SOCIAL: PROPOSED POLICY CHANGES/ MANAGING SOCIAL CONFLICT

SUBJECT:  MANAGING SOCIAL CONFLICT

PURPOSE:  This briefing note is a recommendation for changes in policy pertaining to social conflict.

ISSUE:  There is not enough government action to manage social conflict in society.

Background:

Social responsibility is a concept that ensures that the government act with accordance to the benefit of society.  Social responsibility is a function of corporations to look beyond their company and give back to the community that they are in.  It is a way to be grateful that they were able to penetrate the market.  Social responsibility is also a method by which companies use to appeal to the masses.  By acting in a socially responsible way, the corporation gains the approval of many segments of people.  This idea has essentially created homogeneity in corporate strategy.  Social responsibility is beneficial because it looks at marginalization and attempts to provides a means by which these people can be supported.  It seeks to prevent crime.  By providing the marginalized with supports they are given a social lever by which to take themselves out of the situation by which petty crimes occur.  Social responsibility comes in the form of initiatives by the government as community cohesion through support groups, think tanks and cultural development.  These all get people involved in the community.  Through such involvement, the people are deterred from partaking in crime and are encouraged to contribute to the overall identity of the country.  Therefore, social responsibility has a place in modern society.  Social responsibility is a method by which globalization is combatted.  It takes the values of Canadian culture and attempts to repel other cultures which can be contrary to the values of Canadians.  Canada is a diverse place which respects human rights.  In fact, Canada was a main supporter in the UN Convention on human rights.  However, Canada has not always been such a supporter of human rights.  For example, they operated residential schools which served to marginalize the indigenous.  Further, they denied the Jews from entry as they attempted to escape WWII conflicts.  These have not been forgotten however, what is recognized is that Canada has reformed to accept many people in society.  The modern Canada today is a liberal place which respects freedom of expression and opinion as per its Constitution.  They have implemented hate speech legislation by which serve to socially control the discourse of people.  It’s implementation however have caused the far right to be in fear of self-expression which therefore prevents innovation and societal progress.  This has caused social isolation.  Thus, a balance must occur which serves to mitigate the negative effects of such legislation. 

Considerations:

