As the years go by, I find myself asking what has changed the most, me, or the political environment we now live in, both domestically and internationally. I am pretty sure I know who I am, a Progressive Conservative who believes in limited government control over our lives and real help for those who need it. I know for certain that I am against extremism, especially political extremism on both the left and the right. But I don’t really know where I fit anymore on the current political spectrum.
I remember with some nostalgia governments in Canada of different political stripes, at both the federal and provincial levels, who knew how to govern from the middle. They didn’t abandon their ideology but recognized that extremism doesn’t work and, from a historical perspective, has often resulted in tragedy. Not so much anymore. We seem to live these days in a ‘my way or the highway’ atmosphere when it comes to politics.
And so, in recent times, I have been asking myself what I still fundamentally believe in and what I don’t, and more importantly, where I fit because of that. Let me give you a few examples of that.
In the past few days, there was another horrific mass murder in the United States. Eight people dead, their lives snuffed out, and another seven in hospital, some with life-threatening injuries. This is now a common occurrence.
David Axelrod, a well-known American political strategist, and commentator, reacted to this latest massacre with this: “We have completely jumped the shark as a nation. The world looks at us in absolute bewilderment as we slaughter each other with guns and throw our hands up in resignation. It’s pathetic.”
I agree with Axelrod. I cannot think of a single reason why assault weapons should be in the hands of anyone other than the military and law enforcement, either in the United States or in Canada and I am absolutely certain that Canada is not immune to what is happening in the United States.
I also believe that the time has come that all Canadians should be entitled to a guaranteed basic income that would provide a roof over their heads. It is not only economically sound as it eliminates welfare and other social benefits, but it is also the right thing to do. Every human being should be entitled to that dignity which is why I believe we have a collective responsibility to look after those people who, for whatever reason, cannot look after themselves.
Does all of that make me a lefty? I can picture some of my friends smiling and shaking their heads and saying “Yup”!
But wait…. I believe we have a leftist government in Canada and have had one for almost a decade. Not like the governments of Pearson, Chretien, and Martin. Much of what this current government has stood for, I simply cannot agree with.
For one thing, the Trudeau Government has doubled down on censorship. To me, there is nothing more fundamental to democracy than a free press and the right of all individuals to freedom of speech. There are limits, of course, related to libel, slander, and hate speech but the recourse for these is through the courts and not through government interference.
Very recently, the CRTC, a government-appointed agency, has been asked to consider banning Fox News from Canadian viewers. I do not watch the Fox News Network. They are too extreme for me. But that is my choice to make, not the role of a government or a government-controlled agency. If Fox News or any other network breaks Canadian law sue them, let the courts figure it out but don’t deny Canadians the right to watch what they want.
This past weekend, the Liberal Party of Canada held its General Policy Meeting. Their keynote speaker was former American Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton. That choice and her fawning praise of the Grits gives me no comfort that the Liberals here are still a middle-of-the-road party.
What particularly caught my eye was this motion regarding censorship and media control:
BE IT RESOLVED: that the Liberal Party of Canada:
- Request the Government of Canada to provide additional public funds to support advertisement-free news and information reporting by Canadian Media through an arms-length, non-partisan mechanism.
- Request the Government to explore options to hold online information services accountable for the veracity of articles published on their platforms and to limit publication only to material whose sources can be traced.
My comments on this: Governments should not subsidize the media. One does not bite the hand that feeds them. It is a conflict of interest. There is no such thing as an arms-length, non-partisan mechanism if its members are appointed by the government in power. One just needs to look at the so-called non-partisan appointed Senate to realize that. Holding online information services accountable for the veracity of their articles, except where required by libel laws, etc., is censorship, pure and simple. It raises the question of who traces these stories and what criteria are used to determine their veracity. Government policy?
Journalist John Ivison posed the question related to stories that must be traced, “So, journalists can only publish information from sources that can be traced by the government?” Good question.
