Shocked, shocked

Many people seem to believe that the Vic Toews' controversy of last week was a lesson to the government about using inflamed rhetoric -- that we won't see Conservatives demonizing their opponents again as allies of pornographers, pedophiles and the Taliban. I'm afraid I'm not so sure. 

First, a confession. I barely blinked last week when Toews made his now-infamous remark about child pornographers. Why? Because this is kind of business as usual around Ottawa in recent years. All week, I was constantly reminded of that part in Casablanca when the police chief pronounces himself "shocked, shocked" to find there was gambling going on in Rick's Cafe. Yet to listen to the tut-tutting on Cross-Country Checkup on the weekend -- in which there was virtual unanimity on the beyond-the-pale nature of Toews'  remarks  -- you'd think it was the first time a cabinet  minister made an outrageous slur like this against disssenters on the opposition benches. Unfortunately it's not. And my bet is that it won't be the last one. How sure am I of this? Well, let's look at what the Prime Minister himself said the day after Mr. Toews made the odious comparison. 

With respect to child pornography, our party is very much against it, and I encourage the NDP to join us in taking that stand.

 

Actually, I'd invite folks to go to the openparliament.ca website and do their own searches of words such as "pornographer" or "pedophiles." (I know, I know. That's almost begging for some online surveillance, isn't it?) Note how those words have been casually tossed back and forth across the aisles.

The difference this time, it seemed to me, was that Globe and Mail columnist John Ibbitson, my co-panelist on CTV's Power Play, wrote up a stern little missive after Toews' remarks last Monday. Yes, that's right: the modern-day Internet pile-on was prompted, at least in large part,  by traditional media. Now, I'm not saying that people didn't get the information elsewhere -- the Canadian Press was also quick off the mark in reporting Toews' slur after he said it. But was Toews straying off tried-and-true methods of political rhetoric these days? No, he was not. He must be baffled why he's getting all the flak for a communications strategy that has obviously enjoyed the seal of approval from PMO for quite some time now. Shocked? Welcome to the club. (And please don't mistake that as any sympathy or support for Mr. Toews' brand of smear. I just think he shouldn't be the only one held responsible.) 

I've been doing a lot of reading/research into political marketing these past few weeks while I'm doing this book. And while I hate to be the one to dim any optimism about teachable moments in politics, I'd like to draw your attention to some remarks made  in November, 2010, in the Commons, a good six months before the election last year that gave the Conservatives their majority and saw this particular Bloc MP lose his seat.  Newly scandalized observers of Canadian politics might want to take note of Mr. St. Cyr's particular objections to how dissent was being handled. (Emphasis is mine.) 

.....we think the government is taking us in exactly the wrong direction for political marketing reasons.

Earlier today, the question of bill titles arose. The Conservative minister made fun of the fact that the opposition members were complaining about the ridiculous titles of the bills that the government introduces and he said it was frankly not a very important issue. If it is not important, then, why does the government insist on giving its bills stupid titles?

This happens not just in the justice area but everywhere. They talk about cracking down on crooked consultants or protecting Canadians against something or other when the bill does not even do that. They talk about ending early release for dangerous criminals when this does not exist. These titles are complete lies. So why does the government do it if it thinks it is unimportant?

The fact is the government does it for political marketing reasons. It does not really believe in the content of its bills itself. It simply inflicts these ridiculous titles on us. Today we have the Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act. That is a completely gratuitous statement devoid of any basis in reality. First, talk about protecting Canadians has no place in the bill. It is just an opinion. Some people, including the Conservatives, say they believe it will protect Canadians. The experts, though, tend to think it will not have any preventive or dissuasive effect. So the title is untrue. There are no sentence discounts for multiple murders. As the law now stands, the minimum sentence for first degree murder, for example, is life in prison. There is no discount. What the bill addresses is the cumulative nature of the parole system. The title has nothing to do with the actual bill.

Once again, some members will say that the title itself is not really important. The title does not make the bill, but what that means—and this is what I want to say to the people who are watching today—is that the government is lying right to their faces. Obviously, the people at home are not going to get a copy of the bill and look at the changes it makes to the Criminal Code. They have obligations and work to do. They are very busy with families, children, jobs and homes. I understand that we cannot all study this country's laws. So what will the average person rely on to try to form an opinion? The average person will rely on what he is told the bill does. If he is told the bill protects people against murderers, he will say it is a good bill. Who is opposed to protecting people against murderers? The answer is obvious. But the public is being deceived and fooled by the government. I think that is insulting to the public.

I have the opportunity to talk with people in my riding, as we all do, and sometimes some of them tell me they do not agree with our positions. They have seen the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice on the news, saying that the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of pedophiles. He is very good at that. Someone who hears that calls my office and asks whether the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of pedophiles. Come on. As though any member of this House gets up in the morning and thinks about what he or she could do to help pedophiles. It is completely crazy to even suggest that to the public.

