No matter how much newspapers disclaim the opinions in their comments sections, the fact is that by providing thousands of readers per comment the are enabling hate speech and giving it a wider audience than it would get on its own.

But this stuff absolutely destroys the calibre of public discourse.  Those of us that are part of Idle No More or who have been advocates for progressive solutions to First Nations issues spend all of our time addressing myths and not creating substantial proposals for change.  And when we do table substantial proposals for change, we are met with contempt by mainstream society and policy makers, who often repeat the lines that are propagated in comments sections.

So here’s what needs to happen.  Let free speech thrive in it’s own free market of ideas.  Newspapers should close down their comments sections and invite people to join the conversation by creating their own blogs where they can publish their opinions as much as they like.  If the opinions have merit, they will get a following.  People can invite comments on their own posts.  If newspapers want to actually foster conversation, they should convene large World Cafes where human beings can meet each other face to face and share their opinions without hiding behind anonymous pseudonyms.

in the absence of that, newspapers surely must see that they are complicit in the falling standards of civic discourse.  Has it come to this, that the only stream of revenue for newspapers is link baiting and outrage?  Responsible journalists write the articles and anonymous Canadians provide the juicy violation of media laws that bring in the page views and therefore the revenue.  I wonder if anyone has the steel to change this.

 

Community engagement is dead

February 1, 2013 By Collaboration, Community, Uncategorized 11 Comments

All things come and go and especially in the world of professional helping (otherwise known as “consulting”). I’ve been around the world of enghagement and consultation long enough that I have seen various names for this work: focus groups, advisory groups, public participation, consultation and now community engagement.

Mostlyover all those years, my practice and the practice of the field in general has gone from monolithic broadcasting of ideas to “tell and sell” consultation to much more complex dialogue based work. And now I think I and we are coming to a more seismic shift in how community is engaged. Since the dawn of the social web, citizens and stakeholders have been able to access as much or more information than proponents of engagement projects. It is wise when planning these kinds of things to assume now that your audience and your advisors know more than you do. it was always the case but now it is much more evident.

And so it is occurring to me, after working with some boundary pushers on this stuff that we are at the point where the term “community engagement” is now redundant. If you have community, you don’t need to do engagement. And if you have engagement, you have community.

My friend Tim Merry has taken to saying that we can’t do community engagement we can only do community. Or not. I think this is a compelling idea. Engagement is meaningless now as a term. We are seeking real community, a genuine sense of being in this together. Whether it is public policy or building infrastructure you have the choice to do it to people or do it with people. Just using the word “engagement” is not enough.

Time to put real power behind the idea of community.

The strange case of Canadian contempt

January 28, 2013 By Conversation, First Nations 5 Comments

I have a confession.  I advise people never to read the comments on newspaper websites.  But I do read them.  I can’t take my eyes off them.  They are a train wreck of logic and hate and contemptuous entitlement.

Lately however, especially the comments on stories about First Nations, they seem entirely predictable.  In fact they seem almost too predictable.  Every article on the Globe and Mail website for example contains hundreds of comments, a huge majority of which repeat some basic themes:

  • Nothing should change until First Nations are accountable for their money
  • First Nations get a free ride
  • The chiefs are corrupt and bad fiscal managers.
  • Treaty rights are a joke: there should be one law for all
  • The sooner Aboriginals merge with the rest of us the better.

So let me address these in brief, one by one.

First Nations are accountable. In fact the Auditor-General of Canada said that First Nations are TOO accountable.  Too much is spent reporting on funds and not enough time is spent actually using them.  But just because you can’t be bothered to look up the financial statements from publicly funded governments does not mean they are not accountable.

First Nations do not get a free ride. All governments receive tax dollars for services.  First Nations are no different.  And on top of that, First Nations are eligible for special programs and services because of the nature of the treaty relationship and the entrenchment of Aboriginal and treaty rights in the Constitution.  But this is not a free ride.  This is the result of agreements that asked First Nations to trade away rights to land FOREVER in exchange for some farm tools a few dollars, some new clothes, a reserve owned by the Queen and a school. That isn’t exactly a free ride.  If someone invited you to a similar deal, would you take it?

Chiefs are not any more corrupt that anyone else. People are people .  When people commit crimes they go to jail and do the time for it.  Many, many, federal, provincial and municipal politicians are criminally corrupt as well.  There is no greater number of Aboriginal politicians in jail for corruption.  Also, there is no federal or provincial government that is not in debt.  Having said that, in December 2011, only 12 out of 633 First Nations were in the equivalent of bankruptcy protection. This means that, according to the federal government’s own policies, and based on overly onerous reporting requirements,  98.2% of First Nations are run fine.

In Canada there is one law for all.  That law is the Constitution. It protects treaty rights and Aboriginal rights.  It also protects free speech, privacy, freedom of assembly and so on.  It also allows for laws to be made that are different for different groups of people in order to ameliorate conditions that lead groups of people to have social disadvantages.  Anyone who argues that First Nations are not currently disadvantaged in Canadian society has simply not done the research.

Aboriginal people have merged with Canada. And the mechanism for doing so was treaties.  And where treaties don’t exist, outstanding issues of Aboriginal rights and title still exist and Canadians and First Nations are compelled to figure this question out.  The problem for assimilationists is that they don’t like the terms of this merger.  Well it’s too late for that.  When the ancestors of settlers arrived in this country they inherited the treaty benefits accorded to all Canadians, which allowed them to own land, start businesses, reap the resources, poison the waters, and profit profit profit.  Obviously settlers aren’t giving their benefits back, and clearly First Nations aren’t getting exclusive title over the land back.  We are merged.  And this is Canada.  And it benefits settlers enormously.

