Mayor Ashe and the Pickering Council have taken a security and safety stand against attackers by deciding that future Council meetings will be virtual rather than live.
Safeguarding and defending the Councillors is a logical and necessary step to take to defend against these kinds of threats.
However, there are two considerations the council should make in launching this kind of defence:
- Guilty before innocent?
To roll out a defence against crime by putting up broad, universal barriers against all criminals has never been the process used in our society. Criminals are not labelled criminals until they commit a crime; even past offenders are considered innocent until convicted of doing a crime.Though hiding behind universal defences seems sensible when defending Councillors, the strategy may be likened to playing whack-a-mole. Hiding now only delays perpetrators from eventually breaking through again, and a new defence must be found.
Instead, use the police to pursue, hunt and capture hackers when the evidence shows a crime is being committed.
This strategy may sound weak, but it is what our society has done forever. We do not incarcerate suspects. We charge them, convict them and then incarcerate them.
This Council defense strategy needs some more thought.
- Violation of democratic principles?
Virtual meetings have the potential of violating democratic principles in hidden ways.Restrictions on Lisa Robinson for violations of council codes of behaviour may be justified, but completely muting her should never be acceptable. She is an elected official, whether liked or not, for any stated position. Therefore she has the same rights as any other councillor, the right to free speech.
Not liking what she says does not justify muting her. Until she violates published official codes of conduct, she has the right to say what she believes, subject to all debate/discussion rules. She should be given her “5 minutes” as is due every councillor. Then, apply the cease regulation, which, if violated, escalates matters to the next level. At some point, if she continues violating discussion rules and regulations, she should be physically removed from the meeting. However, she deserves warnings and cautions before such is done.
Virtual meetings have the potential of removing Robinson from council meetings before she even attends, prohibiting her from entering the meeting from the start. This is wrong. It is the same as preventing her from physically entering the council chambers at the very start of a meeting. Again, the right thing to do is let her attend the meeting, let her speak under the same rules as any other councillor, a time limit and with official codes of conduct regulations applied. If and when she violates any rules of discussion, then the necessary repercussions need to be taken.
___________________In short, we may not like what Robinson says. We may oppose what she says. However, she is an elected representative, and until she is voted out of office, she has the right to sit on the council. Again, subject to discussion rules and regulations and an official code of conduct for such.
