The Bruce Report

Threatening to deprive a man of his livelihood because he exploits his employees, steals from his shareholders or pollutes his community is fair, ethical play in a society that cherishes the value of each of its members.

            But confectioner David Ganong is guilty of none of these crimes. He treats his employees well. He embraces good, corporate governance. He is one of New Brunswick’s “greenest” entrepreneurs.

            Unfortunately, he is also the former chairman of an advisory panel on the NB Power/Hydro-Quebec tentative accord, which concluded the other day with this rather banal statement: “[We] have reached unanimous agreement that if the proposal is implemented, it would be good for New Brunswick.”

            Lamentably, this was enough for many people in the province to call for a boycott of Ganong’s candy and chocolates, as the company’s Facebook Fan Page flooded with angry rebukes and the kind of invective normally slung against fraudsters.

            “Ganong products will never again be bought by anyone in this family,” fumed one critic. “Consider yourself boycotted,” thundered another. “Starting today, whatever candy comes to this house will be branded other than Ganong,” bullied a third.

            And there were many more just like these and oftentimes worse: hysterical, outraged, wounded, snarling, braying screeds that, in some jurisdictions, might qualify as slanderous speech.

            Frankly, I get this kind of stuff all the time. It’s an occupational hazard. Besides, at least one of my professional responsibilities is to inspire strong feelings and provoke debate in these and the pages of other publications. Having executed my job, I’m not required to respond.

            Ganong, however, doesn’t enjoy this particular luxury. He makes sweets for a living, and customer relations are crucial to his progress. And so we witness his careful rejoinder in last Wednesday’s Saint John Telegraph-Journal: “After putting both my reputation and my time and effort into this on a volunteer basis. . .because my opinion is different than what somebody else’s may be, informed or uninformed, it is disappointing that they would try punish my company and my employees.”

            Indeed it is, and the ironies in the circumstance are almost too numerous to catalogue. From the beginning of the NB Power saga, opponents of the deal have complained about the lack of transparency and consultation undertaken by the province. But when someone who is asked for their opinion reaches an unpopular conclusion, he or she is immediately and fiercely castigated.

            It’s now frustratingly evident (if it wasn’t before) that some ardent critics in this province are less interested in hearing a fellow citizen’s divergent views than they are in hearing their own parroted, over and over again, by like-minded constituents. Heaven forbid they might learn something.

            But what’s especially chilling about this sort of overreaction is the pall it casts over the principle of democratic participation. If I thought, even for a second, that something I honestly believed could be used to curtail my economic opportunities, or those of my family, friends and employees, how willing do you think I’d be to sit on any public panel for any reason?

            How willing do you think I’d be to declare, as Ganong did about the NB Power agreement, “The proposed deal would contribute real and positive value to New Brunswick over the business-as-usual scenario”?

            It is entirely possible, of course, that he’s wrong. Maybe he and his colleagues should have consulted more people who were disinclined to endorse the deal, as Opposition Leader David Alward asserts.

            Is this sufficient reason to threaten Ganong’s livelihood?

Those who adopt such extreme measures to force compliance with their version of reality fail to realize that they undermine the conventions which provide them with their own liberty to express themselves.

The issue is not whether Ganong’s business will survive the torrent (it will). The issue is whether we, in an uncivil society, will survive the effects of our own intemperance.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.