Enjoy the debate, while it lasts

Last week I mentioned my appreciation for newspaper letters to the editor. When I was a student I wrote them, and as a journalist I edited them at various papers I worked at.

Trying to make sure all sides of an issue got represented was always important, so I’d go out of my way to select letters that offered relevant balance to more popular competing positions.

Letters to the editor are an opportunity for vigorous debate, which is something we’re seeing right now in B.C.’s electoral reform referendum. In newspaper letters about the referendum, as well as news articles and opinion pieces, there’s been steady and evenhanded debate on the merits of both systems, the consequences of the possible outcomes, and the quality of the referendum process.

Unlike so many other topics, no presiding media narrative has developed on the electoral systems being decided by referendum – Winner Takes All, or Proportional Representation.

If you’re a supporter of the status quo, the arguments have been well presented detailing why proportional representation would be an unwieldy mistake that would lead to unstable governments.

If you’re tired of vote splitting and holding your nose to vote strategically, there has been no shortage of explanation why a concept in use in most democratic countries around the world can be implemented in B.C.

For the most part it’s been a rational and balanced discussion with minimal forays into the cynicism and vitriol that dominates most popular debates these days. (The “No” proportional representation video featuring goose-stepping Nazis was an unwelcome exception.) Hopefully the same high standards will prevail Nov. 8 when Premier John Horgan and Opposition Leader Andrew Wilkinson take part in a televised debate on the referendum.

I’m still weighing the arguments from both sides, but I’ve been appreciating the debate as proponents of each side make their case passionately, but civilly.

What explains the refreshing lack of media bias? A variety of things, I suspect. For one, media narratives often develop when journalists themselves have biases they intentionally or subconsciously bring to their coverage.

Whether it’s marijuana, assisted suicide, climate change, animal rights, gun control, abortion, gender issues, euthanasia, or countless other thorny topics, reporters and editors have opinions, sometimes deeply held, and often can’t resist the temptation to augment their journalism with some activism.

With a purely political topic like electoral reform, journalists tend to be less personally invested in the story.

The complexity of the debate also makes it less prone to the simplistic talking points and invective that dominates in Twitter-based disputes. As a result we’re seeing a more thriving debate than on, say, abortion – witness the Vancouver Province editorial headlined “The abortion debate is over, so shut up.”

Sadly, the urge to silence or ridicule contrary viewpoints is widespread today, from post-secondary campuses to mainstream society. Last week, UBC’s Free Speech Club was pressured, unsuccessfully, to cancel an appearance by conservative Jewish commentator Ben Shapiro, while the federal NDP urged organizers of the Munk debate in Toronto to call off their event for inviting Steve Bannon, former strategist for U.S. President Donald Trump.

Jordan Peterson’s rise to fame is partly a response to people saying they’ve had enough of imposed thinking as limits on freedom of speech, and its corollary, freedom of religion, reach alarming levels.

Earlier this year, Father Deacon Andrew Bennett, speaking at Trinity Western University, said, “Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants must now make the defence of upholding religious freedom for all people the primary concern in our public lives in Canada.”

Enjoy the electoral reform debate. There was a time when most topics were open to discussion like this. Perhaps one day there will be again.

For more information visit Elections B.C. at https://elections.bc.ca.

[email protected]
twitter.com/paulschratz