In city council chambers last night, one of our councillors decided to make her point about being offended by offending the majority of people listening. Councillor Sandy White said the “n-word”. Here’s the newspaper article with the context: http://www.lfpress.com/2013/03/05/london-politician-drops-n-word-bomb

In addition to the understandable outrage that most people responded with, there were 2 interesting semi-defenses of her statement.

1. That she was in the “heat of the moment” and had poor judgement, so we should cut her some slack. The problem with this defense is that Ms. White stated that her daughter told her to use the word for “shock value”. This was a planned offence.

or

2. That the free speech protections we enjoy as a society should excuse Ms. White from criticism or community backlash. This second defense depends upon a common incorrect interpretation of the rights given by free speech.

Our fundamental freedom of speech, protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, means that the government cannot make it illegal to express your opinion (with some exceptions, like hate speech or libel). So Ms. White is absolutely free to use that offensive language without fear of being criminally charged. Her fundamental freedom to speak has not been hampered in any way.

However, just because she can legally say it, does not mean that it was appropriate language to use. Racial slurs have no place in public discourse, and they certainly have no place in the official statements made by our elected officials. In choosing to use such offensive language, Ms. White has violated our community standards, and she has demeaned the office that she holds. You cannot obtain permission to use a racial slur, you cannot justify it by being emotionally upset, and you cannot hold yourself to a lower standard than the people and the community you represent.

When you woke up this morning, did you look at your closet, set aside a particular outfit while saying “and that is what I will wear on May 3rd, 2015”?  I hope not. Making a decision on future behaviour so far removed from the reality of the situation could make for a disastrous outcome.  You don’t know what the weather will be, where you’re going to be that day, what condition the clothes will be in.

And you certainly wouldn’t want to make that wardrobe prediction publicly, especially if you had vocal and unkind critics ready to point out each and every mistake you make. Wear the chosen outfit despite its unsuitability, and they’ll cry “Poor decision-making!” Change you clothes to fit the situation and your detractors will howl “LIAR!”

So, why would anyone running for the Liberal leadership create a detailed policy platform, a full 2 years before the next general election? No matter how well-educated and experienced your campaign policy staff are, there is a wealth of vital governmental information that they cannot have access to.

They also have no idea on who they’ll be working with.The adoption of any policy item depends on support from the majority of MPs, and until you know who you’re working with, it’s foolish to assume that they’ll agree to implement your ideas.

And the most important reason for not releasing a completed policy platform? You need to listen to the people you plan on representing as Prime Minister. Rolling out a fully formed policy platform now means, for the next 2 years, you’re telling Canadians that you have all the answers, and their input isn’t needed.

Don’t get me wrong: Giving the voters a clear idea of the direction your policies will follow is very important. But the voters need to be a part of the policy conversation, not simply the audience.

Volunteers give more than the general public will ever recognize. They make the choice to give their time and effort to make our community better, without any promise of reward or payment. If you’ve tried to organize any group of prospective volunteers you know that the ones who show up and give it their best are incredibly valuable. This is why it’s so important to have a way to recognize them and bring attention their efforts. By celebrating their hard work, hopefully you can inspire someone in the audience to step forward and join in.

The Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee medals were intended to be just such a reward,  “to honour significant contributions and achievements by Canadians”. Unfortunately, the meaning and significance of these medals have been diminished by a few poorly chosen nominations. At every level of government, there have been questionable nominations made, and each bad nomination detracts from from the real value of the award. Our own mayor Joe Fontana made two of these poor decisions: first, he nominated a former municipal politician who was found guilty of corruption, and then Mayor Joe nominated his own current city council.

It’s obvious why the first choice was a bad one: anyone who has been convicted of betraying the public trust is hardly a positive example to hold up to the rest of the community. But the second choice, the one to nominate his fellow council members who currently sit as our municipal leaders, is also a lapse in judgement.

When you are elected to office, you take on an obligation to encourage others at the expense of your own accolades. You don’t get medals, because there are other people who need the encouragement more than you do. As a leader, you know that there is always another volunteer who needs to hear that their efforts are appreciated, and their sacrifice is worth it. You put your own ego last.