Apology; no offense to wolves is intended. I know the trope of wolves as nasty critters is a bad rap. It just works so well in this case.
Do Not Do This
Anyway, this is a warning to all soap-box standers, streetcorner- orators, social media pundits and politicians. An incident in Ottawa this week clearly demonstrates what happens when people with a Cause get their heads so far up their own orifices that they don’t realize how crazy they sound to the general public. Which is, after all, their supposed target audience.
You Can’t Accuse the Victim of Perpetrating the Crime
This is a given; it is considered very poor taste to accuse coloured people of racial prejudice, or women of sexism, etc. etc. There is good reason for this. For example, there are all sorts of explainables in the deaths of children in residential schools. Measles, smallpox, high childhood mortality in the population, etc.
But the point is, no matter how true they may be, you DON’T DISCUSS THEM, because of the pain that discussion would cause to the victims and their families. I hesitate to mention them even in this context, but certain members of the Right need to have this fact pointed out to them.
Bottom line: just ‘cause it’s true doesn’t mean it needs to be shouted in people’s ears.
But Then What Happens?
Because the subjects of these prejudices are protected by these rules of courtesy, some of them get the feeling that, because their quest is Just and True, they can do no wrong, say anything they like, and anyone who disagrees is by definition sexist, racist, etc. Andrew Coyne mentioned this on At Issue last week, wondering how you were supposed to treat a black woman who acts angry too often, because the moment you mention it, you’re being racist and sexist.
Take it From Me…
In the latest incident on Parliament Hill, a Member of Parliament has pushed this phenomenon to its logical extreme, and I hope others who are tempted to fall into the same trap will take a word of warning from a friend, when you won’t from someone you consider an enemy.
The Background: MPs Pensions
In order to understand this story, you have to be aware of an idiosyncrasy in Canadian politics. MPs have, in the past, awarded themselves huge pensions. If a person serves as an MP for a minimum of 6 years, that person, at the age of 55, gets a hefty pension for the rest of his or her life. This 6-year limit fits nicely with our 4-year parliaments, requiring something more than the bare minimum single term to join the other hogs at the trough.
So there are often snide comments directed at MPs who have only served one term, questioning how much of their political motivation is directed towards getting those other two years. These jibes are basically nasty and in poor taste, but they do occur.
So when former Liberal MP, now Independent, Judy Wilson-Raybould made a social media comment on Liberal policies the other day, a female former colleague of hers on the Liberal party sent her the following post.
“Pension?”
That was it. One word.
To which my reaction is “Grow up and start acting like you’re a serious member of parliament.”
Not our Judy. Her immediate reaction was that the post was “racist and misogynist.”
Hold it Right There
And at that point, Ms. Wilson-Raybould stepped over my person line in the sand. The post was in poor taste, yes. But it was a clear reference to a standard, non-racial and non-gender-related trope that every person who follows politics at all knows the meaning of.
Am I going to explain Wilson-Raybould’s rationale? No I am not, because if she has to explain it so that we all understand it, probably the message wasn’t there in the first place and she is creating the whole thing herself. You might want to look up “misogynist” to get a real kick out of the situation. But she pushed the same old button and got the pop-up meaningless apology she deserved, demonstrating how little any of it meant to anyone. Which is a shame.
What is the Effect?
When a person uses the same reasoning over and over, people start wondering how much meaning it really has. The boy who called “Wolf,” used the technique one time too many and lost his credibility. When the real wolf showed up, the townspeople thought it was another false alarm and didn’t come to help.
I was rather impressed with Ms. Wilson-Raybould when she stood up to Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party machine. I didn’t think it had as much to do with her race or her gender as she did, but that definitely played a part, and it would have been petty of me to mention it. However, as time goes by and she uses the same argument over and over, she is losing my support. She is also turning away support for the anti-racist and the feminist agendas. She has done a disservice to every person who is attacked for racist or sexist reasons by diluting the power of their defence. This is public relations, and you don’t waste the power of a good argument on a triviality.
And if I were a voter in her riding, I’d be wondering whether she deserves a shot at a pension.