I'm a left voter who remembers the unequal application of the law during the 1960/70ss against civil rights, gay rights, women's rights and anti-war protesters: The rule of law requires consistency or it's just a political football used to bully our opponents.
If we deplore the convoy for holding transportation infrastructure hostage, we should equally deplore the rail blockade that took transportation infrastructure hostage (for far longer).
If we deplore the idea of negotiating with convoy hostage takers, we should equally deplore the negotiations with rail infrastructure hostage takers who had defied multiple injunctions. (We should, in addition, deplore that those negotiations shut out all leaders of the elected band councils who had played by the rules, which sent the terrible message you effect change by breaking the law. Note, too, that the agreement was kept secret, when those of us on the left demand transparency on other occasions.)
If we deplore foreign funding of the convoy, we should equally deplore the foreign funding of the rail blockaders.
(We should also remember that protesters never represent everyone they claim to. The convoy doesn't represent all truckers. The rail blockaders didn't represent *any* of the elected band councils or the female hereditary chiefs in the disputed area.)
Your opinion only. Moe is popular and the ones who disagree with his actions are the ones that have been frightened and cowed by the mainstream medias fearmongering that is promoted by the governments. The longer Trudeau can drag this pandemic out with restrictions and lockdowns the more harm is done and the more power he can keep. He does not want to go back to normal as he loses power when they end. That is why they continue regardless of "the science" that says its time to move on.
I accept there may be an increase in deaths and ICU build up. Covid will be to blame, but so will our health system (that continues to totter on the razor sharp edge of scarcity)
and before you ask, Yes, I accept one of those deaths might be mine, or my mother
Even if that were true, the answer would of course be "yes". It is always wrong to violate the fundamental rights of one group of Canadians, simply because we are too lazy to fund hospitals, and too stupid not to drive out unvaccinated health care workers. That's on the segregationists to answer for.
Yes but unfortunately facts are not, unless your in the absence of any real argument. You have nothing to stand on because a fact is still a fact whether its convenient to your argument or not. Many indigenous communities are involved in the resource sector and mining and have brought their communities out of poverty, have productive and successful businesses they built up. They are involved. They also prefer to elect their leaders as they like a democratic system over an appointed leader due to their birth name, instead of their competency. You may deny this to be true or not have spoken to any of the indigenous people who prefer this, as those who are stuck in a narrative pushed by activists, social justice, and the Government, does not make it less of a fact. As it stands they are not being included in the narrative or the conversation for the future. This is a fact .
You know perfectly well that if the hereditary chiefs had opposed the blockade and the elected band councils had supported it that the white saviours in the environmental movement would have supported the elected councils and kicked the hereditary chiefs go the curb. I support environmental movements, but let's be honest.
In any case, this is another deflection: Either our government should negotiate with groups that hold our transportation infrastructure hostage or it shouldn't.
That was something I didn't know until the protests happened. It's a tough one as there also appears to be some controversy as to the legitimacy of elders speaking against the pipeline. Again points out the many challenges around the Indian Act and the need to make progress towards something more just for the good of Indigenous people *and* the rest of Canada.
Also points out the value of protest to raise awareness of issues.
I strongly disagree with the current protests and am skeptical of the people organizing them -- their aims and motivations. But, I still think frustrated people have the right to protest. We needed clearer lines on what's legal and what's not and how we should react when protests move to the illegal -- and that reaction should be consistent and ttansparent. Let's start with using large trucks to multiply the impact of your protest is a no-go; take the vehicles away and this is a much, much smaller protest. But should people be able to camp out at Parliament or Queen's Park to raise awareness for their cause and apply political pressure. I think they should.
Reminds me of a metaphor David French used to describe the toxic nature of partisan politics/life which is getting dialed up to 11 these days.
"Since my political divorce, however, I’ve been able to see more clearly the nature of partisanship itself, including the way in which it distorts our view of the world. To use a legal analogy, at a fundamental level, partisanship converts a person from a judge (one who decides among competing arguments, hopefully without bias) to a lawyer (one who steadfastly and relentlessly defends their client, almost regardless of the facts).
The partisan is prone to act like a lawyer, and the party is their client. He or she picks a side, and then—convinced that the common good or social justice is ultimately served by their triumph—behaves exactly how lawyers behave. Are there facts that make your “client” (Democrats or Republicans) look good? Emphasize those facts. Do negative developments harm your case? Find a way to change the focus.
The operative rule of partisanship is that once any issue becomes partisan, the lawyer model locks in. The two sides double down on their positions, amplify supporting facts, and deny, minimize, or rationalize negative information.
Respect for the rule of law? The poor are given no choice; it's the rich (HSBC, SNC Lavalin, Boris Johnson) that flout it with impunity. Or the rich just set up laws that apply only to others, "The Law, in its majesty, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges."
