Thread by @petersankoff

2/ I believe that we are at an important time in history. The manner in which (mis)information can circulate has changed our thought processes and belief systems. This is an oversimplified description of a complex problem, but there's nonetheless some truth to it.

3/ A growing number of people are attracted to ideas that strike many others as preposterous. Without question, there have always been groups of people attracted to conspiracies and falsehoods. That's just humanity.

4/ But this feels different to me. I never would have imagined Donald Trump could be elected. I realize that's the US, and whatever Canada is, we're not the U.S. (yet). But I do think we should not underestimate the power of disinformation.

5/ This makes it so much harder to converse with those we disagree with, because we don't even share the same basic premises. For example, I am a defence lawyer. I can have discussions with the Crown about legal matters, even though we are on opposite sides.

6/ What this means is that we have different views of things. So I think that when the police breach the Charter of Rights badly evidence should be excluded. The Crown will argue more often that it shouldn't b/c of the importance of the case. But we both agree the Charter exists.

7/ That is what I find to be the biggest difficulty when engaging with people who are convoy supporters. With many, we don't share the same premises. Some of it is because of lack of knowledge. I've spoken with some who have very distorted views of what the criminal law does.

8/ That's not surprising to me. The criminal law is complex. Lots of people have a mistaken understanding of how it works. But the same is true of medicine, and science. But misunderstandings are OK, so long as we share the same operating premises.

9/ If someone is genuinely confused, for example, about whether the police can do X, or a crime is committed by Y, I can explain it. Because we both agree, at our core, that the law is what matters. We might not agree on how it should be applied, but we agree on a law.

10/ Things become much more complicated when we don't agree on the same premise. A good example of this problem (in the criminal law field) arises when an offender suffers from a mental disorder.

11/ Let's say, for example, that Mr. X fervently believes that God is sending him messages about evil demons disguised as humans, who are going to destroy earth. He has to kill those demons to save Earth.

12/ Mr. X is acting logically if he kills those demons. I can't disagree with his actions. I don't want the Earth to be destroyed either. But I can disagree with his PREMISE. I do not believe God is sending messages about demons.

13/ This is important. I can't argue with Mr. X that what he did is wrong because he fervently believes that God is commanding him to act and I don't. We have no shared frame of reference. It will be a frustrating exercise for us both.

14/ It seems to me, thus, that the only way to speak with convoy supporters is by establishing a shared frame of reference and, more importantly, by seeing whether a shared frame of reference exists. If it doesn't, the conversation is pointless.

15/ I interject - briefly - because I forgot to add an important feature of the current climate: the need to start talking. Why is that so important? After all, we've always had conspiracy theorists, outsiders and the like....

16/ I believe, and this is not based on solid evidence, that the dissenters are growing. And this is not good for the security of our ongoing way of life. I'm not worried about the PPC taking power any time soon, but that's not the point.

17/ When so many are dissatisfied with Canadian life that they are willing to express it in active ways we have problems that we need to address - fast. Moreover, if this group is growing people who feel otherwise need to stand up - not stay silent or talk within our own bubbles.

18/ How many of you reading these tweets - a self-selecting group - find yourself saying at some time "I can't believe [this person I know well] is supporting this!" I bet all of you can name at least 3-5 people who fall into this group to some degree.

19/ I'm an upper middle class white guy, and I truly cannot believe the number of people I know, well or less well, who are some variant of anti-vax, anti-government, pro-convoy, or just skeptical of everything. It's a shocking number for me.

20/ I don't know for sure if there is a way out of this, and I cannot say for certain that it will ultimately lead to problems (though I feel strongly that it will). But goddamnit we need to try.

21/ However much fun, or satisfying, it might feel to mock, belittle and put down those people who fall into the categories I've described above. Or sit back with other friends and talk about how "fucked" the other side is. It gets us absolutely nowhere.

22/ So what do we do? Many of us have tried to bridge information gaps by doing reasonable things. Start podcasts, youtube channels, etc. I do it myself (eg. Translating Criminal Law). But I get the feeling this is mostly reaching people in my own silo.

23/ When it comes to personal connections - our instinct is to try a little, and then break away. We are all so tired. I really do not want to argue with X, Y or Z about why vaccines are important, and why certain protective things are a good idea.

24/ And none of it is made easier by the fact that so many of our governments have acted terribly, and done such a shitty job of defending things that make sense. But that is what it is. Again, I'm wondering how we can make it better.

25/ I've decided to start talking. One person at a time. To anyone in that camp who is willing to listen. There is only one condition to this conversation: We must share sufficient premises to make the conversation worthwhile.

26/ What does that mean? If the person is one of the hard core convoy organizers who believes the Canadian government should hand over power or be overthrown, I don't think discussion will be very productive. We share virtually no premises about how democracy works.

27/ I've come to realize that hard core anti-vaxxers fall into the same category. We tend to think of them as selfish assholes who will not do what's required to help save others. But I don't think that's correct. They are acting rationally - within their frame of reference.

28/ Look - if I did not believe that vaccines are good for humanity, and actually cause harm, I would never take one. I would fight against my children taking them. I would probably go to Ottawa and protest (hopefully lawfully) against mandates. They are insane.

29/ And that's how anti-vaxxers feel. I don't think they're selfish at all. Many of them think they are trying to save the rest of us. And if vaccines are a hoax, mandates ARE indeed oppressive. You see? We share no common point of reference.

30/ With true anti-vaxxers, the only discussion you can have is really about science, and that is not my domain. Go for it if you can, but I prefer to believe that vaccines are one of the greatest scientific discoveries ever. Thus, I tend to take them. So do my kids.

31/ So that's the first question I ask someone: are you anti-COVID vaccine, or are you anti-vaccine PERIOD. If it's the former, there is plenty of room to talk, because I know where the divide is. But if it's the latter, it's going to be a rough conversation.

32/ Once a person is saying there is no way I would ever take a vaccine, no matter what the science shows, they are effectively telling you they are anti-science. I don't really know how to converse with that any more than I can converse with the demon guy.

33/ But I don't think everyone is like that. In fact I know they're not. So I now try to talk with people and establish a frame of reference. Are you anti-vax or anti COVID vax? Are you mad at the government, or made about governments?

34/ Trying to discuss matters without establishing points of reference misses the biggest part of what's going on here: they don't understand us, and we don't understand them. We can't talk if we are not speaking the same language.

35/ Now, I can't promise you that once you establish a shared frame of reference that it's going to be easy. I try to use my knowledge of the law to allay their fears about government overreach, the purpose of various restrictions, etc. I explain why those things are unlikely.

36/ These talks are not easy - but I've found them to be much more productive than the alternatives: ignoring; name calling; fighting (because we are speaking different languages) or just writing them off.

37/ Now, here's the thing to wrap this all up. I am not doing any of this to "help" them, or to make myself feel better. This is pure self-interest. The continued marginalization of those we cast off or demonize is going to come back to bite us.

38/ I am very far from convinced that the PMs approach to this has been useful or effective. Condemn the illegal actions, absolutely. Demonize? Not in my book. It confirms the worst fears of those affected, and pushes many who were reachable to newer heights of fervor.

39/ If we are ever to emerge as a better society, we need to do better. We need to reach out. We need to inform. We need to converse with those who might be misinformed or misdirected - and engage where we can. Because I do think there are points of no return.

40/ I don't think any person jumps to "I share no common premises with you about science or democracy" overnight. It's a gradual process. I will be doing to my part to speak to anyone who is still reachable. I urge you to do the same.