But more important than my comments are those of Michael Geist, a Canadian academic who is a Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. Referring to the Liberal’s attempts at censorship, he says this:
“There are real issues with disinformation, online hate, privacy, competition and a host of on-line concerns that require various forms of regulation. But governments current approach suggests that it believes the ends justify even potentially unconstitutional means. It sounds extreme, but the slippery slope that starts with media intervention expands with investigations into critics, truth oversight bodies and restrictions on press freedoms. Yet we must be honest with ourselves and see that this is where we are today with current and future policies that risk turning Canada into a dangerous model that more repressive regimes may cite with approval to justify their own anti-democratic measures.”
I believe this guy is bang-on. I am opposed to censorship. I strongly disagree with any suggestion that government should be in a position to decide what journalists are allowed to print. I don’t support any kind of legislation or government policy that controls what we see, hear, or say. I support reasonable laws to prevent misuse of these rights, to be adjudicated by the courts and not controlled or manipulated by governments or their agencies. I don’t want government controlling my life any more than is absolutely necessary for the common good.
So… does that make me a right-wing whacko? Again, I can see some of my more left-of-center friends shaking their heads and saying, “Yup”!
Where does that leave me? It leaves me in the middle, where I can agree with reasonable ideas from all parts of the political spectrum and also where I can disagree when I believe it necessary. Where I don’t have to be a total idealogue, believing everything a party I might support says, and where people listen to what other people have to say, whether or not they agree, without demonizing them.
It’s a bit of a lonely place because people with entrenched ideas on both the far left and far right don’t want to come to that middle ground. I have learned the hard way that sometimes that affects friendships, and sometimes it affects business.
We all have our darker moments and I must say there are times when I wonder if it is all worth it.
Hugh Mackenzie
Hugh Mackenzie has held elected office as a trustee on the Muskoka Board of Education, a Huntsville councillor, a District councillor, and mayor of Huntsville. He has also served as chairman of the District of Muskoka and as chief of staff to former premier of Ontario, Frank Miller.
Hugh has also served on a number of provincial, federal and local boards, including chair of the Ontario Health Disciplines Board, vice-chair of the Ontario Family Health Network, vice-chair of the Ontario Election Finance Commission, and board member of Roy Thomson Hall, the National Theatre School of Canada, and the Anglican Church of Canada. Locally, he has served as president of the Huntsville Rotary Club, chair of Huntsville District Memorial Hospital, chair of the Huntsville Hospital Foundation, president of Huntsville Festival of the Arts, and board member of Community Living Huntsville.
In business, Hugh Mackenzie has a background in radio and newspaper publishing. He was also a founding partner and CEO of Enterprise Canada, a national public affairs and strategic communications firm established in 1986.
Currently, Hugh is president of C3 Digital Media Inc., the parent company of Doppler Online, and he enjoys writing commentary for Huntsville Doppler.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox so you don’t miss anything!
Click here to support local news
The middle is gone because of the left’s steam rolling socialist agenda. Climate hoax, covid over reaction, partisan greedflation, police state Canada, speak out and face many charges with conditions in order to silence and a school system designed to indoctrinate left.
What would you expect the right should do?
Consider it’s people that use anger, force and weapons in the heat of a moment as opposed to reason before emotion and adhering to law and order.
The decline is everywhere, in the media, in attitudes, in governments, in partisanship,,,,,
Do questions ever really get answered in the House of Commons?
Families are actually being torn apart because of politics.
Thank you, Mr. Holland for an informed overview. Much appreciated.
Susan, I understand your point. It is easier to agree with you in principle only.
Must we all go back to the elementary school yard or high school hall to express a point of view?
If someone is yelling at me a diatribe of language, insult or slur, whether in person/in print/in media, why should I conclude that actual discourse, communication is occurring? Tantrums given in the heat of the moment require therapy, not my listening ear.
PS, then there are those who plug their ears when important information is civilly provided to them. I speak of course about PP Conservative Leader failing to attend a session where David Johnson’s investigative report was presented to all house leaders. I believe All other party leaders attended. It was blatantly beneath PP.
We are tuned in constantly to filtering of the message, to allow for that “freedom of speech” – to determine if it is one worth listening to. It is exhausting and hardly persuasive.
