The Pornification of Politics

Click “Listen Now” to hear the audio version of Insights.

HERE'S MY TAKE

More than a week has passed since a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer killed a protester after a confrontation in Minneapolis, but the issue remains a hot-button topic across mainstream, alternative, and social media. Nothing in this column is likely to change the already entrenched conclusions many hold on the matter. And I suspect that strong views on opposite sides of the issue exist among Insights readers, so wading in seems unwise. Well, I’m wading in nonetheless. In a curious way, the debate over ICE operations has bothered me as something more than just another in the seemingly regular sequence of civil disruptions in America. As I reflect on the incident and others that followed it—and more significantly on the responses to them—I fear it reveals something dark about our current cultural moment: the pornification of our politics.

Before we get there, let’s remind ourselves of a few contextual facts. ICE was created in 2003, following the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security as part of the post 9/11 security arrangements. It is responsible, among other things, for enforcing immigration law, including identifying and removing those who are unlawfully present in the United States. For much of its existence, the agency maintained a relatively low public profile. That changed markedly during the Trump presidency, when immigration enforcement became a central political priority and campaign commitment.

Since then, ICE’s visibility, budget, and manpower have increased significantly. Expanded enforcement targets, high-profile operations, and more overt tactical postures have brought the agency into frequent and direct contact with the public, elevating it as something more than a routine law-enforcement agency. US President Trump routinely describes ICE’s activities as those of “PATRIOTS” and the paramilitary brand its tactics and behaviour portray has intensified both support and opposition. Confrontations between ICE officers and protestors who object to these developments have become a recurring feature in several American cities.

This background is important for analyzing the events of January 7, 2026. Forty-three-year-old ICE officer Jonathan Ross fatally shot 37-year-old Minneapolis mother Renee Nicole Good during an encounter amid protest activity in south Minneapolis. Authorities say Ross fired after perceiving a threat from Good’s vehicle, while Good’s family has disputed that account. The incident remains under investigation. While the simple facts are undisputed, most coverage and commentary assume a binary: either “respect for law enforcement” or “respect for democratic protest.” Analysis generally comes down to black-and-white, good-guy–bad-guy conclusions.

I value and respect both democratic principles. Obviously, respect for law and order is critical for a functioning society. At the same time, the right to publicly protest and disagree with the state is an essential feature of democracy and freedom. It’s beyond the scope of this piece, but I’d also argue they are both expressions of Christian public life principles. Neither is absolute, however. So, actions taken in the name of law and order are rightfully questioned as to how well they respect the right to protest—and vice versa. In the current American example, the balance is challenged by the fact that the “rule of law” in practice has resulted in a real problem of many illegal immigrants in the country, normalized by decades of political and social inability to deal with the problem, and with significant economic and social consequences. The “rule of law” has failed, and President Trump’s mandate included an appeal to forcefully use the coercive power of the law to remedy those failures.

I find it striking how most of the commentary—in the United States and Canada—at best pays modest lip service to the tension between free protest on the one hand, and law and order on the other. Sadly, they don’t display even a modicum of respect for Civics 101. In a constitutional democracy, the legislative branch establishes the legal framework within which agencies like ICE operate. The executive branch directs those agencies to pursue particular policy objectives. The judicial branch becomes involved when conflict or controversy arises, investigating incidents, laying charges where warranted, and relying on courts to assess evidence and render judgments. I get that these distinctions are often messier in practice than in theory, but they lie at the heart of democratic freedom. When they are ignored, we drift toward authoritarianism, and our understanding and ability to exercise freedom is diminished.

In the Minneapolis incident, video footage from multiple angles circulated almost immediately. Media outlets and commentators parsed the material frame by frame, often arriving at starkly different conclusions. Many of these interpretations aligned neatly with pre-existing political commitments of those doing the parsing. Senior political leaders issued strong and immediate statements, which meant that enforcement tactics, jurisdictional authority, and the assignment of blame quickly became entangled in partisan narratives.

