Integrity, Ethics, Smear Campaigns, and Accountability - Alberta Votes 2019, part 1

There is a really interesting thing happening in politics at the moment. It's a weird sort of doublespeak.

Not too long ago, one could say things like:

• The earth is round
• Scientific facts should be the basis of policy
• Vaccinations save thousands of lives
• Nazis are bad

And not be contradicted by anyone. Even those who might disagree on any of those points probably would not want to make it known they felt that way.

That seems to have all changed. We are living in an age of "fake news" and "alternative facts". Both are deeply troubling.

Fake news, one might assume, encompasses conspiracy theories, gossip about celebrities, urban myths, and extremist propaganda. These types of things are purveyed by fringe media companies and independent websites and podcasts, right? Well, yes and no.

That certainly used to be the case. You'd see badly doctored photos of celebrities on the cover of the National Enquirer on the way through the checkout line and be amazed that anyone actually believed that sort of nonsense. The tabloids have a number of Hollywood and TV personalities living lives of great turmoil and intrigue, making them appear far more interesting than they probably actually are. Another thing North American tabloids do is make fantastical pronouncements about the royal family.

"Queen kicks Camilla out of the palace!"

"Feud between Kate and Meagan!"

 "Queen is stepping down, names William and Kate as King and Queen!"

It's all absolute twaddle, of course. For starters, anyone who has any inkling of how the monarchy works in the UK knows that is simply not how succession is done. And the claims of huge turbulence in the lives of the royals appear to be quite unfounded. But there are some people who do believe that Queen Elizabeth is an absolute monarch rather than a symbolic head of state. People who haven't got a clue what she does might imagine she can shout "Off with his head!" and something dire would actually happen. And they do believe these stories and buy the papers and keep the Murdochs of the world in caviar.

That has gone on for a long time. But for accurate reporting of current events we could turn to many reputable sources. We still can, of course, but it is much more difficult to know, with certainty, that the source is accurate.

For a long time, media in Canada and around the world have had a slant to the way they report things. Some media outlets tend to lean left, like the Toronto Star, while others tend to lean right, like the chain of Sun newspapers. Both report the news but different aspects of a story may be emphasized, depending on the editorial slant of the publication. The majority of Canadian media seem to be centre-right, including the Globe and Mail, the National Post, The Calgary Herald, etc. This is quite clear if we look at which party various media sources has backed in recent federal elections:

People tend to choose media sources that present a world view that they agree with. However, with the proliferation of online media sources, the spectrum has widened considerably. Canadians also have access to much more American media than ever before.

There are numerous attempts to place popular news sources on a spectrum or grid to show how they present information relative to one another and, perhaps, an unbiased central truth. For example:

This chart was developed by Vanessa Otero, an American lawyer who became very concerned about the biases in the media people consume and the effect that could have on society. You can read about the research that went into developing the chart here.

Clearly, there is a cluster of news media at the top centre of this chart that represents the least biased of the options. However, as one moves down the chart, it is clear that there are many media sources that people are accessing for news that range from wildly inaccurate interpretations to total lies.

People read something in the Daily Caller or Breitbart and then spread it around, proclaiming that "this is not being covered by mainstream media!" They pass these things around on social media, convincing one another that there is a massive cover-up and the mainstream media is in on it.

To make matters much cloudier, the current President of the United States has taken to declaring any news coverage he doesn't like to be "fake news". So we have his followers further convinced that the main stream media outlets are deceiving them.

And then, in January of 2017, the President's advisor, Kellyann Conway, told NBC news that Sean Spicer, White House Press Secretary, "gave alternative facts" (2:00 mark). This kind of talk makes sane, rational people's heads hurt.

There are no "alternative facts". There are facts and there are not-facts, also known as lies. This was a tipping point in the way people interact with reality.

Jump ahead to the Charlottesville confrontation, where clashes between white supremacists with tiki torches and anti-fascist protestors culminates in a woman being run down by a car. Trump goes on media and declared there was "blame on both sides".

This is a natural extension of a tricky bit of communications that began several years earlier. The Black Lives Matter movement began as a rallying point for African Americans to protest and draw attention to racialized violence by American police. However, some took offense to this. They countered with an "All Lives Matter" slogan. The genesis of the All Lives Matter appears to have been within the Republican Party, perhaps driven by a desire to change the channel from the growing focus on systemic racism. While "All Lives Matter" may be interpreted by some as more inclusive, it is actually a way to ignore or minimize the very real, and very life-threatening, issues faced by African Americans.

See what they did there? They made a slogan that is very hard to argue with. Of course all lives matter. The point of Black Lives Matter was not to suggest ONLY black lives matter. It was not, as some on the right insisted, racist. It was a reminder that black lives matter TOO. And this made quite a few people very angry, insecure, and hostile.

"Blame on both sides" or "very fine people on both sides" is a way of giving a nod and a wink to white supremacists, neo-nazis, fascists, and other hate groups. This moral ambiguity sends a signal that this person/politician/leader is open to, at the very least, tolerate, if not fully embrace these factions.

