False binaries are radicalizing and killing us.

Look no further than Canada’s debate on safe supply for proof.

Last week, National Post reporter Adam Zivo published a provocative expose that outlined multiple failings with one of the central planks of Canada’s federal government’s response to the opioid crisis - safe supply. 

The upshot of Zivo’s report was that government-supplied drugs are now being resold on the street market, causing both an increase in supply and a steep price drop. His report also suggested this additional ease of access could be pulling more people into addiction and expanding the crisis instead of solving it. 

Later in the week, Global News followed up Zivo’s piece with further interviews and an undercover report that appeared to bolster his claims. 

For context, the magnitude of Canada’s opioid addiction crisis is considered a national emergency that has been rapidly growing in scale. The federal Liberal government and certain provincial governments have recently responded by moving towards decriminalization policies and government-provided supply, with the stated goal of prevent deaths caused by tainted black market drugs. This approach has been fiercely defended by certain stripes of lawmakers. Equally as vocal are those who counter-argue that government-provided supply will only worsen the problem, instead proposing a broad range of social supports that exclude government supply but include other resources for prevention, recovery, and treatment.

There is little political middle ground on the issue, and that didn’t change when the Zivo and Global News pieces were released, giving proof points to the latter argument. So it came as no surprise that when opposition Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre raised the issue of government-provided drugs making their way onto the street in the House of Commons on Tuesday, the federal Liberal’s bombastic response stopped just short of accusing Poilievre of murder for even raising the specific problem of government drugs being resold on the streets. 

And therein lies the real rub - the Liberals could have readily acknowledged a serious problem with how their program had been rolled out. But they chose to gaslight Poilievre instead. 

Regardless of where one sits on the issue of safe supply, drugs supplied by the government finding their way onto the streets, en masse, with irrefutable on-camera proof to shore up claims, is an easy-to-understand, terrifying problem that demands an immediate solution. Even the most ardent supporter of safe-supply policy should be deeply concerned about what these news reports exposed, and putting pressure on the government to address them.

So, what the government should have said in response to Poilievre’s questions was, “Yes, this is a problem and it warrants a rapid response.” Instead, they chose to gaslight the bearer of the question and, by proxy, anyone who might be open to coming around to safe supply as a viable option, but also held legitimate reservations due to risks presented by issues like those raised in the Zivo and Global News pieces. They brought political heat to an issue that morally demands light.

The Liberals' choice in approach to the issue attempts to force everyone into a false binary of choices - if you question if there are problems with this policy, you are a terrible person who wants people to die; if you ignore potential problems with this policy, you are a good person who wants them to live. This approach may create violent cross-talk and easy click bait headlines to distract from an issue of the day, but it brings cold comfort to those suffering from addiction. And had the government chosen to demonstrate that they both understood the issue and were willing to fix it, they might have had the ability to then turn around and criticize alternative overall policy approaches being proposed by opposition parties. But they didn’t. 

And this type of false binary is exactly how radicalization is born, with deadly consequences.

When we are presented with clear evidence that the people who hold the levers of power in their governments are unwilling even to acknowledge that there are big problems with a policy, particularly those they are religiously supportive of, we inevitably realize that those same people aren’t likely to take any action to fix them. And if there is no hope that those problems will be corrected, the people who do want a solution become more open to taking extreme action to move the needle on an issue.

Political gaslighting and rigid adherence to dogma by governments leads to extremism, violence and further crisis.

In Canada, this type of dynamic is alarmingly becoming the rule, not the exception. Yet another instance played out this week when questions were raised about how Canada’s arguably lackadaisical approach to bail has led to a wave in violent crime committed by repeat offenders. The issue of foreign interference, conflicting public health advice during the pandemic, posture on inflation and spending are all tangible issues that most Canadians have lived experience with, with the government still choosing first to inexplicably gaslight the issue as opposed to acknowledging it and attempting to solve it.

And that’s the problem with assuming that most of the voting public isn’t smart enough to recognize that issues shouldn’t always be met with an “if you’re with us, you won’t ask questions” approach - the voting public is intelligent. And after years of rote binary choices being presented by political leaders, the public is responding with anger.

How that anger is channeled is becoming a defining issue in Canadian politics. Will the government channel it into nuanced positions that right the downward trajectory of high-impact problems like affordability, crime, civil liberties, tolerance, and health? Or will that anger continue to be used by politicians as a crutch to avoid dealing issues or for easy political gain? And if that’s the case, what cost is the government willing to place on their electorate as their narratives create more disaffected, disgruntled people who feel justified in becoming radicalized?

The Canadian public still has agency - they can vote politicians in and out. 

But with the next federal election date still unknown, when the government resorts to false binaries that leave Canada boiling with no pressure release value in sight, they irresponsibly expose the country to eruptions of public anger.

Blessed are the political peacemakers and those who are willing to question their own deeply held beliefs. If only the government had a stable, safe supply of them within their ranks.