The article is attempting something that's a constant in right-wing journalism: spark up arguments between culturally-left working class people and culturally-right working-class people over which is treated worse by police, regulators, corporations. The real conflict is between the entire economic class and the ones above it.
The real flouters of rule-of-law are Boris Johnson and his parties. Demonstrations are actually the ONLY time that any working class can break the law and get away with it.
The article is about the importance about the neutrality of the law. I am amazed at how many people here insist that it is about something else. It really isn’t.
It's about the neutrality of law between "left" and "right" (culturally) protest groups, when the law has a much, much larger problem with neutrality between economic classes, and I felt that lack should be noted.
That is a fair point, and one that deserves its own discussion. One of the things about living in Ottawa is seeing the pain suffered by the frontline workers, blue collar workers, small business owners and the self-employed. The decisions about mandates have been made by those who have suffered no consequences whatsoever for those decisions - no missed paycheques, no cutting of benefits or loss of pensions, no decimation of life savings. And this is always the way. The FN bands trying to lift themselves out of government-sanctioned poverty are stymied by illegal blockades, supported by American money and our own government. The truckers are working class and self-employed. This particular article is about the consequences of the law being used as a partisan weapon. Consequences which are painfully obvious at this point.
One of the most debated social issues in Canada is equality. The fundamental notions of equality is the impartial application of the law. We, as a society, can only remain such where this equality is recognized, respected and and maintained by our institutions. When subsections of our society disagree with laws or feel that they are not being treated impartially under the law, they can exercise their lawful right to protest, but not to break, the law.
Protestors do not have the right to break any law as apart of their right of assembly other than where sheer numbers cannot convene temporarily without doing so.
Nor can protests inflict harm on anyone - other than temporary inconvenience.
Once a protest becomes more than a temporary display of preference that leads to more than temporary inconvenience to those subject to its effects, where laws are broken continuously and with escalating collateral damage impact on those not party to the objectives of the protest, it is time for the law to be enforced.
The possibility of violence always exists where those protesting the law think that enforcing the law is simply evidence that it is being applied partially against them.
At the stage where the protest has been made and temporary exclusions made for assembly are no longer appropriate, it is time for the protestors to turn to the orthodox avenues available to them and stand down from public dissent.
Some may feel it is appropriate to confront those charged with disbursing protests that seek to morph into long term opposition institutions embedded in the public realm.
It is not.
The government and law enforcement agencies must act to ensure that protest does not result in the occupation of public or private spaces for indeterminate periods.
Protestors who become lawbreakers must be dealt with - no matter what the political price.
There has been an unfortunate departure from this reality over the past decade and unfortunate precedents have been set - primarily by government - that have resulted in the legitimate conclusion that some protestors and protests are not subject to equal treatment in the application of the law.
It is better now to take measures to return to impartiality and to understand that any future deviations or exceptions will result in similar if not worse situations arsing.
Given the performance of the current government, that may be a very tall order to fulfill.
If only things were so cut and dried. You break the law, you pay: you're the bad guy, legally speaking. But as the war crimes trials at Nuremberg made crystal clear, it isn't enough to say you were simply following the law. When it comes to true guilt or innocence, laws can only ever function as guidelines; the ultimate appeal each individual must make is to his/her own conscience. It's up to each of us to decide whether a law is just or unjust, and act accordingly; and this isn't a responsibility that can be delegated to the state, or to any other institution or person.
If you break laws, sure, you can expect to be punished. Your guilt becomes 'official truth,' the 'truth' that's going to prevail. But it doesn't follow that you've acted incorrectly or unethically, or that the officials are right. And while the state has the power to enforce its will and is highly unlikely to back down, history might vindicate you all the same. Any society that pretends to be free, no matter how respectful it is of laws, has to permit this kind of debate, which is essential to freedom and central to the philosophy of law. Authority so absolute as to leave no space for conscientious objectors and other dissenters cannot be other than tyrannical.
Wise leaders, judges, and even intelligent cops, understand this and spare the rod when the occasion calls for it (the philosophical expression of this is called 'act-utilitarianism,' as opposed to 'rule-utilitarianism').
I agree that when laws or proposed laws that significantly abridge the rights or freedoms of anyone, people have the duty to ignore and contest them. That said, it is the magnitude of the abridgement that is the prime consideration. In the case of the current issue, it is not the subject of the protest but, rather, the right to protest that was the issue of far greater magnitude. The anti-vaccination/vaccination argument was far less the threat to freedom than the arbitrary condemnation of the protest and protestors by the media and federal government. The protest was made and that alone was a victory for freedom.
