Now calling for politicians to be charged with treason is nothing new. For as long as there have been politicians, and before them, monarchies, there have been people calling their actions treasonous. We just use virtual pitchforks and torches now. Harper had his treason petitioners too (they appear to have a better grasp on grammar and spelling, but some crazy leaks out between the lines), which brings us to the point of this post:
What you need to know about online petitions
1. Online petitions are meaningless in terms of petitioning the House of Commons
For real. This is how you petition the House of Commons. Pertinent details include a paper application with handwritten, verifiable signatures. Five minutes on Change.org doesn't cut it. You need to knock on doors, plead your case, get the support in writing. Wear comfortable shoes.
2. Online petitions can serve as a rallying cry for change, which may lead to actual change
Also for real. Online petitions that obtain widespread support can be used to apply pressure on a government or an organization to take an action, like halting the forced relocation of 40,000 people. That petition carries over two million signatures. Cecil the Lion has over a million. Oh sure, the dentist was never charged, but good luck to game hunters who want to fly their trophies home on an U.S. Airline now.
3. For actual change, support is critical
You don't even need a factual argument. Look at Vani Hari, otherwise known as The Food Babe. Hari is an expert at generating publicity through the use of online petitions: Subway changed their bread. Starbucks changed their lattes. Budweiser changed their beer labels. And all with zero scientific evidence that changes were required. The Food Babe just takes big words, makes them sound scary, and relies on the scientific illiteracy of her followers to take her to the finish line. Any doubts, read this:
Air is 78 per cent nitrogen, 21 per cent oxygen, plus carbon dioxide, argon and other trace gases. Filling an airplane cabin with 100 per cent oxygen takes already a flying bomb and turn it into an even more volatile flying bomb. But prior to Hari deleting this post (no take backs on the internet, Hari), she had lots of supporters agreeing with her in the comments.
4. Support requires a clear, understandable, and actionable message
Hari gets this. Oh sure, while she may possess the scientific intellect of an under-performing third grader, she has mastered the art of provoking an emotional response through skillful writing.
You? You have not. Grammatically, look at the mess you made. It's like a red tide of proofreaders marks. Did you write this on your phone? Always use a word processing program. It won't catch everything, but it'll do a better job than you did.
Your "reason for the treason" is not treason. Not that you tried in any way to explain how stating that terrorists should get to keep their citizenship is treason, but your dots do not connect. Public criticism of a law is not treason. It is freedom of expression. It is a Charter right.
Your call to action is also incorrectly addressed, in terms of being actionable. The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest appellate court in Canada. They here appeals. They do not lay charges. The RCMP do lay charges, but the guy whose attention you really want to get is David Johnston, the Governor General of Canada. As the queen's representative, he, constitutionally, stands the best chance of deposing a prime minister.
5. Unless you want to be ridiculed, which Hari routinely is, spend a few minutes playing devil's advocate to your argument
For example, what could possibly go wrong with renouncing the citizenship of a terrorist? (As opposed to locking them for life as the Liberals said they would do in the same leaked recording.) To save you time, here's a recent historical example. In 1992, rather than incarceration, the Saudi government renounced Osama Bin Laden's citizenship and banished him from the country. This did not end well for anyone. It is reasonable to say something similar could happen as a result of Bill C-24. It is also reasonable, not treasonous, to say so.
No comments:
Post a Comment