There’s nothing unifying about a booth designed to fuel political divides amid rampant polarization.
On Sept. 29, Unify Canada 1867, a group that boasts its support of “individual liberty, free markets, the traditional family, and limited government,” set up a booth on campus with a sign labelled “GUN OWNERSHIP IS A RIGHT.” The table included a subsequent sign encouraging students to try and change their mind, as well as bible and a camera and microphone so the videos could later be posted to social media. The reality of setups like these is that they aren’t designed to spark meaningful conversation, but instead, use inflammatory language to garner views on social media and foster division.
Genuine political dialogue comes in the form of understanding, not buttonholding issues and a hardheaded political agenda that refuses to consider other perspectives. The group’s representative claimed the table was intended to encourage discussion and respect on either side of the political spectrum. However, the attendee, Sarah—who refused to provide her surname for security reasons—clearly wasn’t open to considering a different opinion. Students who attended the booth said she redirected the conversation to set talking points and didn’t take the time to consider their comments.
From the titles of Unify’s YouTube videos alone, you can tell they’ve no interest in engaging with other perspectives. Titles such as “He Didn’t Want a Debate…He Wanted a SHOWDOWN” and “She RAGED at My Sign—And Accidentally DESTROYED Her Own Argument” don’t suggest an interest in genuine conversation. Instead, videos like these just add fuel to the fire of growing ideological polarization, the very issue Unify Canada claimed the discussion table was designed to mitigate.
If the table’s representative wanted to proudly stand behind her beliefs, she should’ve at least offered The Journal her last name. Sarah’s safety concerns are understandable following the assassination of Charlie Kirk on a university campus; however, if safety were truly a priority, she wouldn’t have set up a booth that was so obviously intended to incite incident. If anything, the Unify Canada YouTube video overdramatizes their time at Queen’s.
In a video response to The Journal’s article on the discussion table, Sarah makes it seem like The Journal plotted to have the group removed from campus, when in reality, campus security responded to an external call. The Journal reported that the group left without incident. The YouTube video didn’t advance meaningful discourse; instead, it tried to discredit the impartial reporting on the booth. Targeting journalists does little to foster the productive dialogue Unify Canada claims to be inspiring.
Tables like these are more likely a cash grab—a feeble attempt to use politics to garner publicity and elicit donations via YouTube comments. Many students elected not to engage with the booth lest they provide Unify Canada with the internet rage bait they’re so desperately seeking.
The booth’s mission was ideologically flawed and unnecessary in the Canadian context. The group argued that guns were a fundamental element of self-defence; however, this typically American argument doesn’t hold up as well in Canada. Unlike most U.S. states, Canada has no Stand Your Ground Law, meaning Canadians have a duty to attempt to retreat before using lethal force. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn’t grant a right to bear arms.
Unlike many U.S states, Canadians have direct access to their Members of federal and provincial Parliament. Maybe the members of Unify Canada’s time would be better spent in conversation with real political actors rather than stirring up controversy online by bothering youth on university campuses.
The booth was both unnecessary and a symptom of an internet culture that pits political opinions against each other under the guise of inspiring unity. Unify Canada’s booth wasn’t a display of respectful engagement, but a ploy for internet controversy and an eyesore for passersby.
—Journal Editorial Board
Tags
Campus Affairs, gun control, Gun Rights Advocacy, Gun Violence, Unify Canada
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.
Anon
It’s hard to take this editorial seriously when it so clearly exposes The Journal’s liberal bias. The entire piece attacks a conservative student group for daring to express opinions that don’t align with the left-wing orthodoxy that dominates university campuses. It’s ironic and frankly alarming that the paper claims to stand for “meaningful dialogue,” yet spends an entire article ridiculing and discrediting one side of the political spectrum.
The Journal’s stance shows exactly what’s wrong with academic culture today. Conservatives aren’t shutting down conversations it’s liberals who try to censor, label, and silence anyone who challenges their worldview. Setting up a table to discuss gun rights whether you agree or disagree is free speech. But apparently, free speech is only tolerated when it fits neatly into a progressive narrative.
University newspapers are supposed to reflect the voices of all students, not just the loudest liberal ones. When The Journal uses its platform to attack conservative viewpoints instead of fostering fair debate, it alienates a significant portion of the student body and betrays its duty to uphold intellectual diversity. The double standard is exhausting: the left calls for “inclusion” and “open-mindedness,” but as soon as conservatives speak up, they’re labeled as “divisive” or “inflammatory.”
If The Journal truly believes in “unity,” it should start by allowing real balance in its reporting — not publishing one-sided hit pieces that demonize anyone with a different perspective. Universities should be bastions of free thought, not echo chambers for liberal ideology. The suppression of conservative speech on campus is becoming more obvious by the day, and editorials like this one only prove that point
John Sherbino
The Editorial is an intelligent response to a biased and politically motivated setup