“Drilling for fear makes the job simple.” –Eddie Vedder
The Harper Government is becoming more like the Bush Administration with each passing day. Apparently uninterested in public and professional opinion, social issues, and international advising, the Conservatives have recently pushed forward with a slew of farcically right-wing policies that Harper’s old buddy George would, I imagine, have supported. It seems Harper isn’t aware of the reputation Bush’s policies and beliefs earned him in international circles if he thinks these are the sort of actions that are going to put him on the map.
What makes the Conservative government most resemble the Republican Party is the rampant anti-intellectualism it propagates and employs. While the Conservatives have not reached the point of calling college-goers ‘snobs’ or educated people ‘elitists’, they have picked up on the Republicans’ more dangerous anti-intellectual tactic of fear-mongering. We’re being subtly encouraged, through backhanded and sensationalist rhetoric, to stow away our rational side in favour of our paranoid side (which is much more easily manipulated), always under the guise of ‘the interest of public safety’. While I could point to several examples of this, there is one recent quote which I think sums it up quite nicely, and I’m fairly certain you know which one it is. In a bid to justify the recently-tabled Bill C-30, a massive online surveillance bill which would give the government authority to rifle through anyone’s online activity without the need of any real justification, public safety minister Vic Toews boldly stated that you are either “with us, or the child pornographers.” So, the new definition of ‘valuing one’s privacy’ apparently includes a clause about supporting kiddie porn. I must remember to look that up on Urban Dictionary.
Ah, the good old ‘us versus them’ approach. Always good for whipping the sheep into action. This trashy piece of propaganda has cropped up in various forms throughout history, usually as a means of justifying otherwise-controversial political move. By reducing the issue to a very stark black-and-white picture, with order on one side and evil on the other, it’s easy for the government to talk people into giving up their rights and liberties so they can push their agenda through unimpeded. It’s a bit disturbing how many people will immediately reach for the nearest beer bong to swallow the Kool-Aid as fast as they can.
Of course, dissenters will remain, which is where the truly loathsome element of this political tactic comes into play: turning the issue around on uninvolved people and bullying them onto the bandwagon with the promise of the worst kind of public vilification if they do not comply. People are sucked in by the threat of being labelled a ‘pedophile sympathizer’ if they so much as question Toews’ bill, let alone actually speak out against it. Given that calling someone a pedophile is currently on par with calling someone a war criminal, who wouldn’t be afraid of being maligned in such a way? The rhetoric may not work, but fear sure as hell will.
A consequence of both these effects is that once people have hopped on the bandwagon, they are easily persuaded that those who have not joined them are the scum of the earth that they themselves were once portrayed to be. I’m not entirely sure about the psychology behind this, but it seems like overcompensation to reassure themselves that they are, in fact, riding the high horse. We are an insecure species after all, especially in times of crisis — something that politicians understand all too well.
In this way, the tactic combines some of the worst elements of paranoia, public shaming, and mob mentality into a disgusting, greasy soup that the populace is only too eager to lap up. It was employed during the First World War, whern protesting against the war was considered a sign of sympathy with the baby-bayoneting barbarians apparently running rampant in Germany in those days. It cropped up again during the Cold War, when the slightest dissent was enough to have you labelled a godless commie or pinko (whatever McCarthy’s favourite word happened to be at the time) and get you blacklisted from . . . well, everything. Remnants of this era are still in place today; Republicans gravely utter the words ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ to describe a future under Barack Obama and terrify voters onto their side. (Relying, I suspect, on the idea that most Americans don’t know the difference between the two systems — just that they’re evil!)
By far the best example is Bush’s famous speech in 2001, when he declared that in the War on Terror, you were either “with us or you are with the terrorists”. Refusing to invade Afghanistan alongside America was decreed as tantamount to aiding and abetting al-Qaeda. Now consider Toews’ recent proclamations in comparison and, I hope, shudder. I certainly felt some uneasy deja vu. The only difference between Bush’s War on Terror and Toews’ war on privacy is the fact that the latter isn’t firing cruise missiles at houses where he thinks pornographers might be hiding. But by using the exact same warlike rhetoric, almost verbatim, he fights the same battle in spirit. It is a form of political blackmail, nothing more.
The funny thing is that, with a bit of scrutiny, the whole sham collapses instantly. I ask you: if you denied me the right to poke around in your email as I pleased, would it be reasonable for me to call you a pedophile? Of course not. You just don’t want some self-righteous asshole shoving his big, meddling nose into your private life. Why should you allow Toews that ability? I would warn you, his proboscis is even bigger than mine.
I hope the Canadian public has enough common sense to not swallow the outrageous propaganda being presented here, and I hope that the same people value their rights and dignity enough to call Toews’ bluff. At that point, the would-be mugger of our privacy will be revealed to have been waving a starter’s pistol in our face all along.
Go ahead, punk — make my day.