I expected much of this in this hyper-partisan age. However, I am bewildered when Canadian commentators, presumably one step removed from an incident in another country, are equally sweeping in their judgments. Many Canadians who denounced the federal government’s use of the Emergencies Act against the Freedom Convoy as heavy-handed state overreach reacted to events in Minneapolis by eagerly cheering on the use of force in the name of order and border control. Likewise, many others who denounced ICE were all too happy to see the Emergencies Act used against the convoy protesters in Ottawa. Few even bothered to try to rationalize their inconsistencies. I admit that it’s not easy to maintain a consistent commitment to protest rights, democratic responsibility, and respect for the state under these different circumstances. It was not only the opinions expressed but also the intensity of the language that was challenging. Why do otherwise thoughtful and respectable people feel the need to anoint themselves judge and jury in cases where they know their opinions make no difference? When did it become acceptable to direct contemptuous language at public officials, fellow citizens, friends, and even fellow church members over what is essentially a political disagreement?

Well, it was in musing about these things that the comparison with pornography’s impact came to mind.

I came of age in the 1970s. My exposure to pornography was limited: magazines hidden behind opaque covers on the top shelf of convenience stores, muted cultural anxiety about Hugh Hefner and Playboy, and the occasional illicit image smuggled into a school changeroom. Pornography was widely regarded as socially marginal and morally suspect. Even arguments about freedom of expression rarely defended it as socially beneficial. Fifty years later, we live in a different world. Even those of us who haven’t changed our moral views in rejecting porn are affected by it in different ways than we were in the 70s. Many with an X (Twitter) account likely found themselves exposed to AI-generated explicit content despite having zero interest in pornography. That is just this week’s example. Who among us has not dealt with the challenge of entertainment with an otherwise-worthy plot interrupted by a scene or two that stretched our comfort zone (to understate it significantly)? Few would disagree that over the past 50 years, pornography has moved from something socially hidden and broadly stigmatized to something widely accessible and culturally normalized, with its assumptions and aesthetics increasingly becoming mainstream.

I wonder whether the discomfort regarding the responses to the January 7 Minnesota incident reflects something other than my uncertainty about how to weigh the competing relevant facts, which, in any case, isn’t my job and requires information not available to me. It’s more prudent to await the judicial process to sort it out rather than to add another hot take to a polarized debate. I suspect my discomfort stems from watching the norms of political dialogue being stretched in unhealthy ways. Are we mid-process in the pornification of politics?

All metaphors have their limits, but a few parallels between polarized politics and the normalization of pornography seem instructive:

• Separation of action from purpose. It seems self-evident that the actions pornography shows are not intimacy as it was intended between two adults, but rather a commodification of sexuality. The on-screen participants become producers, not relational participants, and the unknown consumer of pornography justifies it all based on the pleasure derived. Not to get too philosophical, but the purpose of sexual intimacy is not pleasure; it’s an expression of love and commitment that produces pleasure. Likewise, the purpose of politics is not power; power appropriately exercised produces justice. Very little of the commentary on the January 7 events reflects on justice in any meaningful way. The purpose is lost amid the instant gratification of desired outcomes.
  
  
• Loss of an objective standard. In a wide-ranging interview last week, President Trump told The New York Times that the only thing restraining his power was his “own morality,” a remark that underscores how easily democratic constraints can become personal rather than institutional. For those cheering on ICE because they like the results, even if the process makes them uncomfortable, I have a question: Should society use the same criterion as Mr. Trump—everyone’s “own morality”—to judge the acceptability of pornography? And if not, then how is that an acceptable ethic in politics and the exercise of power?
  
