Colby Cosh

Colby Cosh

Maclean’s man in Edmonton writes about everything. Follow Colby on Twitter: @colbycosh

No mere question of taste

by Colby Cosh on Tuesday, January 26, 2010 12:05pm - 113 Comments

I’m appalled that Gerry Byrne would consider invoking terror law to squash one of those practitioners of the sandbox-anarchist “political pieing” fad. But the man does have a point. Pieing is a form of “political activity” meant to achieve its aim, not through reason, but by means of coercion. It is meant to humiliate rather than convince, and to warn other politicians that they too may be humiliated. In other words, it’s a deliberate, if puerile, attempt to manipulate the political process by spreading fear.

And it’s not a wholly trivial fear, either. It has never occurred to the phony radical wankers who fling pies (or to those who dismiss them as cute pranksters) that a pie tin could conceivably contain poison or acid. But eventually some more earnest kook will figure it out, with the help of many dry runs by useful idiots. And when that day comes, the joke really will be over. This is a possibility that security officials and politicians already have to train for and rehearse mentally. I do hate it when people in public life put on airs about their personal sacrifices, but no one should dismiss the perceived danger of being in such a position until they’ve spent a week reading a politician’s mail, or a judge’s, or a celebrity’s. Vicarious sangfroid comes easily to the anonymous.

A pieing is not an argument; it is, indisputably, an assault with intent to intimidate. In this sense, it is obviously correct to describe pieing as a minor species of terrorism. From the standpoint of the relevant principle—i.e., the distinction between debate and violence—hitting a legislator with a pie is no different than beating one with a sack of doorknobs. Indeed, a lot of legislators would probably choose to be confronted with a species of assault that gave them a fair chance to fight back. A pieing doesn’t; it just makes a mess.

Which is why leftist Edible Ballot-type dorks like it. It’s a “statement” that allows for no answer—a pure display of the power to assert, along the lines of a tantrum from a toddler or a drunkard. I don’t have much time for Freud, but when you see a pie-er and recall what the doctor said about the anal-expulsive character, you can’t help thinking he may have been onto something.

Bookmark and Share
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/colbycosh colbycosh

    I'm afraid it really is indisputable that a pieing is an assault under the legal definition. When we say a fact is "indisputable" we don't mean "It's impossible that somebody would just choose to ignore it out of sheer bloody-mindedness." Maybe that word "or" doesn't mean what you think it means?

  • kcm

    That's new info to me. And it's not how i recall it. But the protester was a well known trouble maker,right. Not that advocate strangling protesters. I seem to remember it as a reaction thing…but it was a while ago.

  • Lord Kitchener's Own

    I think that punch vs. push/shove would be a pretty important distinction vis a vis public perception in that hypothetical, particularly given that the pie-thrower was a woman. A push or shove would likely get praise, or at least indifference. However, if James Moore punched a woman in the face on camera (even a woman rushing at him with a pie) I think that might be a problem for the Minister from a public relations standpoint.

  • kcm

    Is that sharia or something?

  • Lord Kitchener's Own

    it is stupid to say that pie throwing is serious because somebody could throw something WHICH IS NOT A PIE

    I agree, except when one is talking about it being "serious" from a protection/security point of view. The point, I think, is that local police, RCMP, security guards, whoever, don't necessarily know that it's "just a pie" when someone leaps out of a crowd and runs at a Minister, and it could be a VERY serious error for them to just assume that it is.

  • Wallace Cleaver

    Could also be very serious if they assume it's not a pie, when it is…serious for the thrower.

  • http://www.thepolitic.com Mark Peters

    The pie thrower should be made to wear a seal skin coat in public for one hour per day for a year or face enormous fines.

    • Lord Kitchener's Own

      LOL

      I'll go you one better.

      They should make her club a seal.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

      Brilliant! Because of course all the pie thrower's friends would then throw pies, causing more seal skin coats to be worn–the sealing industry will have its best year ever!

  • Kevin

    Ah yes, the old "a pie for a pie" rule.

  • Mike T.