Now that the protest has been made, however, it is time for the protestors to accept that society needs to recover from the impact of their dissent. The tolerance of the large assembly of protestors and the need for relaxation of laws needed to accommodate it has been positive but the extent of that tolerance is being overextended by the protestors. They have made their dissent obvious and now it is time to back-off and let the lives of people impacted by it return to relative normalcy.
There simply nothing to be gained by extending the inconvenience other than to legitimize the growing negative reaction to it. Permanent protest can be conducted by means other than forcibly enmeshing non participants in the method of dissent.
The remains that there is a wide diversity of opinion on covid and the means employed to combat it - the debate will continue but the magnitude of this issue does not merit an ongoing occupation of Ottawa or anywhere else.
The truckers have delivered their message - now it is time to go home, write letters and attempt to convince neighbours of their cause.
I fully agree, of course. The disruption cannot continue indefinitely, and it's time for the freedom convoy to start winding things down. The interest the protest has sparked and the sympathy and support it's attracted internationally must have exceeded the organizers' most optimistic fantasies.
What's infuriating is the government's determination to place the onus for behaving so responsibly entirely on the protesters. There's no evidence their "message" has been heard by the government, or that the government has the least intention of devoting any thought to it in future. If the Prime Minister were truly concerned about ameliorating the "impact of dissent," he could easily meet with the protesters, concede the legitimacy of some of their concerns, and offer an olive branch or two that would allow them to begin withdrawing, able to claim that their remarkable feat of mobilization had at least earned the courtesy of a simple acknowledgement.
Instead, he seems perfectly prepared to weaponize "inconvenience" and "growing negative reaction" to force the protesters to cave--a strategy that, however successful it ultimately proves, cynically exploits (at the citizenry's direct expense) the very disruption it purports to abhor. Essentially, what the protesters are being asked to do now is behave more flexibly, compassionately and responsibly than their government.
I hope they will sensibly do so; either way, though, strategies of contemptuous unresponsiveness and evasion rarely prove winning ones for governments, long-term. That our Prime Minister has failed to rise to this occasion in a manner befitting his office hardly seems a controversial statement.
When people talk about the rule of law without mentioning the way that governments at all levels have shredded the law for two long years, when the connivance of supine judges, I just roll my eyes. The first principle of the rule of law is that governments are bound by law. Equal application to all citizens, while important, is secondary.
You are begging the question by the way you use the words "deadly", "enough", "reasonable", and "well-being". 4 fallacies in one sentence. You might as well be saying "nyah nyah nyah nyah". So, my reply is Honk Honk.
Is that what elected officials are elected to do? I thought they were my representatives in government who basically had to canvass the country asking people what they want and then implement this in government. 'Snoe phlakes' are ones needing taking care of by Big Daddy Government. I will take care of myself, thanks.
Russia and Brazil 'take care' of their people by ruling through oligarchy and authoritarianism and never caring much about what regular people want. I think you would like Russia or Brazil.
Now that Ontario has attempted to seize all the money donated to the peacefully protesting truckers (for a second time), I think we all ought to agree that the rule of law in Canada is a thing of the past. This is now a pure power struggle to see who will break first.
The truckers refuse to back down because they think that expelling 15% of Canadians from society as a permanent underclass is wrong, and they know they are heroes for standing against that.
Why our rulers think shredding the rule of law is better than backing down and just ending the mandates, I don't know. What else would they prefer to backing down? I am a bit afraid to find out. But I suspect we will.
Well, after Ontario's move to seize the funds donated to the truckers by countless Canadians, I think we can all agree that the rule of law is dead in Canada. Governments can simply steal the money of any organization that disagrees with them.
Is all this really better than just lifting the mandates? Why?
I like the article, but there's a deeper conversation that's wanting the author to have it, and more fundamental answers to his "Why not?" question. Logic isn't everything but it's basic, and whatever the merits or demerits of the positions we take on issues, they must at a bare minimum be logically consistent if we're to avoid "contradiction." Arbitrary law enforcement fails this simple test, as it similarly fails the test of ethics. No ethical system or theory permits turning a population, or part of it, into pawns to be manipulated and sacrificed on the altar of one's own interests, political or otherwise. People are 'ends in themselves,' as Kant put it, not 'means' we're at liberty to subordinate to our purposes.
A leader who discriminates between different groups of protesters solely on ideological grounds behaves both incoherently (because illogically), and unfairly (unethically). It is transparently incoherent and unfair to bring to bear on protesting truckers the same laws that one has set aside in order to pow wow with protesting aboriginals, for example; and it is hypocritical to pretend one is appealing to "the law," or protecting "democracy" while so discriminating. The Ottawa protesters aren't protesting democracy or the rule of law but specific government policies, which they claim are unfair and contrary to the democratic spirit. Far from seeking to "overthrow the government," they hope to awaken government to its democratic and freedom-safeguarding responsibilities.
