The laws of our society are not intended to be applied to the vast majority of citizens. They are, and always have been, created to keep in check those who are slowest, most careless, and show the poorest judgment. In the case of many specific laws, we can see that it’s necessary to set the bar low. It’s a true testament to how ridiculous human nature can get when our public discourse turns to basic etiquette and respect between people.
Our neighbours in the RM of Ritchot are now living examples of what happens when people don’t adhere to basic decency. While some of my libertarian friends may celebrate the successful elimination of another level of government, even the fictional Ron Swanson of Parks and Recreation fame would likely find these circumstances distasteful.
Let’s call it as it is: our municipal councils are not supposed to agree all the time. If we wanted perfect consensus, we would have a single administrator deciding what to do. By design, a group of five or more individuals have to make decisions by poking at the issues from different angles and perspectives. In theory, and usually in practice, this group engages in respectful discussion and comes up with the most balanced and prudent approach. Likely, that approach wouldn’t be any single person’s first preference, but ideally the final result melds the thoughts and ideas of everyone involved. If the electorate has done their job, this group will be representative of all citizens and their decisions will reflect society as a whole.
It’s a great system—when we respect each other.
And when we don’t? Even on the best of councils, passionate people sometimes cross a line. Ask any current or former municipal leader and they will likely be able to share a time when they needed to apologize or offer forgiveness in the wake of a “robust” comment. As human beings, we make mistakes, but we recognize those mistakes, humble ourselves, and move forward to the next challenge.
In the wake of the domino resignations in Ritchot, one must wonder what situation exists that would make an elected official think it is acceptable to curse at one of their peers in a public meeting. While lines may be crossed, this is so far over the line that it enters the realm of the ridiculous. It’s been said that this is not an isolated incident, bringing into question this council member’s ability to serve in the first place. Such remarks disrespect individuals, the office, and the general public as a whole.
The former mayor of Ritchot brought to light the lack of legislation to deal with hostile behaviour on council. Indeed, what reasonable individual in their right mind would even think we would have to deal with such a level of stupidity? I often wondered during my time on council at what point we started having to legislate what it takes to be good neighbours and human beigns. It is a sad commentary on what we have lost as a society that we need to spend time and money writing and implementing laws to cover basic decency. What a waste.
I do not begrudge the resigned council members for utilizing the only mechanism available to them: forcing the dissolution of council to bring the decision back to the people. In fact, I commend it. It is now in the hands of the citizens of Ritchot not only to elect a responsible group of competent individuals, but to produce a slate of candidates through encouragement of their neighbours or by stepping up themselves.
We as a people need strong, diverse, and competent councils who are there for the right reasons. Those in public office should expect a certain level of scrutiny and their behaviour should never become hostile. Differences should focus on the ideas, not the people behind them. Personal attacks are never appropriate in any setting.
How unfortunate that the Golden Rule is too broad a simple to meet the criteria of a law.
