Law to protect politicians makes sense
There’s a type of news story that’s become all too routine these days.
A politician announces that he (or more often she in this case) is leaving politics. Aside from the usual reasons (more time with family, etc.), she says she’s fed up with the abuse, hate and outright threats that seem to come as part of the job.
Liberal MP Pam Damoff cited the weight of “threats and misogyny” directed at her when she announced a couple of weeks ago that she won’t run again. It’s become so bad, she said, “that I often fear going out in public, and that is not a sustainable or healthy way to live.”
Charlie Angus, the long-time New Democrat MP, is also leaving politics. He writes in the Tyee that when he attacked Pierre Poilievre for failing to distance himself from Alex Jones, the American conspiracy monger, photos of his daughters were posted online with their work locations and implicit threats to harm them. Some MPs, says Angus, “are now reluctant to post their travel schedules or public appearances in advance. They just don’t want the risk.”
Threats against elected officials are hardly new but they’re clearly taking a bigger toll than ever with politicians at all levels calling it quits, a disproportionate number of them women and people of colour.
And now the commissioner of the RCMP, Mike Duheme, is calling for a new law that would make it easier for police to pursue charges against anyone who makes a threat against an elected official.
The immediate reaction to this on Twitter/X was — irony alert — a stream of abuse directed at Duheme and those same politicians. Why, went the cry, should politicians have special protection? Aren’t there already laws against threatening anyone, politicians included? Isn’t this just code for suppressing legitimate dissent? Why, Duheme should be fired just for making the suggestion!
I had some of those same thoughts when I read Duheme’s comments. Specifically, what about using existing laws before adding another? More to the point, it’s far from clear what Duheme has in mind. What exactly would he propose that isn’t already covered by the Criminal Code?
It’s hard to judge Duheme’s suggestion as long as it remains a vague thought rather than a concrete proposal. But it shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand, either.
It’s true everyone deserves protection against threats to their safety or that of their families. But elected officials are in a special situation. They’ve chosen to work on behalf of all of us, and if they’re successful it means we’ve chosen them to work for us. They and their families are exposed to abuse and threats not just because of their views but because they’re fulfilling a public trust — whatever you think of how well they do their job or, especially, whether you agree with them.
That makes threats against them threats against all of us and against the democratic system. Threatening or intimidating elected officials is an offence not just against them, but against the principle of representative democracy.
That’s why the United States, to cite one example, has laws making threats against the president or other officials a federal crime. It covers not only elected politicians but some other officials as well, including federal judges, prosecutors and election workers, as well as their families. And that in a country that enshrines free speech in its Constitution without the ifs and buts found in Canadian law.
Of course, what’s driving so many politicians out of public life isn’t just physical threats of the type that might be deterred by the law. It’s also the torrent of abusive language, including misogyny and racism, that floods public spaces, especially social media.
That’s a lot harder to police, or even to decide where to draw the line between abuse and legitimate speech. Political leaders themselves should do a lot more by setting an example of civil discourse and actively discouraging their followers from abusing others. (I know; good luck with that.)
Surely, though, we can agree it’s time to crack down on outright threats. If a new law is needed, let’s get on with it.