Skip to content

Decorum key to civil society

They say the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but that has to be one of the worst ways to lubricate public process in a civil society.

They say the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but that has to be one of the worst ways to lubricate public process in a civil society.

Once again, one of our civic input processes has turned into a disrespectful affair and created concerns over how we as a community debate important issues and decisions in public.

We would argue it is all a matter of perspective. While sand in a hot tub, dust on a window sill, or construction noise at awkward moments may send some into a rage at the outrageous problems these situations cause (page 13) – may we direct you to pages 5 and 12 in this very issue.

On these pages you will find details of incidents that truly, unalterably, irrevocably, have changed lives in the most negative manner.

On pages 5 and 12 you will find stories from which those involved, and many of those around them, may never fully recover.

But we digress ...

Our municipal democratic systems have been set up in a way that requires public input as a way for decision makers to understand what residents think and feel when it comes to our future as a community. Public hearings are mandatory when major pieces of planning legislation are changed or proposed.

Development related permits also have processes connected to them – whether approved or disapproved. Our municipality is in the business of development – it’s not called the Municipal Anti-Development Plan last time we checked.

In order for these processes of input to work, there is a level of decorum that is expected and almost necessary to allow a true understanding of all the voices and viewpoints. Loud noises, heckling and others ways crowds often find to express themselves, lend themselves to spaces where many are uncomfortable to speak out.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a common belief that if said hearing or open house can be heavily weighted with one particular side – that perspective will carry the day.

Witness, if you will, past paid parking debates in Banff, where the sheer volume of negativity, rancour and personal attacks on mayor and council at one time prompted then-councillor Stavros Karlos to drop an F-bomb at a council meeting (for which he afterward apologized).

Then there is Canmore’s Peaks of Grassi development debacle, where again, marshaled citizens gathered to spew venom against a new addition in the neighbourhood. Instead of respectful debate over the issue at hand, it became an unabashed crusade to diminish and demean anyone who didn’t agree with the naysayers.

A recent development appeal hearing also saw frustration and the emotions of those there to oppose a developer’s permit approval boil over on several occasions. By interrupting the person presenting, those in the gallery disrespected the person and the process.

What was more concerning, however, was that the board chair did not step up to insist that a respectful hearing was being held. By nature of the fact that decorum was abandoned to give a soapbox to anti-development sentiment in this community, this decision is now open to appeal.

When we engage in debate over the future of our community, it is important to remember that how you argue your opinion is key to maintaining a civil space open to the sharing of all ideas. When we allow the hecklers to win, we are all diminished, because being loud and angry is not sufficient to demand you get your way on a particular issue.

What needs to be realized is that weight will be given on decisions by council and public boards – we certainly hope ­– based on the merits of all arguments, not by the level of negativity generated.


Rocky Mountain Outlook

About the Author: Rocky Mountain Outlook

The Rocky Mountain Outlook is Bow Valley's No. 1 source for local news and events.
Read more



push icon
Be the first to read breaking stories. Enable push notifications on your device. Disable anytime.
No thanks