No Casinos Toronto Campaign
Conflict expansion is the incorporated use of advocacy and lobbying, in an attempt to influence legislation changes. In the No Casinos Toronto Campaign, the advocacy groups employed conflict expansion to carry out the course. The groups ensured that most individuals in Toronto are aware of the campaign, and what it entails. They also coerced councilors to make legislation in opposition of the intended casino in the city. In their campaign, the advocacy groups ensured that councilors did not have a wide room for voting in favor of the casino. Conflict expansion is the rigorous use of lobbying and advocacy to manipulate legislation, without giving legislators much of a choice. This essay will evaluate the efficacy of conflict expansion, in regard to No Casinos Toronto Campaign.
The advocacy groups in the "No Casinos Toronto Campaign" first contacted the legislators in the city regarding their opposing views on the proposed mega-casino. They wrote to the relevant authorities, regarding the upcoming effects of the casino on the public, the businesses and the Toronto society in general. They tried to convince the councilors to legislate in opposition of the mega-casino proposition (TogetherToronto, 2013).
After communicating their stand with the legislators, the advocacy groups then launched and online campaign. The online campaign was to get the public opinion against the mega-casino. This public opinion intended to force councilors to vote against the authorization of the casino (Criger, 2012).
The advocacy groups in "No Casinos Toronto Campaign" ensured that the public is well equipped and informed concerning the casino. The advocacy groups availed information concerning the effect the casino will have to the society as well as other businesses. In their dispatches of information, the advocacy groups argued that the casino will lead to an increased social crime, problem gambling, and parking problem, as well as traffic gridlock.
Dispatching information that the mega-casino would cannibalize other business, as people will prefer going to the casino over to other hotels and restaurant, was a catchy bit for the business fraternity. The business fraternity took the casino issue as theirs, fighting against it passionately (Barber, 2012).
This bit of information was a catch on the public since these are the issues that affect every individual in modern cities; the idea that a business that will worsen these issues is not welcome to all city dwellers. The advocacy groups expanded the casino problem, to include other issues that affect the public, igniting the public to voice their opposition. The advocacy part of the expansion campaign was to influence the public to view the casino as a problem source in Toronto city. The issue of information concerning how the casino would cause a traffic gridlock made the public hate the idea of the casino opening. People hate being held in traffic; therefore, there is no way they would welcome the business that would worsen the current traffic problem.
The advocacy groups used both direct contacts with the councilors and public opinion pressure to getting the councilors voting against the mega-casino. Launching an online No Casinos Toronto Campaign was the last blow that saw the councilors vote the casino out. Apart from the written presentation airing their opposition to the authorization of the casino, the advocacy groups, ensured that the whole public was aggressively against the casino. With the public aggressively against the casino, there is no room for councilors to vote in favor of the casino since they represent the people (Alcoba, 2013). The combined use of advocacy and lobbying saw a successful campaign against a mega-casino in Toronto.
The conflict expansion tactic in this campaign won the public to support the campaign against the mega-casino. The public received the campaign as their war since the advocacy groups expanded the issue to appear as if it affects the grass-root individuals.