You'd think by now, Canada's (C)onservatives would understand that they can't just speak, they need to think first -- how will this be heard? And -- how will my words affect conservatives in general.
No other party seems to have that issue. Liberals all speak as one giant unit these days, but if one goes off message, no one tries to tie the whole brand to the words. Same with NDP and Greens. There are nutters and cranks in both parties, some elected, some not - they're just who they are and don't seem to taint the parties through their nuttery.
It's different with conservatives - whether they're elected members, or just self-proclaimed conservatives, a controversial conservative voice draws the accusation of broader and deeper scariness hidden in the core of the party- scariness that's just waiting for an election win to rear its ugly head and make this country an alt-right haven.
It's crazy, sure. But I'm thinking that this is why Stephen Harper required such discipline within the his ranks. There has never been the group-think in the CPC that exists within the Liberal Party now, but there was a chill on speaking out about some issues because of how they would be taken out of context by the other side and by media. Better I suppose, to have MPs silent than to say stupid things on committee as Michael Cooper did to a Muslim witness during his submission on online hatred.
Cooper was not wrong in what he said -- the witness had tied recent racist mass shootings to conservatism. Based on the shooters' own manifestos and online presences' for the most part had made it clear that they were not conservatively politically aligned, but rather, in one case, supported Bernie Sanders, and in another felt more aligned with China's politics. Still - in response to the witness, Cooper said that he should 'be ashamed' for having implied conservatism was to blame, and then proceeded to read from the manifesto of one of the killers.
Stupid.
No one should be 'ashamed' for how they've perceived racial or religious hatred. The fact that this man felt or believed that these mass murders are conservatively motivated means that conservatives have more work to do distancing themselves from that sort of hatred. Yes, the media fosters the narrative, but Cooper helped no one by trying to embarrass and humiliate someone who was sharing a personal (or his group's) perspective on violent hatred that was directed at members of his community.
Cooper's indignance at the speaker's concerns about conservatives switched the narrative from the actual online haters to conservatives. Better he had not challenged, or if he felt he must, better to simply point out the factual errors and move on. But better still to simply listen and learn. Getting defensive just makes you look defensive. It does nothing to change the other person's point of view. Does Cooper think this person is now contrite and sorry for the errors of his ways? NO, the man is going to feel pissed and attacked - and so he should. He was there to give perspective - even if it's factually wrong - much of the response to online hatred is emotional. This is how this man feels. The only way to challenge his perceptions is to ensure that those representing conservatism don't act like assholes. Cooper failed, big time.
Maybe it isn't fair that conservatives need to be more careful when they speak, but it's reality.
Michael Cooper has stepped back from his 'ashamed' comment but stands by the rest of what he said. His mouth has drawn negative attention to conservatives about an already contentious issue, where conservatives often come out looking bad even when they say and do all the right things.
Cooper had a duty to as a member of the committee to be respectful to the witness. He failed.
He had a duty as a Conservative MP, to speak in a manner that would not cast a negative light on his party by misrepresenting their position. He failed.
Cooper had a responsibility to simply be a decent human, and to understand that people testifying at these committees are emotional, and to show some restraint and compassion when responding. He failed.
Michael Cooper should be ashamed.
canadianna
No other party seems to have that issue. Liberals all speak as one giant unit these days, but if one goes off message, no one tries to tie the whole brand to the words. Same with NDP and Greens. There are nutters and cranks in both parties, some elected, some not - they're just who they are and don't seem to taint the parties through their nuttery.
It's different with conservatives - whether they're elected members, or just self-proclaimed conservatives, a controversial conservative voice draws the accusation of broader and deeper scariness hidden in the core of the party- scariness that's just waiting for an election win to rear its ugly head and make this country an alt-right haven.
It's crazy, sure. But I'm thinking that this is why Stephen Harper required such discipline within the his ranks. There has never been the group-think in the CPC that exists within the Liberal Party now, but there was a chill on speaking out about some issues because of how they would be taken out of context by the other side and by media. Better I suppose, to have MPs silent than to say stupid things on committee as Michael Cooper did to a Muslim witness during his submission on online hatred.
Cooper was not wrong in what he said -- the witness had tied recent racist mass shootings to conservatism. Based on the shooters' own manifestos and online presences' for the most part had made it clear that they were not conservatively politically aligned, but rather, in one case, supported Bernie Sanders, and in another felt more aligned with China's politics. Still - in response to the witness, Cooper said that he should 'be ashamed' for having implied conservatism was to blame, and then proceeded to read from the manifesto of one of the killers.
Stupid.
No one should be 'ashamed' for how they've perceived racial or religious hatred. The fact that this man felt or believed that these mass murders are conservatively motivated means that conservatives have more work to do distancing themselves from that sort of hatred. Yes, the media fosters the narrative, but Cooper helped no one by trying to embarrass and humiliate someone who was sharing a personal (or his group's) perspective on violent hatred that was directed at members of his community.
Cooper's indignance at the speaker's concerns about conservatives switched the narrative from the actual online haters to conservatives. Better he had not challenged, or if he felt he must, better to simply point out the factual errors and move on. But better still to simply listen and learn. Getting defensive just makes you look defensive. It does nothing to change the other person's point of view. Does Cooper think this person is now contrite and sorry for the errors of his ways? NO, the man is going to feel pissed and attacked - and so he should. He was there to give perspective - even if it's factually wrong - much of the response to online hatred is emotional. This is how this man feels. The only way to challenge his perceptions is to ensure that those representing conservatism don't act like assholes. Cooper failed, big time.
Maybe it isn't fair that conservatives need to be more careful when they speak, but it's reality.
Michael Cooper has stepped back from his 'ashamed' comment but stands by the rest of what he said. His mouth has drawn negative attention to conservatives about an already contentious issue, where conservatives often come out looking bad even when they say and do all the right things.
Cooper had a duty to as a member of the committee to be respectful to the witness. He failed.
He had a duty as a Conservative MP, to speak in a manner that would not cast a negative light on his party by misrepresenting their position. He failed.
Cooper had a responsibility to simply be a decent human, and to understand that people testifying at these committees are emotional, and to show some restraint and compassion when responding. He failed.
Michael Cooper should be ashamed.
canadianna
