What I really enjoy about John Ivison’s discussion of contraband cigarettes is the realistic approach to a complex problem. There are several sets of views, priorities and values at work. Two of those are Stockwell Day and the U.S. law enforcers, who have differing views of how strictly to apply the laws governing production and sale of tobacco products.
Rather than saying, “the law is the law,” Day asks the public to stop buying bargain-basement contraband cigarettes. He appeals to the greater good, imploring that money from such cigarettes fuels more dangerous illegal activity. Demand reduction is a great strategy for stemming market economy problems. If there is no demand for contraband cigarettes, the market will disappear. What you run into is summed up in dialogue from the movie ” The Break Up,” whereby the plea “I want you to want to wash the dishes,” (Jennifer Aniston) receives the reply (Vince Vaughn) “Why would I want to wash the dishes?” Day wants smokers to want to pay punitive taxes… and it may work! My grandmother, who lives in a border town, has always factored “made in Canada” into her purchase decisions. Frugality has lost to patriotism, whenever possible, and, increasingly, where “made in Canada” is discernible. Day is counting a great deal on prioritizing “societal good” over “money in my pocket.” (This notwithstanding that people will actual believe him!)
Assuming Day had there attention when speaking, the U.S. Enforcement Agencies reply suggesting they have bigger fish to fry makes no sense. They are more likely discounting the argument because (a) it is flawed and there is not connection between cigarettes and the “big fish”, or (b) they have additional priorities beyond upholding the law of the land. Assuming Day has it right–so no (a)–one could speculate endlessly as to what those (b) priorities might be: appease a potentially volatile First Nations community? provide some air cover to local manufacturing jobs? allow criminal activity to continue until there is a “big bust” that will survive the court system?
On the surface it would be confusing to see why Day would not get buy-in from U.S. law enforcers: they appear to both want the same thing. It is not that easy, nor should it be, but until there can be a clear discussion of what each party wants, there can be no resolution. Clear objectives may demand some heated internal discussions, and hopefully take into account other interests. At some point the First Nations community should be asked what they want from the situation, as well. Entering into negotiations, there is risk in clearly stating your objectives, appealing to the “greater good” and creating an in-group dynamic, may enable objectives oriented toward sustainable solutions to some of these incredibly complex issues.
“The Boy Who Cried Wolf” was written by Aesop in the 17th century. The premise of the fable is that lying will diminish your credibility. Perhaps a modern take on the fable is: assume that people don’t believe you. This may be the result of the “urban myth” or of the constant onslaught of spinformation, but there is nothing wrong with some healthy skepticism.
I think some skepticism is warranted toward a community warning regarding Withrow Park in Toronto. There was apparently a incident involving a rape in the area. One member of a community group took it upon themselves to e-mail the warning the rest of the community and confirm that the incident did indeed take place. Further more, a man (who did not want to be identified) suggested in the National Post account that police ought to do something because the source was “reliable” and something serious took place. His argument: put the unsupported information out there and let people make up their own minds!
Forcing people to “make up their own minds” in this situation is calling to murky underlying beliefs that have no place in solving the problem. “He said; she said” forces you to side with “he” or “she.” Who gets the benefit of the doubt in that case depends on many variables. “We can’t tell you what she/he said or who she/he is, but please listen to how serious this is” makes it much less rational and begs for overgeneralization. Knowing the details (as uncomfortable and private as they may be), will shine some light on what should be done.
The police have work to do in order to be a trusted partner in finding the solution. Not being brought “into the loop” is a strong indication that they are viewed as an “out-group” in this community. Once the right information is out, we can start to clearly address the issue. Until then, as interesting as it is to observe, the issue gets increasingly clouded by unsubstantiated claims.
I had the opportunity to work with a group of undergraduate business students over the weekend, and the subject of Ryerson’s Chris Avenir arose. He is the Facebook group administrator who is bearing the brunt of student collaboration on an individual chemistry assignment.
If there was any support for Ryerson’s position (that Chris enabled cheating), it was not voiced in the room; I suspect it was absent because fellow students “get” how silly it is to treat Facebook collaboration as anything more serious than a library study group. Those on the “inside” won’t argue that, and would be discouraged from doing so, especially in that room.
Outside the room, in the cold March light of day, let’s ask the question:
Is it cheating because they were cheating, or is it cheating because they (and Chris as the administrator) got caught?
Argue whether or not the falling tree makes a noise, but I think that the public group’s description puts Ryerson in the tough position of having to turn a blind eye when there is evidence that the rules (or, at least instructor directives) have been breached. Students have to take responsibility for keeping the collaboration secretive. Study groups don’t take place within earshot of the instructor!
Earlier this year, I was working with another group of twenty-somethings. One of the crew shared with me a story that equates. On an unnamed highway in Western Canada, he was driving in a line of cars behind a police car. The police car was driving about 10 km/hr above the posted speed limit. Highway drivers in Canada know that the understood highway limit is up to 20 km/hr over the speed limit. Confident in this knowledge, our friend pulled out and passed the police officer, making sure to remain slightly under the understood limit.
Did he get pulled over?
Of course he did… and the officer rightly questioned his capacity for good judgement.
Some mutual understandings can counter explicit rules, but when dealing with people in authority (school administration, police officers, etc.), be careful how openly you flaunt the rule bending. If the Facebook group description had not talked about “sharing answers” and stuck to “discussing problems,” it may have allowed Ryerson administrators to keep a blind eye, and not have to turn one.
CBC Radio One’s The Current today featured Chris Hunter, a bomb defuser who has written accounts of his travels.
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent
He talks of being able to get a detailed confession and explanation out of one of the terrorist bomb “artists” by stroking his ego and calling the bombs “masterpieces.” I would argue that he created a very strong “in-group” bond with the bomber. “You see, we are alike. We are the only ones who understand your talent…” The fellow-artist bond trumped the more natural “out-group” identity of terrorist vs. Western crusader. Hunter puts it down to ego; I disagree.
Also, Mr. Hunter is fairly straightforward about how Canada could be under imminent threat of a homeland attack. This is due to the pattern of terrorist organizations attacking countries that display internal division (e.g. conflict over relevant foreign policy). The natural example would be the attacks in Spain and England that followed debate over whether or not to engage in Iraq, etc.
One would hope that given his degree of credibility that he exhibited in the interview–and presumably through the book–that this is an objective statement, rather than a soft “plug” from someone who, as counter-terrorist consultant, could benefit greatly from a perceived threat. I do not presume to say that Mr. Hunt is overstating the situation for his own good, but the temptation must be great.
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- Recent Posts
- Blogroll
- Meta
