Compelled to Muzzle?

muz·zle  (mzl) n. 1. The forward, projecting part of the head of certain animals, such as dogs, including the mouth, nose, and jaws; the snout. 2. A leather or wire restraining appliance that, when fitted over an animal's snout, prevents biting and eating. 3. The forward, discharging end of the barrel of a firearm. 4. A restraint on free movement or expression: had a muzzle put on their high spirits. tr.v. muz·zled, muz·zling, muz·zles 1. To put a muzzle on (an animal). 2. To restrain from expression: tried to muzzle the opposition. [Middle English mosel, from Old French musel, from Medieval Latin msellum, diminutive of msus, snout, from Latin msum.] muzzler n.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

---

muzzle [ˈmʌz^əl]

n

1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Zoology) the projecting part of the face, usually the jaws and nose, of animals such as the dog and horse

2. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Zoology) a guard or strap fitted over an animal's nose and jaws to prevent it biting or eating

3. (Military / Firearms, Gunnery, Ordnance & Artillery) the front end of a gun barrel

vb (tr)

1. to prevent from being heard or noticed to muzzle the press

2. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Zoology) to put a muzzle on (an animal)

3. (Transport / Nautical Terms) to take in (a sail)

[C15 mosel, from Old French musel, diminutive of muse snout, from Medieval Latin mūsus, of unknown origin]

Out of a city of just over half-a-million people,  we have roughly 400,000 people available for 'activism'. By this I mean within the ages of 14-65. 

To my recollection, we had two 'protests' this year. One was the Hamilton Civic League's garbage rally on March 10th, the other, the S.O.S. protest at the HWDSB headquarters on June 19th. Though both were about undeniably valid issues, neither required crowd control. 

And yet there is a consistent reaction to sites such as Raise the Hammer, the havens of online activism, a reaction of resentment and dismissiveness. What strikes me as a desire to muzzle. Witness this excerpt of a comment regarding RTH Editor Ryan McGreal's Spec article on Council's reluctance to follow its stated downtown-core vision: 

"I have no use for the blinkered view that ignores 3/4 of the city's interests in favour of a special interest group. Thats not city building behaviour its city destroying behaviour"

Now, my initial, gut reaction is 'Wow; you're ascribing a lot of power to the site and its commenters.'

Then: 'Why does an arguably 'fringe' element expressing itself so much bother you?'

And finally 'Is it jealousy? Is it anger that this person's view isn't being represented? Is it frustrating them to no end to have to put up with the 'activist-clatter'?'

Taking into consideration the fact that there is such a relatively small number of people who are willing to voice their contrary opinions, why would someone bear such...such disdain for a site, or a group of people, or a mindset? It's not like that in the RTH adherents having their say, the person's ability to express their own opinions is denied its fullness. 

Or is it...?

The other side of this coin is that- Well, I've previously referred to Raise the Hammer as a 'endless-loop, echo-chamber'. And part of the hazard of being a devotée of such a mechanism is that a) you begin believing your own press, b) you get an overinflated sense of 'informedness' and c) in a self-validating way, you assume that most others are informed to the same extent and in the same ways...or believe that they should be. 

Let me clarify that last sentence: There are some wildly intelligent people who contribute to the site, who read the site and who comment on the site. But what I've witnessed for as long as I've been frequenting RTH (which has go be going on seven years now) is the tendency to vilify those who have disparate opinions as well as -seemingly- believing that the party-line is unassailable...and moreover, that what's declared as 'consensus' isn't just plain old common sense, but the majority opinion. 

And often, it's not. 

Granted, for many issues, this disparity is a manifestation of ignorance. That the majority of Hamiltonians really don't possess a 'qualified opinion' on fundamental issues, that they're simply not sufficiently informed to craft one. Disinclination and non-investment tend to result in this state. Now, whether or not they'd serry up on the RTH parade square if they were shown the light, it's hard to say. Most of them will never read RTH, and even more will never even be aware of it. 

So it's not like the site actually has that much 'power'. Ryan is unquestionably respected by many in the city. He has a certain amount of cachet as a respected community commentator. But as deserving as he is for acclaim, RTH is hardly the hotbed of activism that someone like the aforementioned Spec commenter seems to resent it being. Resentment that to me, points to a wish that its strategic views be muzzled. For the common good, of course. According to how this person defines that. 

But this runs both ways: the 'downvoting' tool on RTH Comments sections is inarguably muzzling. 'Non-aligned' comments are immediately downvoted. In fact, a contrarian's post is rendered invisible if the reader's preferences dictate a threshold of negative votes provides this ultimate 'censuring'. So in the end, a forum that purports to be searching for answers for a beleaguered city wraps distasteful dissent in the 'troll' flag, and merely adds to the preponderance of muzzling. 

And of course, there's the more covert, seemingly benign brand of muzzling. The psychological kind that's regularly imparted by some on Council. I've seen it in general comments during a session, I've seen it during citizen delegation presentations, and I've read it in The Spec. (Regarding the middle reference, here's what a commenter on The Hamiltonian had to say about what happens during them: "A delegation. That's where you show up after having done a whole bunch of work, get only 5 minutes and be in shock as the counselors play with their blackberries, whisper to each other about other things and generally try to look as though they give a care.")

In the same way that subtly demeaning your spouse, jabbing them with tiny barbs, lobbing the tiniest of emotional shite-bombs might not be considered 'abuse' but still defines behaviour in a 'destructive relationship', the patronizing, the condescension, the well-couched belittling offered by certain councillors is nonetheless a form of muzzling. As witnessed in the engagement surrounding the HWT. 

And I have to wonder if this goes on in a thriving community. Or is it just something you find in one that's not particularly aware-and-energized?  

Since I began writing this post, the referenced commenter has added to their initial offering: 


"I'm talking about consistently dishonest debate, consistent casual dismissal of all opinion that doesn't match theirs, consistent dismissal of any studies that don't back up their theories, consistent shooting of the messenger, consistent lack of dismissing all information even when its correct if it comes from certain people. In short, I don't believe they want to change the city for the better by engaging people but rather brow beating them. Thats destructive not constructive to the process. The amount of cynicism on that site is beyond healthy porportions. The may want to talk but they aren't prepared to listen. Thats not communication thats dictating. No use for them at all"


I don't think that what they've said here is debatable. (Ryan and I have actually had conversations and correspondences about all of this.) So my label 'muzzling' takes on a more picante meaning. 


The one thing I have continually yammered-on about in almost everything I've posted on my sites or within The Spec's 'Opinion' section is the need for genuine dialogue in Hamilton. And so far, though intriguing thoughts and concepts are regularly published and commented on, I don't believe we've moved all that closer to creating that dialogue, to raising the bar for debate. 


And because of this, because of our self-imposed 'miredness', I can't help but think that what's really going on is some bizarre form of 'self-muzzling'. 


Clearly, we've got some difficult work ahead of us. 






M Adrian Brassington