Welcome to the court of public opinion (CPO). You, the juror, are tasked with making your best decisions. Do you have what it takes?
Opening Statement: The Court of Public Opinion
Let go of everything you have heard in the news, liked or shared on social media, or taken a stand over with your neighbours. This is not a war over the erosion of free speech. It is not a hard fought battle between right and wrong, your side and my side. No hero will ride away on their charger, waving the victory flag.
This is a case about reasonableness.
Boring? Perhaps, if you are an armchair warrior feeding off someone else’s challenges. But the view is quite different from the front line.
There are only three facts you need to know:
- Biases play a much larger role in your decisions and actions than you think; even the experts who study it are not immune.
- Your emotions impact what you think, what you decide, and how you behave.
- Whether cheering or jeering from in front of a screen, or taking your place on the battlefield, unless you consciously choose otherwise, your emotions will ready you for combat.
And there is only one question you need to answer: “Am I okay letting my emotions and biases boss me around?”
I see a few head shakes and sideways glances. You think I am talking about those other people, those emotional people. You don’t name call, or believe everything you read on the internet. Your decisions are well-thought-out. You are reasonable.
The evidence will challenge that assumption.
Negative emotions have been on the rise since 2012, erupting as “fake news,” territorial disputes, protective nationalism, prejudices, conflict, and stress. Maslow’s pyramid is upside down, and the crushing weight of the world is creating Chief Justice Wagner’s “troubling trend” of incivility.
You will hear how five of nine judges on Canada’s Supreme Court (SCC) dropped a bombshell and changed the definition of a reasonable person —an internationally recognized legal standard since 1837. They also overturned forty years of discrimination law. No doubt their decision evolved out of a rational-sounding discussion, but was it reasonable, or were they rationalizing biases, personal beliefs, or hidden emotions? Expert testimony should create reasonable doubt.
Having made my case, I will ask that you:
- find both of the SCC’s new definitions—the reasonable person standard and discrimination—to be insufficient in today’s world
- expect more reasonableness from yourself and others than the SCC majority believes you to have
- take this higher standard beyond this CPO and into real-world action as you re-examine issues in a new light.
Thank you for your time and attention.
