By Gerald Heinrichs

In February 2023, three conservative MP’s met with German politician Christine Anderson in Ottawa. The Toronto Star and Globe and Mail reported the event. The two articles provided no substance of Ms. Anderson’s policies but unleashed a torrent of cheap shots: hard right, anti-vaccine, anti-refugee, Islamophobic. Hardly a sentence was spared.

Within hours, Pierre Poilievre issued a statement. He offered no resistance to the machine-gun trial by the media. He joined in, calling Ms. Anderson “vile” and that her “racist hateful views are not welcome here”. Critics claim that Poilievre folded like a cheap suit.

This was, however, just another event when high-profile name calling erased any hope of mature discussion on important issues. This all at a time when Canadians are thirsty for civil debate on today’s front-page topics. Canadians are more than curious about issues like: Is there a point when excess immigration harms a country? Is climate action unreasonable if it causes economic damage or unemployment? Is it fair for transgender individuals to displace females? If robust college debates still existed, these would be among the topics. Instead though, today’s debates are shut down almost before the question can be spoken.

This clam-up phenomenon is sometimes called cancel culture. But often it is like a witchcraft spell where loud uttering of words like “transphobe” or “racist” shuts down conversation like iron doors on a nuclear bunker. Justin Trudeau is a master of the name-calling method. In 2022 he called opponents of his government’s COVID restrictions homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, and racist. In 2023 he called immigration critics xenophobic. Using such words, Trudeau conjures up a spirit of public loathing and very often foils his opponents.

But there are some, like Maxime Bernier, who have an unusual power to shrug off the insults. In stark defiance of the media’s name calling, Bernier gave Christine Anderson an honorary party membership. Such outliers believe that words bruise no stones.

Meanwhile, the average person cannot stand even the threat of harsh name calling. In today’s universities, school divisions, and institutions, thousands live in holy fear of doing something that might unleash the name callers. For example, reporter Tara Henly quit her job at CBC, stating that the workplace required staff “To keep one’s mouth shut, to not ask questions, to not rock the boat.” Similarly a 2022 National Post survey found that Canadian universities are “political monocultures” with “a hostile climate for those who disagree”. People who stay in these organizations must kowtow to policies that might oblige abandoning their principles. Name calling, therefore, has strange incredible powers.

One of the worst name-calling events was against American high school student Nicholas Sandmann. In 2019, a score of reporters and celebrities smeared the teenager for smiling while wearing a MAGA hat in Washington DC. Three US media outlets later paid undisclosed settlement amounts. A rare case of sweet revenge against the name callers.

Any rational person knows that hot-button issues have more than one side. They know that debate is valuable. All the good books say it is wrong to judge and scorn. Nonetheless, we see scant resistance when the name callers unleash. And consequently moral busybodies take advantage and make a hell on earth for others.

Back in Ottawa, politicians like Mr. Poilievre need to decide how they will respond to the next name-calling media frenzy. A good leader should strongly defend the truth. Otherwise the name callers will have another easy walk.

Gerald Heinrichs is a lawyer in Regina Saskatchewan.