Turning Legitimate Criticism into "Alternative Facts"

I was reading through /r/Canada on Reddit this morning and stumbled 
across a thread on a story about Danielle Smith in the National Post 
newspaper. I don't have a Reddit account, so I thought I'd respond here. 
I know, I know. I'm shouting into the void.

Smith is the new premier of the province of Alberta. She was chosen by 
her party after the previous premier, Jason Kenney, stepped down. His 
departure followed a leadership review in which he gained the support of 
just over 50% of party members. He stepped down voluntarily given the 
low level of support within his own party.

Before taking over the United Conservative Party, Smith was the leader 
of the Wild Rose Party, and she espouses a number of alt-right ideas. 
Lately, her announcement that the World Economic Forum would have no 
hold in Alberta has been the subject of a great deal of scrutiny and 
derision.

That's the issue at the heart of this phlog post.

On Reddit, Smith is ridiculed for her opposition to the WEF. I don't 
understand why anyone would ridicule that stance. There is nothing good 
about allowing unelected groups of corporate titans to influence 
government policy. The World Economic Forum, the Bilderberg Group, and 
other international organizations with substantial corporate membership 
should not be permitted to hijack our democracy.

The WEF brags about having Justin Trudeau and his cabinet in their 
pocket[1]. Current finance minister Chrystia Freeland and former Bank of 
Canada governor Mark Carney attended the 2022 Bilderberg meeting[2]. 
This should be cause for concern, not fodder for ridicule. These are not 
completely transparent organizations. We don't really know how they are 
influencing our government's policies -- and that's a problem. More 
importantly, even when their agendas are out in the open, they have no 
right to influence. Our governments were elected to represent us, not a 
group of corporate billionaires. We have campaign finance laws to keep 
corporations out of our elections. These organizations are a means of 
skirting around those controls on corporate influence.

Another disturbing development in that Reddit thread involved a 
commenter who remarked on the mainstream media as a propaganda machine 
"owned and controlled by a select few." Twenty years ago, that was a 
valid criticism and a concern shared by many on the left. The corporate 
consolidation of major media outlets was seen as a looming threat to 
free speech and democracy. Now, when this person makes the same claim, 
they are accused of being anti-semitic. They immediately denied that 
accusation.

But the bigger problem here is that once-legitimate criticisms of 
unelected supra-national bodies and media conglomerates are now 
associated with the alt-right and anti-semitism and are laughed off as 
ridiculous ideas.

We do this at our own peril. It would be much better to separate the 
criticism from the group or person levying it, and assess each idea 
based on its merits. Unlike political leaders, we as citizens do not 
gain anything by opposing every idea that comes from the other side. 
Rather, we lose the opportunity to explore our shared interests and 
concerns.

I'm glad that people on the right are exercising some skepticism and are 
seeing some long-standing problems with our democracy. That's an 
opportunity to open a dialogue. We should talk, not ridicule.


[1] https://financialpost.com/opinion/terence-corcoran-in-canada-follow-the-money-the-ideas

[2] https://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/meetings/meeting-2022/participants-2022