Multiple ways the 2022 Ottawa Convoy
What are the multiple ways the 2022 Ottawa Convoy has been presented? You will craft a response in 7-10 pages that utilize at least 4 of the sources used in the course while addressing the following prompts:
1. Whom are the main actors involved? Community groups? Social campaigners? Podcasters? Politicians? Concerned citizens?
2.What environment is the debate taking place in?Is it primarily on one social media platform or multiple? Are the parties involved self-segregating and only
speaking with those they agree with (like an echo chamber)? Alternatively, is it an ongoing debate where contesting sides are willing to share their views
openly? (Are there echo chambers? Or is it a social media fight taking place through hashtags? Or some other form of the digital contest?)
2.How are the debates being framed? How are the contesting sides framing each other?
3.Are there instances where one side deliberately misrepresents the other side's views?
4.Is there any area where the contesting sides agree?
5.Based on your evidence, what does the future look like for the actors involved? Will there be a compromise? Can there be?
The debates are largely being framed by both sides in terms of safety versus rights: those in favour of allowing the convoy argue that it will provide an important platform for Indigenous Peoples’ voices to be heard while opponents point out that it could lead to dangerous situations due to heavy truck traffic on busy city roads and highways. There have been instances where one side has deliberately misrepresented information about their opposition – specifically when opponents mischaracterised some supporters of the convoy as “radical activists†– but there are also areas where both parties agree such as wanting what is best for all Canadians regardless of race or culture.
Based on available evidence, it appears that there may be a compromise reached between the contesting sides if they can find common ground on this issue without compromising either party’s core values and beliefs. For example, if those in favour can accept some adjustments regarding timing, routes and other details related to organizing a safe event then perhaps a mutually beneficial solution could be found which satisfies everyone involved without resorting to further polarizing rhetoric or name-calling tactics used throughout this debate so far. Ultimately however only time will tell how this situation plays out – hopefully resulting in a peaceful resolution which respects everyone’s right to freedom of expression whilst prioritising public safety at all times.