Earlier this week I made the mistake of reading the comments section.
Reading the comment section made me feel like I should have heeded the advice of the dozens of people who have told me, “Don’t ever read the comments section.”
The comments in question existed in a thread under a post on a Flin Flon-related Facebook page regarding the outcome of the recent trial of Gerald Stanley, who was found not guilty of second-degree murder or manslaughter in the 2016 death of Colton Boushie.
Until earlier this week, I had largely managed to avoid the opinions of the masses regarding the trial and the situation that preceded it. I had read, watched and listened to plenty about both of those things, and had discussed the outcome of the trial, which I found surprising, in the newsroom and among some of my peers.
I’ve heard it’s important to seek out opinions that differ from your own, and generally speaking, I’m inclined to agree. But in this particular instance, that seeking is a tough, disheartening, at times disturbing journey.
The opinions posted in the comments section were strong, highly polarized, and largely unsympathetic in some form or another. They were bound to be. Some of them were downright hateful. What was striking about the comments was the lack of compassion demonstrated to whatever party the commenter was not arguing for. As though one party was entirely in the right and the other was entirely in the wrong. As though one party had it coming to them or the other is a monster. A little as though they were talking about disposable pawns in a game rather than actual human beings.
The court of online public opinion can be a dangerous, often unforgiving space. It makes me wonder how that translates into day-to-day life.
What if an occurrence similar to what happened between Stanley and Boushie and his friends — whatever that occurrence truly was — took place in Flin Flon or the surrounding area? It doesn’t seem entirely unlikely, anymore — the events in question have taken something that many perceived to happen in “other places” and brought them to our neighbour’s yard.
How would the community handle it? Would cooler heads prevail? If the court of online public opinion is any indication, the answer is a firm no.
The outcome of Stanley’s trial has raised loud questions about Canada’s justice system, about the selection and use of juries and about race. Many are wondering if justice was served, and who gets to decide what is just, anyway? The aftermath of the trial seems to show that racial tensions exist just under the surface, not just in Saskatchewan but across the country. Those tensions have certainly appeared locally in public forums, though it’s tough to say whether they exist under the surface in Flin Flon or blatantly out in the open. Recent events may be a catalyst that caused those tensions to rear their heads for the time being, but those sentiments must exist on a day-to-day basis to become so prominent under pressure.
The outcome of the trial has had an effect on all kinds of Canadians and it shows in the outpour of criticism for some parties, support for others, and calls for all kinds of changes.
There may be no black and white answers to the multitude of questions Stanley’s trial has raised, at least not for the time being. But in an outcome that has affected so many people so strongly, there must be an opportunity to find some significance, and that significance can be used for positive change. Hatred has no place in that process.
