When it comes to debates, getting comfortable being uncomfortable can be the most fruitful way forward
Your friends, colleagues, parents, and their dogs are aware of the snap election called by Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau scheduled for 20 September 2021. The consistent buzz stirred by election season forces voters to choose whether to engage in potentially lethal political discourse or stay quiet. Many who prefer collegiality will choose the latter because rarely will two individuals supporting wildly opposing parties engage in civil conversation and walk away with respect for differing opinions. Unfortunately, political views are intrinsically intertwined in our being and no longer a single component of a complex entity. When you vote for the Conservative party we assume every aspect of you is conservative, and if you vote Liberal you must bleed red through and through, and so on for every party. This binary labelling has made it difficult for individuals of different political parties to discuss these issues respectfully, especially in law school. Similarly, our southern neighbour has been increasingly divided throughout the years as either Republican or Democrat. However, Democratic US Senator Joe Manchin is famously known for his never-ending embrace of bipartisanship.
Senator Manchin has held the only Democratic seat in the predominantly Republican West Virginia since 2010. He has earned the reputation of being one of the most powerful and influential politicians in the United States for his “self-narrative as a unifier.” For many bills pushed through by Democrats, he is consistently the man his own party needs to win over.. Senator Manchin will refuse to vote for a new bill if no Republican votes for it. A rare sighting in North American politics. Although I do not agree with many of Senator Manchin’s decisions, such as backing Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, I can respect his uncommon political journey. His stubbornness and defence of bipartisanship makes him an annoyance for his party, yet many would say a fair representative of his state and people. He stays true to his political ideology of what American politics should be.
So why am I mentioning this potentially controversial US Senator? Because I can appreciate his unwavering ability to hold an opinion with the opportunity to engage in productive dialogue. If a politician in the position of potentially losing his job from his contentious opinions can oppose his own party, every student at Osgoode and everywhere should fearlessly participate in political debate. Especially at a law school, students should encourage these conversations within their friend groups and student clubs on campus. Osgoode boasts about their many student organizations and clubs, yet what makes our clubs and student government different from other law schools? The multitude of choices? Or perhaps the numerous Zoom events we host? Honestly, I’m not sure. I’m thankful for the diverse choice in extra-curriculars, but I am disappointed in the apolitical stance many clubs and the student body display on important social issues. This is not to say I respect someone who shares their ‘opinion’ riddled with false facts, and motivated by racism, homophobia, sexism, or xenophobia. Those hateful attempts to exclude others simply because of their immutable characteristics have no place in thoughtful discourse. I understand the careful water these groups must tread when it comes to politics and social issues in an endeavor to not ostracize the students that disagree with those stances, yet this passive neutrality seems oxymoronic in a law school. As the next cohort of Canadian lawyers, let’s become comfortable in the uncomfortable conversations with people who do not share the same opinions as us. Executive members of clubs should discuss these issues during their meetings, venturing to pop the Osgoode bubble we love to isolate ourselves in. As previous Chief Justice McLachlin stated, “the free flow of political ideas is essential to political democracy and the functioning of democratic institutions.” Student leaders and the next generation of lawyers should prefer loud disagreement over passive neutrality.