  
• Loss of boundaries: It’s true that the problem of illegal immigration is real, and the January 7 incident occurred in the context of the American government’s attempt to address it. However, that’s not unlike the husband in my church who approached me for help in dealing with his pornography problem while rationalizing it based on the coldness of his marriage. Empathetically, one might even understand how he got there, but you can’t rationalize away the fact that when boundaries are crossed, long-term problems will persist even if there is some short-term perceived satisfaction or remedy. I already mentioned that a Civics 101 framework makes it completely inappropriate for the president, vice president, or state governor to draw public conclusions about the incident, thereby usurping the role of the government’s judicial branch. Respect for institutions is at the core of a civil society. Healthy human and social relations rely on that respect. This sometimes requires us to restrain ourselves from acting even when we can get our desired outcome. This is one critical way to show respect for preserving and strengthening the institutions that will outlast us and are necessary for continued long-term flourishing.
  
  
• Dehumanization: We know about the January 7 incident because it has become politicized. For the most part, it was debated in symbolic terms, like “protester,” “agent,” and “immigrant.” What has prompted ICE agents to default to wearing balaclavas and adopt military tactics rather than follow the established practice of policing in democracies where officers show their faces and their badge numbers? How have Renee Good and Jonathan Ross been understood? Have we understood them as humans with families or functional pawns in an impersonal political battle? Some have tried to politicize their backgrounds—portraying them as empathetic churchgoers—but respecting their humanity doesn’t require affirming their virtue. In some ways, this detail has missed the point. Even if the most unflattering portrayal of these individuals is true, our respect for all humans as images of God means that we should speak of them and grant them just process in a manner consistent with that worthiness. (I would also note that just process ideally will produce just results, enabling justice not only to be done but be seen to be done.) Failure to do so callouses our own consciences in the same way that repeated exposure to pornography has been shown to warp the way men view women.
  
  
• Addiction and escalation. Pornography is often experienced as powerfully reinforcing. A substantial body of research on problematic pornography suggests that repeated exposure to it can normalize more frequent consumption and, for a significant portion of users, lead to escalation in intensity or difficulty stopping. It seems at least plausible that participating in polarized politics can give the same rush that comes from pornography—and create the need for even more intense politics. I don’t know if science would confirm that, but intuition and experience suggest there is a parallel.

I don’t intend this to be a blanket condemnation of everyone who has waded into the public commentary on the January 7 incident. But I do think it’s valid to challenge all of us to consider whether 50 years from now, we might reflect back on what polarized politics has done to us in the same way that today we reflect on how pornography has changed our culture over the last five decades.

I get that there are some who think being opposed to porn is moralizing and a violation of freedom, just as there are those who believe what is happening to our politics is just realpolitik to which only the piously naïve object. This is the place where they would insert the Bismarck quote comparing sausage-making to politics. I respectfully differ. Naїve or not, I insist on believing that how we conduct our politics matters as much as what our politics are.

Is there anything we can do about this, or are we just victims of changing social norms shaped by forces beyond our control? Over the past two decades or so, I have served as a church elder and on more than a dozen occasions, have been asked in confidence to help men (mostly young single men but a few older married men as well) for advice in dealing with the temptations—and in some cases addiction—of pornography.

My own approach, informed by various authors, has involved recommending five steps:

1. Acknowledge and honestly name the problem. 
2. Take practical steps to limit the temptations. 
3. Focus and invest in positive alternatives.
4. Build accountability structures.
5. Remember that just as sin erodes character, grace improves it.

Society is less shaped by what we do than by who we are. In the context of individuals dealing with temptations, this implies a focus on the gospel and how we are growing in grace, not just in the context of this specific challenge, but overall. Providing collective advice for a community is very different from individual advice, but I wonder whether the same principles might apply. Is this a time for a collective conversation, in whatever forums and institutions we have political conversations, to reflect on the extent to which our politics is being pornified and what steps we might take to counteract this?

