Oh, Canada! Chapter 13 - Dumbing Down Debate
The world is too much with us; late and soon,
Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers;
Little we see in Nature that is ours;
We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon! – Wordsworth
I tore the tab off a beer, popped a fresh batch of popcorn and sat down for the leaders’ “debate”. Not more than five minutes into it I lamented the fact it was my last beer. I would need fortification to endure this for two hours. I could feel my brain cells atrophy and my blood pressure rise as soon as the first videotaped questioner appeared on screen.
The moderator told the leaders that the networks (this was apparently a collaborative effort on the part of the 3 major networks, typically Canadian) had reviewed more than 10,000 emails from Canadians, each posing a question for the leaders. Presumably a suitably diverse editorial panel had reviewed them all and selected those worthy of having a camera crew dispatched to various parts of Canada to film the questioner.
Now a Grade 10 drama student could tell you of the importance of the opening scene of a play. The scene creates a mood, sets a tone, and provides a glimpse into the themes thought by the playwright and director to be important. So what was the first question and who asked it? It was an earnest looking middle-aged woman from Ottawa (from where else but Ottawa would we expect the first question). She appeared to be standing on a bridge or pedestrian overpass with a city skyline in the background. She told us she had a daughter who was a recent law school graduate, eager to start her legal career. Mom wanted to know how Mr. Harper would justify discrimination against her daughter and her partner Suzie should he form the next government.
Take note class, same sex marriage is a critical issue in this election, especially for sophisticated city dwellers like this lady. According to this lady, by simply being elected, the Conservatives would start discriminating against her daughter. Ten thousand emails and the primary issue raised by those folks concerned the protection of the rights of gays and lesbians to marry? All those polls placing that issue far down the list of major concerns for Canadians must be all wrong. This woman is concerned about the rights of her daughter so a lot must ride on how the leaders answer this important question, right? Well it must as far as the networks are concerned, unaccustomed as they are to a campaign that involves one party advancing concrete policies and actions day after day. We all know the media thrives on the principle of “if it bleeds it leads” so let’s try to stir the pot right from the get go. If nothing else it will allow the networks to use the same- sex question and the imputed presumption of discrimination on the part of the Conservatives as the lead item on the National news later tonight.
We navigated through that issue for 10 minutes, during which we learned nothing new. Paul Martin will defend the rights of minorities to the death. Jack Layton’s warm and tender heart reaches out to that mother and her lawyer daughter sitting home anxious about losing her newly acquired rights. Gilles Duceppe believes no one is free until everyone is free. Steven Harper is left alone to advocate the shocking proposition that since there has never been a truly free vote on the matter, the next Parliament should start there. And, if a free vote favours legislation protecting the traditional definition of marriage, he would introduce such legislation and ask the Supreme Court of Canada to rule on it. And, in no event would he use the notwithstanding clause.
In case you missed it this wasn’t really a debate; it wasn’t even a cheap imitation of a debate. Each leader was given 1 minute to respond to the same question, and 30 seconds to answer any follow up the moderator chose to ask. The participants couldn’t ask each other questions, there was no cut and thrust, no exchange of arguments and ideas between and amongst the participants.
The next questioner was a man from Saskatchewan. He looked to be in his early 30’s and he was standing in what appeared to be either his rumpus room or a gun shop. Racks of rifles filled the background - no neutral city scenes here - certainly no book lined library, no a good ole’ dyed in the wool prairie gun lover. Can't you picture the lady on the bridge in Ottawa assuming that all prairie rumpus rooms look like gun shops. The clever network folks ensured that the image would override the substantive question on the newsclips. Oh yes, the question, gee I was focusing my attention on those guns, I almost forgot what the question was. He wanted to know why we needed more gun controls when the Liberals had already spent billions on one that had produced no results.
Mr. Martin got to answer this one first, and he picked up the timbre in his voice, his hand motions were more resolute and in his best Gary Cooper in High Noon imitation, he promised to get all handguns out of the hands of criminals. Well first he would get them out of the hands of gun collectors, because as he had been told recently one collector had 12 guns stolen from his collection, and they had been used in a variety of crimes including a murder. Cars and trucks are regularly stolen and often are involved in accidents. Sometimes these are fatal and sadly almost always the lives of innocent victims are ended or changed forever. Perhaps cars and trucks should be banned too. All three other leaders pointed out the hypocricy in Martin’s position given the existence for over 70 years of laws which effectively ban handguns, but without enforcement are useless. How many RCMP officers could you hire to enforce the laws with $2 billion?
