“Honesty is the best policy…” a quote attributed to Mark Twain, but that common expression used and over used over the years, is not quite accurate. The actual quote is “honesty is the best policy when there is money in it”. Maybe Mr. Twain was hedging his bets a bit as well.

Honesty is a facet of a moral character, a facet interwoven with integrity, truthfulness and sincerity. We have been taught through the years that honesty is the hallmark of a moral person and a virtue to which one must aspire. We clearly have strayed from this basic virtue. An expectation of honesty has been replaced by what political handlers call “strategic dishonesty” or “political manoeuvring “. A place where ambiguity often prevails over universal truths.

Most would agree that we have gone astray, that honesty during the last number of years in our social, cultural and political discourse in this country has been moving farther and farther away. With little doubt it has been spurred by the information age, and we now seem to be forever immersed in a world where spin and social marketing is the ultimate priority of government and every level of our commercial and social existence. “Belief speaking”, where “subjective facts” are produced rather than verifiable facts. A desire to convince or push an agenda forward has subsumed honest portrayal and any level of level serious discussion. For the politicians, ambiguous, practiced answers play before the cameras and microphones and if that doesn’t work they simply obfuscate often to the point of silliness. The ultimate result of this “progressive” society is that our faith in the system and the workings of our functional democracy is also dwindling. Sadly, the silent majority seem to be staying silent, allowing the fringes of extremism on both sides of the left/right spectrum to dominate and lead any conversation.

In the government, this dishonesty is coupled with overwhelming levels of governmental bureaucracy which also wants to hide beyond reach of the average citizen. We are not allowed to peak behind the Oz curtain as it is believed that this could cause disruption, and the need to know or transparency merely a fanciful talking point. The government constantly appeals to our faith in the system and the limited journalists of the 5th Estate have been reduced to the point of only being able to echo the government message. The media cling to the edge of obscurity, being pushed by the information age with its streamers and pundits, and they now make great efforts to catch our attention with just the headlines and the protracted sound bites. In the print media, there is even the term “native advertising” which refers to where articles are written as paid content but disguised to look like news. The story is often less than the headline, often misleading or not a reflection of the facts, and even more dangerous, often the view of their political supporters.

In the battle for their very existence, media seems to be always trying to sell us, with their constant banners of “Breaking News”, with outrageous headlines disguising rather commonplace stories. Rain is now an “atmospheric river”, a single case of a virus in the country demands photos of hazmat suits and dire warnings of imminent danger, designed to seek attention, not to inform. An interesting measurement of this transition is how many journalism jobs now end up in political or commercial marketing jobs. In an article by Dwayne Winsech of Carleton University he shows that in 1987 there were roughly 40,000 persons of journalism backgrounds working in public relations. In 2021 there were 180,000

As a result of this never ending bafflegab being regurgitated and re-posted, our tolerance for the media message even among the once faithful readers or those that as a matter of routine watched the nightly news is also evaporating. Many of the newer generations now throw up their hands, often accepting the misinformation with a shrug, while some just tune out and choose to be uninvolved.

In the Hogue inquiry in 2024/25 in Canada which looked into Foreign Interference in Canadian Politics, it is baldly stated that “disinformation” was one of the greatest threats to democracy. Yet, we plunge ahead without comment, unless of course it affects us an individual, affects our income or our job security, then we begin to pay attention. The individual good is now over the common good.

Some recent developments include, the Senate Committee hearings were recently closed off to the viewing public; a number of Conservative members crossed over to the Liberals. Both of which are simply dishonest acts, The executive branch where leaders like Carney, Eby, and Ford, reminds me of philosopher Fredrick Nietzsche who said they “muddy the water to make it seem deep”.

Then there is the judicial branch of government of which the policing world is a part. We often turn to the courts in this country to act as a stop gap to dishonesty. They are often assigned the task of clarifying the law and its impacts on citizens, and providing an honest and just interpretation. But they too have often been closed off to scrutiny. Things such as publication bans, put in place by Section 648(1) of the Criminal Code which stifle any reporting of the case “before the jury returns to consider the verdict”. Judges routinely grant these publication bans without much forethought. I fully believe that all the courtrooms need to be open to the cameras so the public can actually see and hear what is going on. Prolonged trials, adjournments, lawyers playing games, would be shocking to the novice viewer, much like watching the Parliamentary question period.

There are many stories of justice denied, justice delayed, and repeat offenders running amok. Even the Supreme Court of Canada, led by Chief Justice Richard Wagner is showing obvious signs of politicization. A poll by Angus Reid found most Canadians are less knowledgable about the Supreme Court than the Americans, but the vast majority still believe it to be impartial. But only 49% have confidence in the country’s top court. This dichotomy may be the result of such things as the Emergencies Act which when proclaimed the government stated that people should “simply trust it was justified”.

So we have now reached a state where in a recent poll 44% of Canadians believe that much of the information they receive from news organizations is false. There is little doubt that there is even less trust in statements by politicians which according to one poll is about 17% approval. With all the negative publicity surrounding policing in the last number of years, some of it justified, some of it totally missing the mark, it is clear that part of the policing problem is also a fundamental growing distrust.

U.C. Berkeley Law in a publication state that there are nine policing principles: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty, leadership, fairness and respect.

I believe that we do all right in some of these areas, but one would be naive to argue that we are doing well in all categories. In a paper entitled Policing for London (U.K.) the author, Maurice Punch, argues for “honest policing” where senior officers are clear about what they can deliver and not deliver, and they should not unduly raise expectations. As a local example, does anyone believe that the public is getting honest answers when it comes to the current “crisis” in Surrey in the extortion cases? Does anyone believe that the RCMP leadership is being forthcoming as to the current vacancies, or open about their overall mandate and their ability to fulfill that mandate? Are they being honest about the problems surrounding finding “honest” applicants? Are they being honest when they talk about the effectiveness of the addition of the Blackhawk helicopters?

The big stumbling block to being honest in government circles, is that by admitting anything negative you are courting being framed as a failure. In 1986 I attended a “media relations” training course, where they instructed us in how not to be caught up in our answers to reporters questions. They gave us a script that showed the story for which we were doing a media briefing. It was in three parts, what we could talk about, what we shouldn’t talk about, and what we could not say at any cost. They then had actual journalists interview us and they would try to get to the third level of things we could not answer or reveal the information. All this is to say that are institutions have been in training for many years, decades in fact, on how to muddy the waters. To walk that fine line between honest and dishonest. To be always “moving forward”, always “working with our partners”, taking care of all Canadians from “coast to coast to coast”. If we could only inject a bit of honesty, think how the world will change. Albert Einstein reminds us that in the end “whoever is careless with truth in small matters cannot be entrusted with important matters”.