Riled-up rhetoric far beyond regular ‘rough-and-tumble’

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 27/07/2024 (442 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

I don’t write that many news-based columns in Manitoba just yet — even after more than a year here, I’m still too new to the place and the politics.

But a pair of arrests in Alberta have led me away from my usual descriptive column fare.

Earlier this week, 23-year-old Mason John Baker of Calgary was charged with uttering threats after police said a person had posted death threats on social media platform X (formerly Twitter) toward Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. At the same time, the RCMP charged 67-year-old Garry Belzevick of Edmonton with three counts of uttering threats after an incident involving a YouTube video threatening to kill Trudeau, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland and federal NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh.

Neither man has had their day in court yet, and both are innocent until proven guilty.

As a result of the charges, we’re bound to hear arguments about freedom of expression and about how politicians know how rough-and-tumble the public forum can be. There are limits to both of those arguments.

I’d fall back on the position that you’re free to express yourself, but you’re not free from the consequences of what you say, particularly if what you’re expressing is libellous or threatening.

The RCMP made somewhat the same point when they announced the arrests of the two men.

“In the digital age, where so many interactions occur online and are perceived to be anonymous, there is a belief that virtual actions and words do not have consequences,” RCMP Insp. Matthew Johnson said in a statement. “When these virtual actions or words cross the boundaries of Charter-protected speech and constitute criminal activity, police will investigate thoroughly to hold those responsible accountable.”

Internet death threats against Canadian politicians are far from unusual.

Charges, however, are.

The cases will play out in court, but what won’t is the kind of toll threats, particularly detailed anonymous threats, can take on those who are being attacked.

Years ago, when I was writing news columns at a newspaper in Newfoundland and Labrador, I raised the ire of a popular premier, who suggested I should be removed from the province for some of the things I said in my columns, particularly about the huge risk of the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project.

His ire generated lots of reflected anger from his supporters — including some anonymous but detailed threats, including ones listing my home address, that people knew when I was coming and going and that I might soon wind up with all my windows broken.

And that was just the start.

It’s a strange position to be in. Nothing has changed, but everything has.

The threats are not so fully believable that you feel you’ll be taken seriously if you go to the police to try to get to the bottom of the anonymous diatribes, but they’re also not something you can just brush off as the work of harmless windbags, venting for the sheer sport of it.

So you change things.

Our kids had bedrooms at the front of the house, so we told them what we wanted them to do if they heard breaking glass. Get under their beds and wait for us, or make their way to the back of the house. Preplanning, just like you do for a potential fire.

It also changed the way I dealt with people who recognized me from my column photo or from my previous work in television. When someone comes up to you in public, you’re much more guarded, much more concerned about finding out if they’re a potential friend or foe.

The worst of it was the anonymity of the attacks: they could be coming from anyone, anywhere. They could be someone you deal with regularly, without ever knowing it.

That’s one half.

The other half is that you’re kicking yourself for letting someone get under your skin with something as simple as a phone call or an anonymized email. Saying to yourself that you’ve picked a business that involves dealing with people who are often angry, and who can get even angrier because of what you write.

It’s just people letting off steam. They’re all talk, no action. They’re not even serious threats.

But you can’t just wait to find that out, especially if there’s even the slightest bit of risk for members of your family who have nothing to do with your job.

It’s not harmless. It’s not funny. And the sooner people realize there can be consequences for their actions — and their words — the better.

Court cases making that point far more clearly are, frankly, overdue.

The swamp of threats and lies the internet brings into all our homes may be the Wild West. But sometimes its cowpokes get to meet the sheriff.

And we can hope it’s an object lesson for everybody.

Russell Wangersky is the Comment Editor at the Free Press. He can be reached at russell.wangersky@freepress.mb.ca