We are seeing this in Canada as well. CPC Leader, Andrew Scheer, seems to have a lot of trouble condemning racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and misogyny. The same can be said of quite a few of the current crop of conservatives in both federal and provincial politics. What's that about? Well, it certainly appears, from scans of the various conservative parties' facebook pages, Twitter feeds, and comments on news articles, that a goodly number of those who support and would vote for these parties feel there isn't a problem with holding these kinds of views. If Scheer, Ford, Kenney, or any of the other leaders on the right actually and convincingly condemned hate groups and hatred based on ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, they would lose votes.

Now, in the election in Alberta, we are seeing yet another evolution of this phenomenon.

Two UCP candidates have withdrawn from the race this week because hateful comments they wrote in the past have come to light.

The first was Caylan Ford, a handpicked "star candidate" brought in from Ontario. She had made some comments suggesting that white far-right terrorists, such as those who shoot up mosques, are discriminated against compared with Muslim terrorists. She also expressed sadness that white people are being replaced by immigrants in their homeland.

She resigned. But then she did an unusual thing. She fought back. She issued a statement suggesting she had been taken out of context.

The second was Eva Kiryakos. She had issues about which bathroom people use, and views on females wearing modest clothing because males are very visual, and she shared some meme from a far-right group saying that Muslim refugees in Germany are causing a rape crisis. She withdrew from the race. But then she did an unusual thing. She fought back.

She issued a statement on Twitter and a statement and video on her facebook page. In her video she describes herself and mentions key points of her history. She is, in effect, the perfect candidate for a party desperately trying to dispel the impression that they are racist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant, and misogynist. She is a woman, she is from Iraq, she is a refugee. Also, she does not deny saying the things she was reported to have said. She seems to be justifying her opinions. Then she goes on to say she had been bullied from the race because of her views. A bit about freedom of speech and the importance of everyone being able to express their opinions.

In effect, her message is that there is nothing wrong with holding these views, or expressing these views. Even if you are a candidate that hopes to take part in forming public policy and legislation.

Some on the progressive side have tried to explain that's not how this all works.

Meanwhile, UCP supporters have taken up her cause, saying the left is bullying and oppressing by not finding her views acceptable in a political candidate. 

And eventually it devolved into the sort of bitter exchange one becomes all too familiar with on Twitter.

And where does Jason Kenney stand on all this? Two of his star candidates resigned. Other candidates have been in the news recently for a variety of sexist, racist, etc. comments. Of course he was asked about it. "You know, we've tried to do very vigorous candidate screening to ensure that people had not expressed truly hateful views, but our standard was not perfection. In a world of social media, sometimes people post things that they learn to regret, or they articulated themselves in an awkward way. But, if our standard was that no one had ever said anything that anybody could possibly construe as offensive, you know, that would be a standard very few people could meet."

The question that springs to mind is, if it is so difficult to find candidates who don't post hateful, extremely biased views, why are the other parties not plagued with the same issue?

But I digress.

Those on the organized right are trying to shift the line again.

Our society has evolved over the past hundred years or so. Commonly held beliefs include:

• All people are equal, regardless of race/ethnicity, colour, religion (or the lack thereof), gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, country of origin, or socioeconomic status.
• All people deserve equal protection under the law.
• All people deserve equal opportunity to be educated, employed, secure housing, and be free of persecution on the basis of any of those attributes listed above.

Not too long ago you could make these assertions without fear of someone trying to shout you down. Even those who disagreed were unlikely to air those views publicly. Because they were not socially acceptable. Because I suspect even those who held them knew, deep down, they held nasty, angry, hateful views.

What we are seeing now is not people being caught out in their nasty views and disappearing in disgrace. We are seeing those who hold these views standing up for them, and others lauding their courage and determination. Leaders refusing to take a stand against that sort of view.

This is a dangerous and slippery slope. To read some of the things people on the right post in social media, to see how vociferously they defend their views, is frankly terrifying. No longer grumbling under their breath, the door is being opened to them to express their hatred openly.

This sort of hatred is not normal. Babies are not born with hatred or fear of the "other". That is taught to them. And we seemed to be doing well in changing the narrative, changing the kinds of things that children learn. But now we seem to be going backwards.

Or rather, the holdouts who have carried hateful, fearful views in their hearts, those who truly believe they are superior than other people and that other specific groups are lesser than themselves, are feeling emboldened to pronounce these views and are supported in defending them.

And it is leaders like Trump, like Ford, like Scheer, and like Kenney, who do not condemn these views, who do not demonstrate that they, themselves, do not hold these views, who are creating public space for this.

How many people will be victimised or die before we turn this around? Before the proponents of bigotry and hatred are refused access to positions of power?

The right has created a paradigm wherein the intolerant, the biased, the haters, and yes, the fascists can rewrite the story and cast themselves as the victims of those who do not share their views. This is an incredibly dangerous development. They are attempting to make their harmful views sacrosanct. They are trying to intimidate people so they will not face criticism. They are signalling that any challenging or calling out of their views will result in the one doing the calling out being cast as a bully. They are trying to silence those who seek to see a better society for everyone.

They are trying to turn the tables, to normalize their intolerant thinking again. They are trying to turn back the clock in our society to a place and time where patriarchy and white supremacy ruled, and if you weren't a white male you were worth less.

Don't let them confuse you, or intimidate you,  when you try to do the right thing.