It's legitimate to question the protesters methods, of course; but mischaracterizing their plainly stated aims, as our Prime Minister and a compliant, evidently ideologically captured media have done, is something else altogether. The institutions claiming to represent us, that one would have hoped to see setting benchmark examples of tolerance, fair-mindedness and openness to rational dialogue, aren't exactly emerging from this impasse covered with glory. The Prime Minister's sole concern seems to be discrediting a fairly sizable chunk of the population while evading any responsibility for "disruption:" it's the protesters who are at fault, not his policies. This is the same strategy management has always used to break strikes: it's the strikers who are hurting you, not our administrative failures or approach to labour relations. Would that the same energy the PM is currently devoting to demonization were directed to critical reappraisals of his policies and approach to governing.
I wanted to go on to address our equivocal relationship with law, which has been fraught for millennia (it is really necessary to cut the baby in half in order to satisfy the law; is this the route to justice?), but I'd better stop here.
Brian, I enjoyed and pretty much agreed with all aspects of your column.
Now, having said that .....
Civil disobedience is a (somewhat) valued and (again, somewhat) valued aspect in our society. To refer to American examples, the Alabama bus sit ins, Martin Luther King led demos, etc. civil disobedience has a history. Even in Canada there have been useful examples of civil disobedience.
Now, for my qualifier, a very important qualifier, in my opinion.
The rule of law is absolutely essential and the impartiality of authorities is also absolutely essential. It is important that the authorities are flexible in interpreting rules and laws but they cannot be so flexible as to bend over backwards. At some point the authorities must enforce the particular rules and laws.
Carrying that point further, however, when someone voluntarily undertakes an act of civil disobedience they knowingly choose to violate rules / laws and they, therefore, accept the possibility, even likelihood, of prescribed consequences.
[Now, a point of personal clarification. I support much of what the various convoys, etc. have published / publicly stated as their goals. Oh, not the looney tunes stuff about overthrow, etc., etc. but the need for dialogue with governments that refuse to consider alternatives is a very important point for me.]
So, in my opinion, the current civil disobedience is an honorable thing that these folks have chosen and, it follows, that being (I presume - really, I do, folks) honorable themselves, these protesters should accept legal consequences of their actions. In other words, (unfortunately!) the authorities will have to do what the authorities have to do. But civilly, please! The protesters can seek compensation from their supporters, as is their right. They might or might not come out whole, but the world must go on.
Oh, that last point, "the world must go on" why, or why, can those calling for dramatic consequences against the protesters not understand that the world must go on? We really do need to get dialogue and reduction of all these stupid Covid tules.
A good article and I don't disagree with anything written in it. However he has overlooked the effect of activist judges and their interpretation of the law. Think of the "free the beer" case and the mental gymnastics that went into actually upholding interprovincial trade barriers. That kind of thing truly erodes respect for the law.
This is the second article promoting "the rule of law" in The Line over the last several days. To think that unjust government actions will not be met by civil disobedience is naïve. And the level of disobedience will generally meet the level of government entrenchment on the issue. It has always been that way. Just ask Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela. Ask the anti-Vietnam war protesters, or environmentalists trying change forest policy, or First Nations trying to change a century of unjust treatment. These are greatly aggrieved people, and you cannot rationally expect them to be "polite". Same with the truckers. Government forcibly removed their ability to earn a living for themselves and their families, and tries to force a dubious medical procedure on them to boot. They feel their rights as citizens are being threatened, and how can you disagree with them? They have been forced to resort to civil disobedience, in the time-honored tradition of the oppressed, to persuade a blinded government that its actions are incorrect.
Well, neutrality of the law where it applies equally to all can be considered important. The author also argues that protests are okay if they are polite and don't impede anyone else. In the real world things don't happen that way, even as the author manages to find one acceptable example. In a protest such as this one, arguing that laws should just be applied without further thought is just fiddling while Rome burns. It's the same unworkable "rule of law" argument that imagines theoretical responses to widespread civil disobedience, none of which are handy in actually solving the problem.
In real life, people are entitled to protest peacefully in Canada, and there have been plenty of those. Thanks for expanding on your thoughts. I responded because your opening suggested that the article was about the rule of law. It’s also amazing to me (and this is not about you) that some people apparently think that the rule of law is an outrageous far-right concept. Personally, I think that the government’s behaviour in this, as in so many other issues, gas been entirely boneheaded.
To deprive citizens of their right to earn a living is not unjust?? As far as ignorance of vaccines is concerned, where is your evidence that they are "good for the whole population"? A clinical trial performed by Pfizer itself between Dec. 1st, 2020 and Feb. 28, 2021 recorded over 42,000 adverse events and over 1,200 deaths. The FDA tried to withhold this information and only released some of it because it lost in court. In the past any vaccine that caused 50 deaths would have been pulled until the causes could be determined. