Category: Columns

During the London and UK riots last week, many commentators — myself included — wondered about a social media shutdown and mobile shutdown in affected areas. As the riots were coordinated and congregated via Twitter, Facebook and Blackberry Messenger why wouldn’t a society moving to enforce the rule and law and restoreorder to its street hit the killswitch on certain websites and mobile services?

To begin, the United Kingdom is a democracy which embraces 800 years of rights stemming from the Magna Carta. In distressed countries where democracy is fragile and non-existent, the use of social media has been a welcome boon for those wanting others to hear their voice.

When citizens are able to cast ballots, they are much less likely to cast stones. Indeed, in 1962, President John F. Kennedy said in an address to the diplomatic corps of Latin American countries,

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

The ability to speak freely — and the use of one’s preferred forum to express it — is a safety valve that allows a diversity of views to co-exist in a society. Clamping the valve and shutting down vocal expression can cause the manifestation of expression to be violent instead.

The United Kingdom isn’t a dictatorship and one is virtually free to speak, even via Twitter. The threat by Prime Minister David Cameron to shutdown social networks to restore order would set a terrible precedent. It was reminiscent of the absolute power practiced unblinkingly by governors in Libya and Saudi Arabia.

What of the use of the social media to co-ordinate clean up efforts, civic responsibility, and even rescue? On the other side, what consequence of discarded freedom to restore order more obvious than the unchecked abuse of those restoring the order?

It has also been argued elsewhere that tabloid television and 24 hour cable news do much to sensationalize and disseminate information that encourages disorder rather than restore or maintain it. Accessible, instantaneous, and compelling information is not only biased to lead when it bleeds (or burns) but the regionally and temporally disparate can all-to-often seem local and immediate, causing panic.  Television blackouts are common in China for example, where a recent train crash prompted crackdown of Chinese media which could have seeded criticism of the government. China fears the disorder that could be caused by government criticism. What happens when instead of restoring order via censorship, government looks to preemptively maintain it by doing the same?

In all circumstances, speech is like water that runs downhill. Attempts to halt its progress will only create new channels and the more than is done to dam it, the more catastrophic the breach.

Instead of trying to shape a new reality, policy makers must recognize and work with the reality that exists. Wisely navigating social media channels can be an advanced and immediate tool for law enforcement while hitting the killswitch will have unintended consequences. And yet, while information control can create a mollified populace, it can also breed ignorance. When we have more information and a more unfettered ability to communicate it, the lower the potential there is for our own societal self-destruction.

First Air Canada then Canada Post. What does the future hold in showdowns of Conservatives versus the union-backed New Democratic Party?

I noted a couple of days ago about how fast the NDP folded on their filibuster regarding bill C-6, back-to-work legislation. Why, I wondered, had they given up so easily? Indeed, Jack’s pack could have filibustered on all amendments to stretch out the debate not over days but weeks. Yet, when the NDP gave up after a few days, their union backers did not tear them up. Why?

Further, why was the Conservative government so eager to bring about legislation to legislate both Air Canada employees and posties back to their jobs?

The NDP is likely keeping their filibuster powder dry. In the ultimate showdown between the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) and the government, both sides have pre-positioned themselves in Parliament.

On one hand, the Conservatives have given government departments notice to table a 5% review plan and a 10% review plan. These strategic and operational revues will inevitably mean job cuts to the Public Sector and this has already set the union that represents these workers on red alert.

Within days of promised strike action, the government had legislation on the ready to cram work stoppages back into the can. One reporter noted to me that an amateur caucus of the NDP had faced off against a well-oiled Conservative machine.

However, the NDP’s strategy may have not yet become apparent to all. Perhaps the New Democrats have simply introduced the filibuster concept while not causing Canadians to tire of it so that they can unleash the mother of all filibusters when the government tables its plan for reductions in the public service. While setting the priming charge, the NDP is keeping their powder dry for big battle they intend to fight.

The NDP filibuster over bill C-6 is over and it ended with more of a whimper than a bang.

With 102 MPs allowed to speak for 20 minutes (not including about 10 minutes of questions) on each stage of the legislation to put postal workers back on the job, the NDP perplexingly gave up much too early.

Solidarity forever, or at least until Saturday at 8pm. The NDP could have presented 102 speakers on the hoist motion and 102 speakers on *each* of the 22 subsequent amendments to the legislation. Further, they could have presented any number of amendments for the third reading of the bill. Indeed, they could have filibustered until CUPW reached a deal with Canada Post, or until the House was scheduled to resume on September 19.

It was a surreal scene: MPs reading emails from their constituents on the importance of postal delivery, the PM sleeping on his office couch, hospitality suites in Centre Block, and David Chistopherson rousing everyone at 3am in the House with his over-the-top mad-as-hell routine.

For many MPs, this was their first time participating in the House. Sure, most had risen before to thank their MPs by reading an SO31, but for a number of rookies, this was their first real exposure. From both sides, I’ve heard that the filibuster was good for team building: being stuck on Thursday for 56 hours can do that to you.

Regarding the issue itself, it was about a preemptive Canada Post lockout in the face of imminent rotating strikes by CUPW. If we look at the context of pre-positioning for an agreement, the government’s legislation also undercut Canada Post proposed offer giving the union additional incentive to settle with the Crown corporation.

On the legislation, it’s an ugly thing to see the government step in and meddle in a negotiation between two parties. Collective bargaining is a right, however there is no right to “strike” and to hold a company hostage. Then again, politics isn’t a game for philosophical purists. Back to work legislation is a perfect example of the imperfect and ugly sausage-making business of politics.

The Liberals were very much absent from the debate. The interim leader and about 2/3 of his caucus were absent from the votes. Mailing it in had a few Liberal partisan friends wondering again why they still back the Grits, now decimated.

The NDP must consider a few items going forward. First, they promised a different sort of politics and they’ve always promised to “make Parliament work”. The filibuster may be an effective tool in their arsenal for future political debates, but Canadians will become cynical of the tactic after it loses its renewed novelty. Second, the Conservatives will provide plenty of opportunity for the NDP to be polarized partners on issues. On the restoration of postal services this split was 70-30 but it was a stark division without much ground in between. The Conservatives and the NDP can provide each other many victories in this majority parliament. Keeping the Liberals marginalized and creating an established champion on the left in the NDP are in the interests of both the Tories and the Dippers. However, this dance will end with the Conservatives if the Dippers jam every piece of legislation in the 41st Parliament.