Internet caters to hateful agendas

Dear Editor:

Andy Thomsen’s letter proclaims, “The time is long overdue to define the difference between hate and anger” (Courier, March 14).

He then attempts to normalize profanitybased social media messages sent to Michael Wernick as not hate, but anger, therefore OK. This debases public debate.

Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick’s submission of pages of hateful email, sent to him because of his testimony before the justice committee explaining to all Canadians how government actually works and his articulate condemnation of internet trolls and electronic bots used to spread such hate-speech on social media, as “tactics of Brownshirts and Maoists;” demonstrates two things.

One, that the internet offers not only the chance for friends and family to congregate together to share stories and ideas, but, it also offers to purveyors of hate the ability to verbally attack another individual, spread lies and untruths for fun or to further a hateful agenda with little or no repercussions to the perpetrator.

Add into this mix, the fact that the #Me Too movement has for better and worse trained us to automatically believe the victim and blame the accused. Even though we begin to understand this is not true in every case, we witness “piling-on,” happening all the time with the internet.

And the second thing is, these types of emails indicate (to me) many voters do not really pay attention to much of anything, beyond their own circle of interest. And in fact, they have little practicable understanding of Canadian history and how our government and democracy actually works. And, with immature childish-delight they use the camouflage of the internet as an opportunity to hurtle slanderous, profanity laced comments at opponents. We should never accept this as normal.

I don’t know how Thomsen was brought up or how he came to think that this type of angry dialogue represents useful-debate for Canadians. Thomsen thinks that “the expression of anger as hateful is overkill.” Well to many sensible Canadians this is utter nonsense — gutter talk is not political debate. Jon Peter Christoff West Kelowna