In 1949 the US Federal Communication Commission established a “Fairness Doctrine” that required media companies to provide multiple views on key issues. That is in the long-term interest of media companies because if they pick the wrong horse to ride, they will lose followers and revenue. So, for years, newspapers like USA Today carried two columns on their editorial page, “Our View, and “The Opposing View”. The Toronto Star carries opposing views on an important current topic every Saturday.
It is well documented how, in 1978, The Koch Brothers organized a small lobby group of far-right billionaires ironically called “Citizens United” to change US election and tax regulations they believed restricted them from protecting and growing their mostly inherited fortunes. In 1987, the group succeeded in lobbying the Reagan administration to repeal the Fairness Doctrine. That gave rise to extreme-right media commentators and extreme right politics. Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh made $85 million per year (2,800 times the $15 per hour minimum wage he argued strongly against) for spewing absolute garbage. FOX News commentators Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson made $25 million and $10 million per year respectively. Thats the same Carlson who was just fired from FOX News because he cost the a $787 million law suite.
In the 19 years since 2004, 39-year-old Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg accumulated a net worth of $75 billion by collecting and selling data about Facebook contributors and followers. (That amount would cover $15 per hour for 156,250 breadwinners for every one of those 16 years). They all helped to polarize US politics in a two-party system that was already vulnerable to gridlock. That was the Koch brother’s plan. If you can’t pass legislation, you can’t raise taxes on the rich, but neither can you fix society’s problems.
So far, social media companies have escaped the media code of ethics and regulations by taking the position that they are merely trafficking the information; they do not create it. But trafficking illegal drugs is illegal and trafficking badly distorted information (lies) should also be illegal.
So, what could be done to improve the quality of the ever-exploding amount of information for the benefit of society and not just for social media companies? A recent Globe and Mail article by Washington Bureau Chief Lawrence Martin titled, “To fix America, fix the media” outlined how in recent years, US media have aligned themselves with political parties and in some cases abandoned the principles of ethical journalism. Some US congressmen are now calling for the re-establishment of the Fairness Doctrine that would require all media to present a balanced range of views. That would provide some guardrails around freedom of speech without stifling it.
The Fairness Doctrine would require the social media companies to stop using algorithms to amplify and distort messages. That could reduce profits to more socially responsible levels. They may even have to charge a user fee. An alternative idea on the table is to transform social media companies into public utilities like the post office, since they are both involved in distributing information, not creating it.
Regulating freedom of speech is hard to do, and that sword cuts both ways. But I support Bill C11 which is a reasonable attempt at putting up some guard rails so Canadian media doesn’t drift toward the US controlled social media model any more than it already has.
I find myself—a bit surprisingly, as I am “centre left”—in total agreement with you on this Hugh. Well said! If we only watch, listen to or read media with an agreeable slant, we risk becoming as indoctrinated and polarized as our political opposites. I detest much of what Fox reports, but it is my right to decide that for myself. I am also pleased to read of your support for UBI, a very civilized concept.
I’m sorry Anna Lise but I really have to argue the point that a Democratic society cannot exist without an open uncensored dialogue. If we don’t allow disrespectful, racist, homophonic and misogynistic rhetoric then the bases are covered for respectful discussion or just knowing the viewpoint of “the other”.
Seriously, why do we need FOX Information channel? Imo, they have dumbed down the notion of news delivery and been exposed for their falsehoods-for-profit ethos. More choice is not necessarily better.
Hugh, as one of your left of centre friend’s (as we have discussed), I absolutely do not think you are a “right-wing whacko”. You have made an excellent argument in your op-ed. when I travelled to the States, I would listen to Patriot radio (holding my nose) just to know what ideology we NPR people were up against! Better to know what’s out there even if it’s odious blather. The CBC, under no circumstances, should ever be “controlled “ by Government and I also do not agree with these latest Liberal decrees. I believe you scored a hat trick as I have agreed(overall) with your last three articles!
Canada is beginning to look a bit like Cuba, keep watching.