The comments I am seeing online have a strange hollow ring to them.  They parrot these objections ad infinitum and you see these lines everywhere.  No one is really thinking about what they are saying, just reacting.  Perhaps in some cases there are coordinated  communications  strategies to keep repeating these lines over and over until they seem true.  But they aren’t true.  You might have opinions, you might have a view of the world and how you want it to work, you might have an agenda, but it’s probably not what is really going on.

Straw man arguing has risen to the level of hollow social contempt.  It seems funny now.  But where it seems real, try a few of these alternate views on and see if you can have an actual conversation.

We are all treaty people

January 23, 2013 By First Nations One Comment

Five years ago I wrote about a speech from former  Governor General Adrienne Clarkson who pointed out that all Canadians are treaty people.

Now more than ever I want to underscore that fact.  Idle No More is drawing attention to the fact that Canada has been founded on a relationship, a relationship that has been set out many times in treaties.  Treaty rights are so foundational to the existence of this country that they are enshrined and protected in the Constitution of Canada.

A lot of recent rhetoric from settler Canadians in the last few months has focused on the benefits that flow to First Nations as a result of treaties.  But we haven’t had the conversation about the benefits that flow the other way.

Under Canadian law, Aboriginal title exists in places where there are no treaties.  This is the case for most of British Columbia, although no First Nation has yet made the case under Canadian Law that they hold title.  But the concept is simple and it is clear.  Without the consent to enter into a different kind of relationship between First Nations and Canada, Aboriginal title exists.  Where Aboriginal title is proven to exist, it has massive implications for Crown land ownership.

Over the past few hundred years, the Crown and later the Crown in right of Canada acted upon the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and pushed its claims further westward making treaties as it went to cement and clarify the relationship with First Nations. This process continues today in BC.  In effect this meant that, in exchange for a few benefits flowing to First Nations, the Crown gained control of lands and resources such that it was able to issue title, permits and licenses for use of land.  If you own land privately or you lease it or you have a permit to operate on Crown land or you extract resources from the land, you are a treaty beneficiary.  You are a treaty person.

Some of the most ridculous opposition to treaty rights comes from people who believe that First Nations should not receive special benefits or have their treaty rights enshrined in the Constitution. This is the same Constitution, by the way, that guarantees the freedom for people to make ridiculous speeches about First Nations.  Most who opposed to treaty rights would have a fit if their free speech rights were taken away, but the rights have exactly the same weight in Canadian law: the are protected in the Constitution.

Opposition that is littering comments sections around the web essentially comes down to this: we should tear up the treaties and just have indigenous people assimilate into Canadian society.  But this is a ridiculous position.  If we tear up treaties, then the contracts are broken and the ownership of the land reverts to First Nations.

If people want to restart the relationship, fine.  I’m sure that First Nations will be more than happy to return the billions of dollars of benefits for the trillions of dollars of land value.  Then we can start negotiations again.  What would you pay now for the right to own private land, or the right to earn a living extracting resources?  Trust me, setller governments got the bargain of the millenium.  Never has so much been given away for so little, the billions that flow to First Nations every year are a small portion of the trillions that are earned off of formerly Aboriginal-owned lands..

Every Canadian is a treaty person.  Every Canadian benefits from treaties made with First Nations, and every Canadian has responsibilities under those treaties as well.  First Nations have rights and under treaty have responsibilities too.  Idle No More is simply about respecting that we have a relationship and that we all have to live up to it.  It is very difficult to do so when huge numbers of your “partners” don’t even acknowledge that they have made a bargain that benefits them.

So allies, make this point to your friends and those who don’t understand the relationship.  Ask them where they think the right to own land comes from?  It comes from treaties.  If they don’t believe you, point them to the Delgamuukw court ruling which says that Aboriginal title cannot be single handedly extinguished by the Crown.  It’s simple.  When you realize how much you have gained through the power of a longstanding and honourable relationship, you should be thankful.  If you still resent the benefits and rights that First Nations enjoy under this relationship, then offer back your land and your ability to make a living and feed yourself and keep your hard earned tax dollars.  You cannot be a Canadian without inheriting the legacy of treaty makers.  You cannot have the benefits without the responsibilities.  This country would never have existed without these agreements and that is why they are protected.

Such a small price to pay for such a huge benefit.  Why not celebrate and honour the agreements that make Canada possible?

Living under a winter high

January 21, 2013 By Being, Bowen One Comment

Fog in the Queen Charlotte Channel

Just beautiful weather here the last week.  We have been living under a high pressure system that is forcing some wonderful meterological phenomena.  Notably, the high pressure traps cold air near the sea and creates an inversion, meaning that the moisture can’t escape and form clouds, so it lingers at sea level forming think banks of fog that fill the Strait of Greorgia and Parts of Howe Sound.

Last night the fog bansk were as thick as they can get and all night long we were treated to the soothing symphony of dozens of different fog horns sounding out in the dark.  the Point Atkinson lighthouse, which is miles away at the entrance to English Bay has a classic two tone deep “eeeee-ooooo” and the whistles and horns from moving ships in the night answered the call.

This morning in the bright sunshine on Bowen, the fog did it’s best to fill the Sound, but we somehow escaped the cool, and we are being treated to an incredible display of light and blue sky and grey fog flowing in from the Strait.  There is something to be said about how bright the sun is when it rises out of the fog and reflects off the tops of what previously obscured it.

Yesterday, the kids and I went skiing at Cypress and the view from Mount Strachan shows the way the fog coats the city and eases part way into Howe Sound.  It made for beautiful views, and a gorgeous sunset.