Ideas and more ideas

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 14/08/2023 (1133 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Stories in the news have me reflecting again on how we generate and spread ideas. Are some ideas so dangerous that they should be banned from libraries, removed from websites, even made illegal? How can we encourage good ideas to flourish? How can we make our civil discourse more enlightening and less divisive?

I would like to frame this discussion with a reminder of how perilous our situation is. Our information landscape is littered with misinformation, disinformation and conspiracy theories. Artificial intelligence threatens to make it worse. Polarized vitriol dominates much discussion. Prominent people, especially women and members of minorities, are subjected to abuse from the public. This last concern has been publicized by — among others — Gov. Gen. Mary Simon.

To see the danger, look at the U.S. Many think that its democracy is in an existential crisis. One such observer, American pollster and political strategist Frank Luntz, was interviewed a couple of weeks ago by CBC TV.

Luntz noted how much he appreciates “the kindness and generosity” of the Canadian population. “It’s the way America used to be,” he said, “before we became so angry and so bitter.” Asked what he saw for the future for his country, Luntz replied, “Could this be the beginning of the end?”

Let’s return to those news stories that triggered this column. There was, of course, the story here in Brandon of whether to ban school and library books with LGBTQ+ content. Some stories revolved around opposition leader Pierre Poilievre. One story was that Poilievre seemed to be in the thrall of a conspiracy theory about the World Economic Forum (WEF). He has vowed to not let his caucus members attend WEF meetings. And the WEF became a hot issue in the recent federal byelection next door to us in Portage-Lisgar. Another story was Poilievre visiting the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in Winnipeg. Frontier is a right-wing think tank that has attracted attention for “denialist” ideas about Indian residential schools.

Speaking of those “denialist” notions, a recent report recommended that such views be outlawed on the grounds of their being false and might re-traumatize those who experienced the schools. We may hear more about this concept when the federal government reintroduces a bill in parliament that would restrict “online harms.”

These stories raise a key question. How do we handle ideas in society that we think are in error or dangerous? I am going to start an answer with a story from a few years ago that resonates today.

In 1998, “The Lancet,” the prestigious British medical journal, published a paper linking childhood vaccines with autism. This paper was found to be fraudulent and was withdrawn in 2010. This publication has done immeasurable harm to public health by stoking needless fear of vaccines. I even wonder if refuting its faulty premise solidifies in our minds the idea that vaccines cause disease.

But “The Lancet” incident highlights why a diversity of opinion in society is vital. We need investigative journalists, dissident scholars, whistleblowers, activists, gadflies and others. You know, the types who question the status quo, the established order, the conventional way of thinking.

So, for Indian residential school “deniers,” I don’t think there should be legal restrictions on their speech. After all, for a century Canadian society thought the residential schools were a good idea. The schools were closed because some people questioned the prevailing narrative.

What about politicians like Poilievre visiting a right-wing think tank? I am all for it. I am happy to see a link between “politicians” and “think”! I am concerned when right-wing leaders visit only right-wing places. And likewise for left-wingers.

That Poilievre’s Conservative party would forbid its members from attending WEF meetings is disappointing. This affirms a conspiracy theory shaping policy.

On the other side of the political spectrum, I am disappointed when NDP politicians advocate making some ideas — like “denialism” — illegal. Aren’t they forgetting the threat posed when the government tries to restrict ideas? Former leaders of their party, Tommy Douglas and J.S. Woodsworth, were spied on or arrested by the Canadian government for expressing unconventional views.

Our challenge is to nurture the most open-minded, nimble, creative, respectful ways to foster good ideas. This challenge is for our leaders and for us, the citizens. The ideal, as some thinkers have phrased it, is for society to resemble an “idea lab.” This would be where people are valued, but ideas are under constant — even harsh — scrutiny.

Hopefully, we can avoid the intellectual swamp and poisonous divide that is today’s U.S. Pollster Luntz ended his CBC interview with a stark message. “This is my warning to Canadians: don’t follow America.”