The Cliff, the Crowd, and the Redundancy of Control: On dissent, manufactured neutrality, and the quiet pressure to jump with everyone else

TL;DR: This post is about the dangerous precedent of using redundant bylaws to mandate ideology and silence dissenting voices. If you are concerned about the implications of this proposed legislation for our community, I urge you to reach out to your local council members (commrelations@didsbury.ca) before the next vote. Our rights only exist if they are afforded to everyone, not just the majority. Whatever happened to, “If all of your friends jumped off a cliff, would you?”

I might be wrong, but I certainly think the moral of that question was to discourage caving to peer pressure and groupthink. It was a lesson in developing your own thoughts, beliefs, and decisions, and then owning them.

I might be sensitive to hypocrisy, but it seems that as a community, we look down on people for being “sheeple” and following the crowd, yet when push comes to shove, we still act as though the majority rules. To me, that is a very, very dangerous concept. The majority should not be the metric by which we choose what to believe. Dissenting opinions and voices should be encouraged and, frankly, protected.

We do not all think the same. To suggest that because most people think something is correct makes it so, is a logical fallacy even the most stubborn among us should be able to identify. Prevailing sentiment once held that cigarettes were harmless, cocaine was an acceptable soft-drink additive, and left-handed people were associated with the devil. The latter led to murder, so perhaps prevailing sentiment doesn’t need to be the word of law. In fact, history suggests it very viscerally should not be.

I am fortunate to have been born in, and live in, a country that defends the right to free speech. Unfortunately, it seems some have lost sight of what a right is, and that it should be afforded to everyone, even if they share a wholly singular belief. Free speech is not a privilege to be afforded only to some who we agree with. I have to wonder if that is understood and believed, especially as we see elected officials seeking loopholes and policies to silence dissenting voices simply because they feel they have a majority behind them.

I think the strongest minds are the ones that not only tolerate, but amplify the right of others to have an opinion, even if they don’t agree with it. When you are sound in your convictions, when you don’t jump off a cliff just because your friends might, you have much more capacity to endorse the rights of others to do the same. Seeking to use tools to silence opposing beliefs doesn’t show power; it shows a lack of integrity. Funny enough (horrified laugh, not haha laugh), it creates quite an imbalance, a lack of neutrality, if you will.

Lately, it feels like there is an intense and concerning desire to push unwilling folks off the cliff with the crowd. Almost as if the mandate is to strip away autonomy and the value of diverse perspectives. As if it isn’t enough for some to have their own thoughts unless they can shove them down the throats of others, isn’t that interesting?

Louder does not make someone more right, and a majority does not make a thing true. Insecurity in the face of dissenting ideas is a very clear indicator of something, and it isn’t moral high ground. It is telling when a majority, or even a loud minority, feels the need to manipulate their power to silence those who think differently from them.

When I see examples of this in the wild, I am usually simply perplexed, especially when I see folks asking for “protections” that are practically redundant to what already exists. But as a wise fictional detective once said: “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

In cases like book bannings and infringements on human rights, expression, and public symbolic support for all community members, if the move is administratively redundant, then the only remaining answer is that it is an ideological attack. An unnecessary one, with unnecessary consequences.

But sure, let me jump off the cliff for a moment, since it seems to be so in fashion. Everyone loves their straw man arguments and logical fallacies, so why shouldn’t I join the fun?

If the aim is to enact legislation that is redundant to existing policy, procedure, and statutory framework, I think it is about as effective as an incel claiming he is intentionally socially inept to ward off the women already not approaching him. That is to say, unnecessary, tragically self‑owning, lacking self-awareness and revealing far more about the internal landscape than the person making the claim ever intended.

I would urge everyone to speak up for the right to free speech, freedom of expression, and the protection of dissenting ideas. If an act of governance, no matter how well‑intentioned, results in people being silenced, it is the job of every one of us to stand against it. Our thoughts should not be mandated. Our decisions should not be controlled by blanket legislation. Our elected officials should not abdicate their responsibility to hear out members of our community in favour of an easy out, especially when sufficient policies and protections already exist.

We must remember the words of pastor Martin Niemöller: “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Even if something feels uncomfortable for you, the response should never be to make it inaccessible for everyone else. Just because something does not impact you directly does not mean you should remove yourself from advocating for the rights and freedoms upon which it is based. I am reminded of the sentiment famously penned by Evelyn Beatrice Hall to describe the philosophy of Voltaire, so I’ll leave you with a final quote: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” That is the standard we should all be striving for.

In closing, speaking of unnecessary consequences, it raises the question: how free is our speech, really? Who is defending it? I, for one, do not feel particularly liberated in exercising mine. Being an active community member and being associated with institutions that rely on the very elected officials driving these conversations puts me in an unfortunate position. I would hope not to be persecuted for saying how I feel. I would hope that exercising a fundamental right would not come with hidden costs. But looking at what is unfolding now, I cannot say with complete certainty that I believe that to be true.

What will exercising my rights cost me? I suppose we will have to see.