The evening went on like this. Questions such as: Do you think poverty is the root cause of crime? Yes says Martin, it is one reason, and feeling excluded is another says Martin. Feeling excluded, huh? His source - a young man he spoke to just last week who told Mr. Martin he felt excluded. From what we aren’t told – perhaps he couldn’t get a seat at the Texas Hold Em game at the local casino, who knows. Note the Liberal code words. Exclusion along with poverty causes crime. What is the opposite of exclusion – inclusion! Well done, go to the head of the class and give someone a hug along the way. You now understand Liberal philosophy. What is the cure for poverty and thus crime? Education, more government programs and services, and that great panacea, inclusivity.
Harper accepted that social ills play a role in crime but they can’t blind us from the fact we need to be concerned about law enforcement. We need to start by getting tougher on crime and providing the resources for our police forces to enforce our laws, and we need to toughen our laws, starting with minimum sentences for offences involving the use of guns during crimes.
The next questioner was a young nurse from Calgary asking for specifics on how each leader would actually improve the delivery of health care in Canada. Duceppe made the best point here by pointing out that 10,000 civil servants work in Ottawa in the department of health, and they are not responsible for one hospital in all of Canada. 4,500 of them are charged with the job of promoting health programs. The other leaders gave answers short on specifics, knowing that Canadians are such a dim and timid lot, that they couldn't possibly handle the facts about a dysfunctioal health care system. Like an adolescent refusing to give up the tattered rag doll of her childhood, Canada clings to the lie that is our socialist national health program.
On immigration we had a new Canadian, my guess of Persian or middle eastern origins, demanding to know what the leaders would do to stop discrimination against immigrants in the form of not recognizing their foreign credentials. He ended his question by suggesting if they didn’t get the right answers these folks would just move on to another country. There was a lot of blah, blah, blah here from everyone but Duceppe who said the provinces had the responsibility concerning accreditation and there wasn’t much the Feds could do about it. I suppose it would have been churlish for someone to tell the gentleman that if he and other disaffected immigrants really thought he could find a better place than Canada to live, he was certainly free to do so.
After an hour I began to feel like I do after 45 minutes in the dentist’s chair. Whatever intellect these men possess was kept well in check thanks to the format. There were no surprise questions and each leader kept to his scripted message. Mr. Martin tried to look and sound tough as the protector of the Charter, wagging his chins and fingers at Mr. Harper; and the protector of Canada as he excoriated Mr. Duceppe for his desire to lead Quebec away from Canada. Martin possesses no sense of the ironic.
Duceppe delivered the best one liner on the topic of Western alienation. Thanks to the Liberals said Duceppe, the West wants in and Quebec wants out.
The last questioner was a woman speaking from the sea wall in White Rock. She wanted to know what each leader’s big picture vision of Canada was? What would they like Canada to look like in 50 years? One minute to express your goals and dreams for the Canada of your grandchildren gentlemen. Even Martin Luther King would have had trouble squeezing his I Have a Dream vision into a 60 second sound bite. Duceppe of course brought some perspective to the issue, when he shared his vision of the two sovereign nations of Canada and Quebec getting along well together in 50 years.
After hearing the three federalist leaders dream their dreams of economic prosperity, a strong democracy, and a clean environment, the moderator couldn’t resist asking the final question. In 30 seconds tell us what is Canada’s biggest strength? Its people they all said led by Martin. But he couldn’t help himself from uttering one last smug platitude, when he pointed to our multiculturalism and the absence of the problems that Europe is experiencing. I sure by the January debate, Martin will add Australia to his list of countries we are so superior to when it comes to harmonious multicultural relations. Layton and Harper had the good sense to speak slowly and wait for the light to go on and for his microphone to go dead, thus signaling the end to this excruciating exercise.
It was fittingly symbolic, and so Canadian that the debate was held in a theatre converted into a studio. There were no people in the seats, only the moderator at her desk and a blackened and empty theatre behind her.
Now I must brace myself for the post debate commentaries where no doubt I will question whether I watched the same program as the network talking heads.
We do lay waste our powers and we have given our hearts away if this is the best we can muster in the form of intellectual debate.
Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers;
Little we see in Nature that is ours;
We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon! – Wordsworth
I tore the tab off a beer, popped a fresh batch of popcorn and sat down for the leaders’ “debate”. Not more than five minutes into it I lamented the fact it was my last beer. I would need fortification to endure this for two hours. I could feel my brain cells atrophy and my blood pressure rise as soon as the first videotaped questioner appeared on screen.
The moderator told the leaders that the networks (this was apparently a collaborative effort on the part of the 3 major networks, typically Canadian) had reviewed more than 10,000 emails from Canadians, each posing a question for the leaders. Presumably a suitably diverse editorial panel had reviewed them all and selected those worthy of having a camera crew dispatched to various parts of Canada to film the questioner.
Now a Grade 10 drama student could tell you of the importance of the opening scene of a play. The scene creates a mood, sets a tone, and provides a glimpse into the themes thought by the playwright and director to be important. So what was the first question and who asked it? It was an earnest looking middle-aged woman from Ottawa (from where else but Ottawa would we expect the first question). She appeared to be standing on a bridge or pedestrian overpass with a city skyline in the background. She told us she had a daughter who was a recent law school graduate, eager to start her legal career. Mom wanted to know how Mr. Harper would justify discrimination against her daughter and her partner Suzie should he form the next government.
Take note class, same sex marriage is a critical issue in this election, especially for sophisticated city dwellers like this lady. According to this lady, by simply being elected, the Conservatives would start discriminating against her daughter. Ten thousand emails and the primary issue raised by those folks concerned the protection of the rights of gays and lesbians to marry? All those polls placing that issue far down the list of major concerns for Canadians must be all wrong. This woman is concerned about the rights of her daughter so a lot must ride on how the leaders answer this important question, right? Well it must as far as the networks are concerned, unaccustomed as they are to a campaign that involves one party advancing concrete policies and actions day after day. We all know the media thrives on the principle of “if it bleeds it leads” so let’s try to stir the pot right from the get go. If nothing else it will allow the networks to use the same- sex question and the imputed presumption of discrimination on the part of the Conservatives as the lead item on the National news later tonight.
We navigated through that issue for 10 minutes, during which we learned nothing new. Paul Martin will defend the rights of minorities to the death. Jack Layton’s warm and tender heart reaches out to that mother and her lawyer daughter sitting home anxious about losing her newly acquired rights. Gilles Duceppe believes no one is free until everyone is free. Steven Harper is left alone to advocate the shocking proposition that since there has never been a truly free vote on the matter, the next Parliament should start there. And, if a free vote favours legislation protecting the traditional definition of marriage, he would introduce such legislation and ask the Supreme Court of Canada to rule on it. And, in no event would he use the notwithstanding clause.
In case you missed it this wasn’t really a debate; it wasn’t even a cheap imitation of a debate. Each leader was given 1 minute to respond to the same question, and 30 seconds to answer any follow up the moderator chose to ask. The participants couldn’t ask each other questions, there was no cut and thrust, no exchange of arguments and ideas between and amongst the participants.
The next questioner was a man from Saskatchewan. He looked to be in his early 30’s and he was standing in what appeared to be either his rumpus room or a gun shop. Racks of rifles filled the background - no neutral city scenes here - certainly no book lined library, no a good ole’ dyed in the wool prairie gun lover. Can't you picture the lady on the bridge in Ottawa assuming that all prairie rumpus rooms look like gun shops. The clever network folks ensured that the image would override the substantive question on the newsclips. Oh yes, the question, gee I was focusing my attention on those guns, I almost forgot what the question was. He wanted to know why we needed more gun controls when the Liberals had already spent billions on one that had produced no results.
Mr. Martin got to answer this one first, and he picked up the timbre in his voice, his hand motions were more resolute and in his best Gary Cooper in High Noon imitation, he promised to get all handguns out of the hands of criminals. Well first he would get them out of the hands of gun collectors, because as he had been told recently one collector had 12 guns stolen from his collection, and they had been used in a variety of crimes including a murder. Cars and trucks are regularly stolen and often are involved in accidents. Sometimes these are fatal and sadly almost always the lives of innocent victims are ended or changed forever. Perhaps cars and trucks should be banned too. All three other leaders pointed out the hypocricy in Martin’s position given the existence for over 70 years of laws which effectively ban handguns, but without enforcement are useless. How many RCMP officers could you hire to enforce the laws with $2 billion?