WHAT I’M READING

Highlighting Iran  

I don’t have a good read on Iran, except that what’s happening there seems far more significant than what I’m seeing in the media. The news that 12,000 citizens have been killed by their government in the last week is shocking. How the situation might resolve itself remains unclear. I will note, however, a comment passed along by a colleague from an Iranian student, which reminded me that the resolution almost certainly requires outside help. “The government has all of the guns and is willing to use them, so any protest that is not helped by real force will ultimately fail and another generation of oppression will follow,” according to the student—a sobering assessment to consider as events unfold.

Panda-ering to China

When Prime Minister Stephen Harper wrapped up his 2012 China visit with the now-famous “panda diplomacy” announcement—securing a long-term panda loan for Canadian zoos—the federal government was signalling a desire for warmer ties through a high-profile, low-risk gesture that played well both at home and abroad. Today, Prime Minister Mark Carney’s trip to Beijing is a far less symbolic exercise: it is an overt attempt to reset and stabilize a relationship that has been strained for years, while also diversifying Canada’s trade options in a world where reliance on the United States has become more politically and economically precarious. Yet the same question that lingered beneath the panda photos remains even more pressing now: is this re-engagement a pragmatic recalibration in Canada’s national interest—or a strategic vulnerability disguised as diplomatic charm?

Unreasonable, Unconstitutional Government Action

The Federal Court of Appeal confirms it was unreasonable and unconstitutional to use the Emergencies Act in response to the Freedom Convoy’s disruptive and noisy 2022 protest in Ottawa. That decision came Friday in response to the federal government’s appeal of a lower court ruling last year that also went against its use of the Emergencies Act. In Friday’s decision, the judge described the seizure and freezing of bank accounts and other assets of protesters and their supporters as “intrusive.” The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF), which was involved in the case, welcomed the decision. “The judgement ensures that future governments will think twice before using emergency powers to target Canadians’ personal finances when they voice opposition to policy,” according to Christine Van Geyn, the CCF’s litigation director. Media reports suggest the federal government will seek leave to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The 52nd State?

Forget Canada as the 51st American state or the invasion (purchase?) of Greenland. Billy Long, US President Trump’s nominee for ambassador to Iceland, quipped this week that Iceland would become the 52nd American state and he’d become its governor. Iceland’s government is pouring cold water on the idea, asking the US Embassy to confirm whether taking over Iceland is indeed American policy. Apparently, it isn’t. Long has apologized for his rather undiplomatic joke.

MEANINGFUL METRICS

Counting the Homeless

Anyone who spends time in any Canadian downtown core knows that the homelessness crisis has worsened with encampments and on-street living much more conspicuous today. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) released a report this week that documents nearly 85,000 Ontarians known to be homeless in 2025, representing an almost 8 percent increase in one year and nearly 50 percent growth since 2021. The report highlights that homelessness is lasting longer (with more than half of people now considered chronically homeless) and is increasingly widespread beyond major cities. The fastest growth is in rural communities (up 30 percent) and in Northern Ontario (up 37 percent). It also notes that there were nearly 2,000 encampments across Ontario in 2025. Concerningly, Indigenous people bear a disproportionate burden of homelessness. At least 13.2 percent of homeless Ontarians are Indigenous, according to AMO, despite accounting for only about 3 percent of the population. As someone who spends time in the downtowns of many North American cities, I can confirm that this is not an Ontario-only problem. Even so, the stark AMO data in my home province highlights the need for governments, faith communities, and other community leaders to prioritize this issue. 

TAKE IT TO-GO

A Baaad Shopping Experience

I tag quirky news stories as a take-off point for this weekly pun farewell, and it seems animals on the loose more often than not catch my attention. This week’s entry comes from The Guardian in the UK which reported on 50 sheep that were on the lamb in a Bavarian grocery store. It seems to be a case of impulse bleating: no shopping list, no self-checkout skills, just pure aisle-wandering ambition. Here’s hoping your week is an improvement on that, but if you require company in being slightly lost, mildly disruptive, and overly committed to the snack section, you herd it here first that there are some German sheep with 2026 experience.

Til next week.