    I accept your distinction, but the author seemed to be talking about whether terrorist charges were applicable, not the appropriate reaction for security when an unknown threat suddenly materializes. (His argument that fear is being spread is kinda undermined by the fact that to make it a scary issue he had to change it's nature….oooooooooh, what if it had been ACID???? Not so funny then, eh you bleeding heart liberal? Well, no indeed…)

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/craigola craigola

    It's not how I remember it, either. I always thought the guy came up on JC. There's video somewhere, but maybe not of the entire incident, ie., the part where it is asserted that Chretien went out of his way.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

    I don't see how someone throwing a pie is somehow evidence of the RCMP's deficiency as a whole.

    …of whatever individual security personnel were on hand (and from whatever corps), certainly a lapse in their quality of service.

    (If we're going to talk about deficiencies in the RCMP, there are much, much better examples!)

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

    Seems like it was both: he was walking into the crowd, and the the handshaken dude was standing in his way.
    [youtube zMBJp0yJvsY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMBJp0yJvsY youtube]

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/colbycosh colbycosh

    I agree that dealing with pie-throwing under the LAW of "terrorism" would be a big mistake. While we're counting angels, maybe people could read the first sentence I wrote (not saying you didn't, but I'm not so sure about others in the thread).

  • tobyornottoby

    That's why we have courts, to determine the facts and decide whether it was a reasonable use of force in self defence.

    There wasn't an arrest other than the victim, and there was no interrogation of Mr. Chretien, so it must be up to the prime minister to decide if he can choke someone or not …

  • J Anderson

    More politicians should take the Chretien approach to neanderthals like this: grab them by the throat and throttle them.

  • hollinm

    You are right it is all fun and games until someone is shot by the security people. Then we will see what the definition of pie throwing really is.

    • Lord Kitchener's Own

      I bet no politician in Canada would get hit in the face with a pie for a while after that though.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

    What do we think of the fact that the woman in question was from New York? How would the Americans feel about a Canadian trying to pie one of their officials. Some one could well be shot for the simple act of trying to throw a pie. What would we think then? Terrorism or assault?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/craigola craigola

    Someone's got to get the courts involved. It could have been the RCMP, but acknowledging the unlikelihood of things going that way, what would have prevented the person the Prime Minister choked from pressing assault charges and/or hiring a lawyer and suing him?

  • Mike T.

    Hmmm, so first it happened one way, and then oh we don't know how it went down we need a court?

    See how malleable facts become a few years after they die down, even in the internet age?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/MaggiesFarmboy MaggiesFarmboy

    Noted that there was almost no coverage of the event in the US. Wonder what the reaction would be if it were the reverse?

    • Lord Kitchener's Own

      What's the American equivalent of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans?

      Do you suppose the Canadian media would give it a great deal of coverage if a Canadian threw a pie in the face of the Secretary of Agriculture during a speech in Des Moines?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

    By this metric, chanting "Harper is a disgrace!" or "Explain the Tape, Harper!" is also an act of terrorism. They are meant to humiliate, not convince, and to warn other politicians that they too may be humiliated. It's a deliberate attempt to control the political process by spreading fear that other politicians may be targeted. Yeah, bullocks.

    One of the key things you're forgetting is that terrorism doesn't just target those responsible. Terrorism targets random civilians in the society in order to engage political pressure through fear. This is the difference. An assassination isn't terrorism, it's an assasination. Random shooting of the populace is terrorism. There is a difference.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/colbycosh colbycosh

    Maybe "humiliated" was the wrong term here–I suppose humiliation is in the mind of the person being attacked–but you don't really MEAN there's no difference between chanting a slogan at someone and throwing a pie at them. You're just trying to disguise the difference.

  • kaner

    Terrorist Act ?? Is he kidding ? Somebody please PIE this guy !

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

    I did thumbs down by mistake. Both your and john g's comment provided a good laugh.

  • kcm

    i'm not aware of any reseach linking pieing to terrorism – or even engineers. Agreed labelling this just broadens the definition to the point of the meaningless. Important distinctions need to be preserved.

From Macleans