The James Coleridge Decision
It has been very interesting to track the reaction to the news that a White Rock City Councillor has been stripped of his Council seat by a BC Supreme Court judge after he was found to have lied. Read the Reasons for Judgment here.
The media, especially in White Rock and Surrey, has been all over this story:
Peace Arch News on the judgment.
CityCaucus.com
Surrey Leader
Petitioner Matt Todd`s blog
Reaction from Frank Bucholtz
Reaction from Peace Arch News editor Lance Peverly
I, for one, think this decision is a great thing. Political discourse is all too susceptible to mistruths and negative campaigning. When I prepare to vote, I want to hear from my candidates their vision for my community, province, and country. I am not as concerned about their perceptions of their opponents--by virtue of the fact they are running against them, I can figure out that they believe they are the better candidate. I think we all want leaders who are honest and forthright, and we want to be able to trust what we are hearing from them.
As an elected official, it is obviously important to not put yourself into the kind of situation Mr. Coleridge did. I hope this decision will make for better-researched, more positive election campaigns. When a candidate talks about their vision for their community, they can easily stay away from the kind of gutter politics that bitterly divides voters, and leads to all sorts of crazy stories and theories.
Look at the reaction to the Tories' anti-Ignatieff ads (which, I should note, are factual, but negative in tone). One wonders if the money would be better spent on presenting Prime Minister Harper's vision for Canada. After three years as Prime Minister, I am not convinced many of us understand what makes Harper tick. What is he about? What are his concerns? What is his vision for Canada? He wasn't from the Adscam party, and he wasn't Stephane Dion, so many Canadians voted for him the past two campaigns. But who is he really? Talking about these things would in turn get people wondering what Ignatieff stands for, and force the Liberals to present some substantive policy ideas that could then be debated. This isn't about fuzzy sweaters and softening him; it's about showing voters the person they are electing--and their vision for Canada going forward.
Elected officials and voters alike should applaud anything that moves us out of a political atmosphere of smear and fear.
The media, especially in White Rock and Surrey, has been all over this story:
Peace Arch News on the judgment.
CityCaucus.com
Surrey Leader
Petitioner Matt Todd`s blog
Reaction from Frank Bucholtz
Reaction from Peace Arch News editor Lance Peverly
I, for one, think this decision is a great thing. Political discourse is all too susceptible to mistruths and negative campaigning. When I prepare to vote, I want to hear from my candidates their vision for my community, province, and country. I am not as concerned about their perceptions of their opponents--by virtue of the fact they are running against them, I can figure out that they believe they are the better candidate. I think we all want leaders who are honest and forthright, and we want to be able to trust what we are hearing from them.
As an elected official, it is obviously important to not put yourself into the kind of situation Mr. Coleridge did. I hope this decision will make for better-researched, more positive election campaigns. When a candidate talks about their vision for their community, they can easily stay away from the kind of gutter politics that bitterly divides voters, and leads to all sorts of crazy stories and theories.
Look at the reaction to the Tories' anti-Ignatieff ads (which, I should note, are factual, but negative in tone). One wonders if the money would be better spent on presenting Prime Minister Harper's vision for Canada. After three years as Prime Minister, I am not convinced many of us understand what makes Harper tick. What is he about? What are his concerns? What is his vision for Canada? He wasn't from the Adscam party, and he wasn't Stephane Dion, so many Canadians voted for him the past two campaigns. But who is he really? Talking about these things would in turn get people wondering what Ignatieff stands for, and force the Liberals to present some substantive policy ideas that could then be debated. This isn't about fuzzy sweaters and softening him; it's about showing voters the person they are electing--and their vision for Canada going forward.
Elected officials and voters alike should applaud anything that moves us out of a political atmosphere of smear and fear.
posted by Jordan Bateman @ 11:31 AM
