“Shit Knocking” and the Erosion of Civil Discourse

The recent incident involving PC MHA Keith Russell sharing a Facebook post calling for Liberals to receive a “good shit knocking” has highlighted the toxic underbelly of online politics in Newfoundland and Labrador. The post, shared on the Republic of Newfoundland and Labrador page, was deleted by Russell after he claimed it was an accident.

What’s striking about this incident is not just the language used or Russell’s willingness to share such content. It’s the larger pattern of behavior emerging among some politicians in the province. Heated rhetoric and personal attacks have characterized the MOU controversy, with Liberal MHAs reporting online abuse and harassment.

Premier Tony Wakeham ordered an independent review into the deal after his party won a surprise majority government last October. Instead of promoting constructive debate on the merits of the agreement, we’re seeing politicians resort to name-calling and online intimidation. This is not just hurtful for individual politicians but also deters people from entering politics altogether.

Liberal Leader John Hogan pointed out that “online attacks are taking a toll” on him and his caucus members. His comments serve as a stark reminder of the corrosive effect this kind of behavior has on our democratic institutions. When politicians feel compelled to defend themselves against online vitriol, it creates a toxic environment that undermines trust in government.

Russell’s actions are not an isolated incident. His reputation for edgy politics and constant criticism of Opposition MHAs during proceedings is well-documented. While some might view his behavior as a refreshing change from the usual staid politicking, others see it as a sign of deeper problems within the PC party.

In fact, Russell’s words – “We’re a humorous bunch” – raise more questions than they answer. What kind of humor is acceptable in politics? When does banter tip into bullying or intimidation? These are questions that need to be asked and answered if we’re serious about promoting civility in public discourse.

Hogan stated he would be “angry” and consider disciplinary action against a member of his caucus who shared such a post. This suggests even some politicians recognize the gravity of this situation. However, where are the consequences for those who engage in this kind of behavior?

This incident highlights the need for greater accountability within our political institutions. We can no longer afford to tolerate online abuse and intimidation as simply “part of the game.” As we move forward, it’s crucial that politicians prioritize respectful dialogue over personal attacks and cyberbullying.

The erosion of civil discourse in politics has far-reaching consequences for our democracy. It creates a climate where people are reluctant to engage with public life, constructive debate is replaced by shout-downs, and trust in government begins to crumble.

It’s time for politicians like Russell to take responsibility for their actions and words. We need to see greater leadership on this issue from all parties involved – not just empty condemnations or half-hearted apologies. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador deserve better: a politics built on mutual respect, open dialogue, and a commitment to the common good.

The internet may be a powerful tool for mobilization and activism, but it can also be a toxic wasteland if left unregulated. It’s up to us – politicians, citizens, and media outlets alike – to create a more civil online environment where constructive debate and respectful dialogue are encouraged, not discouraged.

The “shit knocking” incident may seem like a minor matter to some, but its implications are far-reaching. Will we continue down this path of online abuse and intimidation or take concrete steps to promote civility in public discourse? The choice is ours – and it’s time for action, not just words.