I haven't written on this blog for a long time, but with the current Federal election taking place and the number of candidates being forced to resign over social media screwups, perhaps we need to take a step back and consider if a person's past online statements are really necessarily enough to be dismissed. By my count, there have so far been two Conservative, two Liberal and one NDP candidates that have been forced to resign their candidacy for past posts on various social media platforms (with an additional Conservative candidate being dumped for urinating in a cup at a client's home)
While this might thrill the hyper-partisans of the other parties (full disclaimer - yes that includes me sometimes), I think Canadians need to really consider if the statements made in the past are significantly important or serious enough to impact their ability to be an effective Member of Parliament and represent his or her constituents in a manner that is both professional and ethical. In my view, this is distracting from the election as a whole, and while the media might like it for some brief excitement in the daily news cycle, one has to wonder at the long term effects (if any) on the types of people who get selected for running for public office.
Realistically, none of us are perfect, and I would not feel too much risk if I bet that almost everyone who partakes in social media, especially in the political debates, have at least once posted something that is offensive to at least one other person. That is the reality of life - what one person thinks is okay, may be offensive to another; and if a disagreement gets out of hand, words are spoken that are meant to hurt or provoke. The difference is that social media records this for all time, no matter what the circumstances were that lead to it or if is actually relevant to the events of today.
In common law there is a concept of Statute of Limitations, where the actions of a person in certain issues, such as slander, are no longer considered to have legal ramifications (I'm using this as an illustration, I am not a lawyer, so my definition may be a bit off). I suggest that if we want people to continue to come forward and participate as candidates there should be a statute of limitations for social media, say two or three years. Why? A person's views may have changed, the person may have not been in the best mental state at the time of a posting, or maybe even having written something after a few too many beers. And in the case of teenagers, well, realistically speaking, the number of teens who have not done or said something moronic during that time period in their life would be almost non-existent...
That being said there are a few caveats to this:
- Posts that can be considered by the general population to be discriminatory towards a specific group of people (race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.)
- Misogyny
- Posts that threaten violence to a person or persons
All in all, to me the ultimate test may be to just let the candidate run on their past record. If they can convince voters in their riding that they deserve to be elected, that is far better than the shrill voices of the political bubbles on social media that demand blood.