The bill the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice was referring to at the time had to do with the trafficking of minors. The word “trafficking” appeared nowhere in the bill, apart from the title. So the bill's title referred to the trafficking of minors, but the substance of the bill had nothing to do with that. We can see that the government wants to deceive and fool the public.

I tell people to beware of politicians who take them for idiots and think they are incapable of reasoning for themselves.

 

Again, Mr. St. Cyr lost his seat in the last election. I'm sure, watching this from afar, that he's not all that shocked by what he heard last week in the Commons. 

 

 

Comments

[TheLaughingMan]

Stephen Harper, John Baird, Rob Nicholson and Vic Toews should be tarred and feathered, then banished from Canada!

[SteveV]

I think part of the reason this particular event caught fire is because of what the rhetoric was attached to, if not for the "big brother" element I suspect the whole affair would have been the usual blip. Was it the words themselves or the issue they were wrapped around?

Another aspect to this story that has been overshadowed by all this talk of anger, vitrol, nastiness, this issue really reached critical mass through the use of humour. TellVicEverything was adorably Canadian, expressing ourselves using laughter, playful sarcasm as a vehicle.

[Bryan B]

Agree with Steve about rhetoric but also think that timing was uncharacteristically poor. The government is usually more clever than to juxtapose (to refer back to that Telegraph article you posted earlier, Susan) obviously libertarian moves like ridding us of that onerous bureaucratic gun registry with even more obviously statist gestures like C-30. That both attached themselves to justice & public safety issues, & both stuck to the same minister, created a real cognitive dissonance. I can't even decide anymore if I'm truly outraged or cynically resigned to - as you put it, Susan - the expedience of Harper's so-called conservatism.

[Aongasha]

Hmmmm?
http://www.natural-person.ca/pdf/Burn_This_Bill.pdf

[Asking the right questions]

Harper and gang have made ample use of the "powerful" negative words, first promoted by Gingrich et al for the Republican National Committee in the 90's, to counter their opponents. It IS marketing and rarely political discourse but it has proven successful in a sound bite world. What really captured me this time was Toewes blatant, Bushian response. If you have the temerity to question any part of this legislation, you obviously have pedophilic tendencies! (You are either with us or agin' us as Bush said). I urge Canadians to note how seldom a minister of the Harper govmt will factually answer an opposition question, versus reply with a demonizing taunt. It is their playbook. You are so right to note that nothing is new in the CPC response here - except that this time many citizens have noted the bullying disconnect. The opposition has raised valid questions and many genuinely appear to have read the bill! And the Harper govmt wants to pass even more destructive crime legislation?

[Bill in Orleans, ON]

Communications strategies used by the political establishment are in need of serious work. Everyone (including the general public) is beyond tired of the usual packaging produced by communications strategists.

This particular situation is but one example - and it touched a vary raw nerve regarding Internet privacy and freedom of speech. With the recent public outcry against the US' SOPA and PIPA proposals similar Canadian legislation was guaranteed scrutiny. People are not so stupid that they'll let a nuclear bomb slip when it is packaged as a garden variety pesticide. Giving police unwarranted access to all Internet communications and selling it as pedophile surveillance is overreaching. I'd rather a judge provide oversight, thank you very much.

This was a communications and policy drafting fail.

[Monica]

**It is completely crazy to even suggest that to the public.**
But over and over, crazier and crazier...

I wasn't aware that Harper repeated Toews' assertion, the next day. good lord.

[glenn storey]

hey susan. milton represent!

[Guest One]

I knew I couldn't be the only one disgusted by Harper's hypocrisy in his statement responding to the Toews slander by directly slandering the NDP...

[Michael]

What's most distressing now that the Bill C-30 is being tabled is that it now seems that Toews simply didn't understand the details or even read the Bill before attacking its opponents so righteously. That means at least his support of invasive legislation wasn't out of malice, just ignorance. Which then also means he's only guilty of being grossly incompetent in his duty. http://www.shockandahh.com/2012/02/vic-toews-incident-lawful-access.html

[albertaclipper]

Bill C30 is the problem. Vic Toews is a weak MP who should step down from his post. The Feds under Harper are moving in the right direction. This particular bill, like the LGR are completely wrong. The bureaucrats who wrote the bill in 2002 for Chretien and convinced Toews that it was a good idea should be retired along with Toews.

[rod jovan]

Personally I believe Mr. St Cyr had a valid and timely point, but sadly, we are all falling for this governments' deceipt once again. Has anyone seen the content of the "Free Trade Agreement with China, signed on our behalf by the PM? This Vic Toews "scandal" is simply a ruse..."look over here, don't watch what we are signing away", and we Canadians do. Time and time again!
Another example of this being the Northern Gateway and Keystone pipelines. While Canadians watch the circus act, the real dirty business goes on behind the curtain.

This Prime Minister is more than living up to the reputation he so desperately worked at hiding during his minority government. This will be the most destructive term in office in Canadian history, and, may very well be the end of Canadian history. Remember his most famous quote and pray he does not achieve his odious goal of destroying Canada as we know it.