Canadian dissent: passionate and vivacious or feeble and dormant? For Rick Salutin, a man who’s famous for brandishing a combative spur in the melee of pertinent issues, there’s a little of column A and little of column B; “There’s good news and bad news.”
On Saturday afternoon, in the Main Branch of the Public Library, Rick Salutin, in front of a room of about a hundred, including local MP Paul Dewar, first took a few moments to remind or inform the audience of the rather stagnant aura of dissent in the 60s. He was industrious in highlighting the work done by leaders such as Madeleine Parent in the human rights movement and spoke of how limited the range of perspectives was until the end of the decade.
In 2012, conversely, we can find a wide scope of views where topics such as Race, Poverty, and the Environment circulate freely. In the 60s, he said, to endorse the separation of Quebec or to speak openly of Capitalism and Class was akin to “farting or belching in public.” In the 70s, though the arena had supposedly widened, controversial pieces were still posited in magazines, such as McLean’s, to provide splashes of colour, flare, or according to Salutin, “exotic left-wing fluff.” Salutin believes that a much greater diversity of issues appears nowadays. And that’s a “good” thing. But, (yes, here comes the B word), there are still plenty of problems with regards to meaningful, effective dissent.
Salutin first swung at Team Harper and their “litany of suppression”: calling environmentalists subversive, attempting to deny the robocalls, defunding useful organizations, shutting down the Arab foundation, firing the nuclear safety watch-dog, referring to Layton as Taliban Jack. He spoke of the passing of time and how people are quick to forget all this suppression. He pegged the Harper government as reactionary stating that before gaining majority Harper had surely felt his camp “under siege.” But like any robust intellect, Salutin is careful and diligent; he would never place blame under the heading of a singularity. He spoke of dissent as under attack from numerous sources.
One of these, Salutin claimed, is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
While he clearly approved and acknowledged the value of the Charter, he problematizes the effect it has on society in that in “undermines dissent and individualizes it.” He spoke of the necessity of needing a lawyer to get anything done. Salutin also swung at the CBC saying that “it has done itself in over the last four decades. It undermines its own potential to be a different voice.” He gave some examples including its sensationalist coverage of the student lead riots in Montreal. He also lamented Canada’s “totally pro-Israel” position from what used to be a more balanced approach.
Ultimately, it’s the hard and resolute turn in both Canada and the world towards Neo-Liberalism that Salutin finds disconcerting and frightening. He spoke of the relatively “soft” budget cuts made most recently by the Harper government in comparison to the “savage” ones made by Martin in the 90s. These cuts made by Martin, he argued, “killed the hope that things (in Canada) could move in a different direction than the US or the UK.”
Like any engaging and versed public speaker, Salutin is aware of the axiom that it’s best to end a talk on some positive note. Here he turned to Spain. Though lauding efforts made across the Arab world, (again careful not to bunch each disparate revolt into one), he found something particularly riveting in Spain. People there, he said, are not interested in another political party, but rather a new way of doing politics. He spoke of the M-15 movement and of the effort to “insert a new layer into politics” at the “neighborhood level.” This can be seen, he said, in the simple forums of neighborhood meetings. Similar events, he noted, are taking place in Canada such as The Assembly of the Impossible which happens in Toronto.
Here one can see Salutin’s mistrust in Democracy, or rather, mistrust in the blind faith of Democracy as a stable and effective concept. According to Salutin, party slogans “inhibit people from engaging issues” and the population becomes engaged in the competition of the elections only to cast a vote and then forget politics and democracy until the next one. He spoke passionately and nostalgically of the way Canada got swept up in debate during the Charlottetown accord. A socially engaged atmosphere I’m sure he’d like to see repeated.
When it comes to resolving issues, again one can see the pluralistic leanings of Salutin. He talked of finding allies on different sides of the political spectrum and the need for people to search for the best solution to problems regardless of the political affiliations. The Toronto star is lucky to have him, as are people such as myself who regularly read his Friday column.
At the end of the talk, when the time came for the audience to ask Salutin some questions, one audience-member asked what he thought of the idea of having voting accounts for each citizen, whereby everyone could go on-line and vote on any particular issue. Salutin was quick to dismiss such an idea on the basis that it is discussion and not voting that strengthens democracy. By having discussion, “the voices of the idiots”, are drowned out and the knowledgeable voices subside.
I believe this discussion to be the most thought-provoking: who should be in charge of making the decisions? Should philosophers, as stated by Plato, be king, or should each citizen of a country be allowed to vote on each law? I’m not sure how allowing this right-to-vote, though harrowing in both scope and ramifications, could harm democracy. Would people be less likely to get involved in an issue if they have a chance to decide its outcome? I understand completely what Salutin means, when he equates the clicking of a mouse to a jejune practicing of democracy, but am surprised at his reluctance to at least consider the implications of allowing a populace more thorough participation. After all, one has to be frank, everyone in this room basically agrees with Salutin. They’re all on his team. Would these same people come out to hear a talk, by say Margaret Wente? For the general populace, it’s only when someone has something at stake and a feeling that their involvement can impact the outcome, that a person becomes involved. Everyone else, if not too busy watching the tube, is out shopping for nonsense. It’s simply too idealistic to assume that the majority of people will discuss, solely for the sake of discussion. I’m sure Salutin would appreciate this dig. After all, this is the man who said, “Dissent, wherever dissent is warranted.”
This was the first lecture put on by Prism and partners. Expect more in the future.