The Canadian Constitution specifies that publications have the right to freely express opinion.  When an individual publishes something through their own publication it becomes a matter by which he or she gains feedback.  A publication means according to the legal dictionary, “in copyright law, [a] publication is making a book or other written material available to anyone interested by distributing or offering it for sale.”  Freedom of speech as it stands is limited by hate speech laws which serve to protect groups of individuals as according to CBC in 2011 “race, religion, ethnic origin, color, gender- [sexual orientation] and disability”.  With regards to a publication and the aforementioned, section 319 CBC, stipulates that “it is illegal to communicate hatred in a public place” and it also “protects people from being charged with a hate crime if their statements are truthful.”  Now the controversy lies with the fact of the matter of maintaining the conduct of that whomsoever are being targeted via such modern pejorative statements.  In academia, the use of citations has stipulations.  Such citations cannot be slander or libel to the business of the copyright holder.  Slander is the defamation of a spoken nature and libel is defamation via a publication.  Sourcing can further be used if it are transformative.  Being transformative means that the idea to be used is expanded and analyzed.  As it pertains to social conflict, those in the “public eye“ should be aware of these concepts.  The government needs to manage the conflict of these people as it has resulted in unmanageable herding which could result in hysteria.  The reason in modern society that people attain the position of being a public figure is because of cultural purposes or for corporate interests.  Cultural purposes means that they have attained the validation of followers in the communities that they may be targeting.  As for corporate interest, they may be backed by multinational corporations.  Essentially, this is the debate of main street and wall street.  The governments act to promote culture and culture is an expression of legislation in the society implemented by political parties and public servants all to represent the rights and freedoms of the people- the normativity.  Corporations on the other hand have deployed social responsibility to appeal to the masses in a bid to make profit or revenue thus they utilize such individuals for these purposes.  Regardless, what transpires despite which support they may have is social conflicts in the macrosociety.  Those in the “public eye,” may do things that may upset their followers or others in the “public eye.”  This creates industries of gossip and “beef.”  These are publicized by magazine print articles and online publications.  Such information could be considered as “trade secrets,” a term in business used to depict the competitive edge of a company.  These gossips or “beefs,” are sold to publications who make profit because they too have amassed a following.  What has occurred in the 90’s was multiple deaths related to “beef.”  It sparked a cultural division between the east and the west.  The government was late in preventing the deaths of multiple people.  Had they managed the “beef,” they would have been able to prevent deaths.  What occurred in the 2000’s was uncontrolled gossip which caused many in the “public eye” to experience a psychological response of coping, some suffered psychological illnesses.  The effective intervention was implemented in the publication of a notable sex tape.  Such release was considerate of a team whom helped manage and mitigate the negativity.  Prior to that time, there was not such a “team” to help the person in the “public eye.”  The rectification that this “team” did allowed for the creation of what are referred to as “influencers.”  However, it is a far cry from what they once were as a lot of agency has been removed and transferred to the corporations that enlist them.  Stars were blind in the 1990’s and in the 2000’s they became controlled by larger corporations.  Regardless, the managing of social conflicts of those in the “public eye” were effectively implemented by such “team” who managed the public relations of the individual in question.  They also worked on the marketing and promoted safety and security.  Regardless there is a new issue that has emerged and that is “cancel culture.”  “Cancel culture,” is contrary to the Canadian Constitution under section 2 in “Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms”.  “Cancel culture” creates “beef” or in other words strong uncontrolled verbations or descriptors against another in an attempt to stifle the appeal of the individual it targets. With regards to the aforementioned and in consideration of the process of the use of academic citations, the government needs to mitigate these in an effort to promote social cohesion in the culture of society.  Thus, it is important that these people in the “public eye,”  conduct their discourse so that they don’t “burn,” too hard that it causes the career of the other individual they have distaste for to be implicated so much so that they can’t make a living.  This causes a safety and security concern that the government should be aware of.  The concern is social isolation and social exclusion.  The individual targeted could be further damaged through physical harm causing subsequent pain and suffering than the initial “diss” or “disses”.  What needs to be determined here is the facts and the supporting evidence of the verbations and discriptors.  The factors involved in this include self disclosure and discretion and these require consent, consciousness and being informed.  There also needs to be a determination of the mens rea and the acteus reus of those partaking in such activity.  Essentially, such verbations and discriptors could be used as a lever or a means by which an advantage can be attained at the expense of the other person.  The mens rea would then be the malicious cause and the aceus reus would then be the slander or libel that causes social isolation and social exclusion.   

Options: 

Option 1:  Create legislation for those in entertainment.

This is a feasible option however it would require a lot of input from both those that observe and those that are in the industry.  By creating legislation to protect the culture of Canada, it ensures that cultural creation initiatives of the government continue despite the use of influencers by corporations.  It would also set boundaries between those in the industry and the followers and those that seek to profit off of “gossip” or “beef”.  This essentially would give those in the “public eye” equity.  It would ensure that their conduct would continue and it would not be affected in a malicious way resulting in security. 

Option 2:  Manage the social conflict of those in the “public eye.”

This is less feasible than option one.  This would require a government task force to be able to observe and manage multiple people in the “public eye” of the Canadian entertainment sphere.  This option is equitable to those in the “public eye,” as it would give them safety and security to continue to do what they do without malicious defamations.  What is not equitable however, is the current legislations that seek to limit freedom of opinion.  This is where having a team comes in, a team should be managing the social interactions of the followers in publications such as Youtube, Vimeo, Twitch etc.  This is the most sustainable option as it permits the government to guide the cultural development of the country. 

Option 3:  Mixture of option one and option two.

This is the most feasible option as the government can pick and choose which are appropriate with regards to the culture in society.  This option is also equitable as it tackles two birds with one stone.  This would ensure that those in the “public eye” are protected against malicious intent and defamations.  From a security perspective, the team can manage negativity to maintain the integrity of that whomsoever they represent. 

Option 4:  Status quo.

This is the most feasible option however, it does nothing for cultural development.  By selecting this option, “cancel culture” persists and it creates social isolation and social exclusion.  This therefore is not equitable for that whomsoever is in  the “public eye.”

Recommendation:

Option three is recommended.