Editor: Re: Limited venues to talk politics, Jan. 23
After reading about Delta's new policy to limit municipal facility rentals for "political uses," my mind began to linger.
At first glance, the idea of regulating facility uses seemed reasonable. After all, these venues are funded by local taxpayers, who in turn should feel free to patronize them without unwanted nuisance.
When the lingering persisted, I went to the Facility Use Policy itself (available on the Corporation of Delta's website), and noted the following preamble:
"It is the policy of The Corporation of Delta to permit the use of Municipal Facilities for Private Functions... for the benefit of the citizens of Delta."
Once again, on its surface, the approach seemed reasonable.
Then I wondered: how does the Corporation of Delta know what use will benefit me?
Are they all-knowing? Are my neighbours and I the same?
Reading further I saw that "political use" was defined broadly, capturing "meetings or events... whether partisan or nonpartisan... including public forums."
At this point my mind perked up.
I thought about the state of civic engagement in our community. Voter turnout in the most recent Delta elections was 33 per cent (down from 45 per cent in 2002 and from 55 per cent in 1990).
With only one-third of Deltans making the effort to shape our democratic direction, political engagement is alarmingly low.
It dawned on me that policy like this - while benign in print - in practice could act to reduce local awareness or involvement even further. When public forums can be arbitrarily quarantined, we risk having our civic lives sheltered from anything but the social equivalent of sunshine, puppy dogs and lollipops.
Doesn't traction require some friction?
Democracy is fueled by people and freedom of speech, so when fewer and fewer people are participating, shouldn't we be more reluctant to limit freedom of speech.
Restricting hateful activity is one thing; but sanitizing the commons does little to benefit the citizens of Delta.
Patrick Thompson