The evening went on like this. Questions such as: Do you think poverty is the root cause of crime? Yes says Martin, it is one reason, and feeling excluded is another says Martin. Feeling excluded, huh? His source - a young man he spoke to just last week who told Mr. Martin he felt excluded. From what we aren’t told – perhaps he couldn’t get a seat at the Texas Hold Em game at the local casino, who knows. Note the Liberal code words. Exclusion along with poverty causes crime. What is the opposite of exclusion – inclusion! Well done, go to the head of the class and give someone a hug along the way. You now understand Liberal philosophy. What is the cure for poverty and thus crime? Education, more government programs and services, and that great panacea, inclusivity.
Harper accepted that social ills play a role in crime but they can’t blind us from the fact we need to be concerned about law enforcement. We need to start by getting tougher on crime and providing the resources for our police forces to enforce our laws, and we need to toughen our laws, starting with minimum sentences for offences involving the use of guns during crimes.
The next questioner was a young nurse from Calgary asking for specifics on how each leader would actually improve the delivery of health care in Canada. Duceppe made the best point here by pointing out that 10,000 civil servants work in Ottawa in the department of health, and they are not responsible for one hospital in all of Canada. 4,500 of them are charged with the job of promoting health programs. The other leaders gave answers short on specifics, knowing that Canadians are such a dim and timid lot, that they couldn't possibly handle the facts about a dysfunctioal health care system. Like an adolescent refusing to give up the tattered rag doll of her childhood, Canada clings to the lie that is our socialist national health program.
On immigration we had a new Canadian, my guess of Persian or middle eastern origins, demanding to know what the leaders would do to stop discrimination against immigrants in the form of not recognizing their foreign credentials. He ended his question by suggesting if they didn’t get the right answers these folks would just move on to another country. There was a lot of blah, blah, blah here from everyone but Duceppe who said the provinces had the responsibility concerning accreditation and there wasn’t much the Feds could do about it. I suppose it would have been churlish for someone to tell the gentleman that if he and other disaffected immigrants really thought he could find a better place than Canada to live, he was certainly free to do so.
After an hour I began to feel like I do after 45 minutes in the dentist’s chair. Whatever intellect these men possess was kept well in check thanks to the format. There were no surprise questions and each leader kept to his scripted message. Mr. Martin tried to look and sound tough as the protector of the Charter, wagging his chins and fingers at Mr. Harper; and the protector of Canada as he excoriated Mr. Duceppe for his desire to lead Quebec away from Canada. Martin possesses no sense of the ironic.
Duceppe delivered the best one liner on the topic of Western alienation. Thanks to the Liberals said Duceppe, the West wants in and Quebec wants out.
The last questioner was a woman speaking from the sea wall in White Rock. She wanted to know what each leader’s big picture vision of Canada was? What would they like Canada to look like in 50 years? One minute to express your goals and dreams for the Canada of your grandchildren gentlemen. Even Martin Luther King would have had trouble squeezing his I Have a Dream vision into a 60 second sound bite. Duceppe of course brought some perspective to the issue, when he shared his vision of the two sovereign nations of Canada and Quebec getting along well together in 50 years.
After hearing the three federalist leaders dream their dreams of economic prosperity, a strong democracy, and a clean environment, the moderator couldn’t resist asking the final question. In 30 seconds tell us what is Canada’s biggest strength? Its people they all said led by Martin. But he couldn’t help himself from uttering one last smug platitude, when he pointed to our multiculturalism and the absence of the problems that Europe is experiencing. I sure by the January debate, Martin will add Australia to his list of countries we are so superior to when it comes to harmonious multicultural relations. Layton and Harper had the good sense to speak slowly and wait for the light to go on and for his microphone to go dead, thus signaling the end to this excruciating exercise.
It was fittingly symbolic, and so Canadian that the debate was held in a theatre converted into a studio. There were no people in the seats, only the moderator at her desk and a blackened and empty theatre behind her.
Now I must brace myself for the post debate commentaries where no doubt I will question whether I watched the same program as the network talking heads.
We do lay waste our powers and we have given our hearts away if this is the best we can muster in the form of intellectual debate.
posted by Ben Buan | 10:55 p.m.
<< Home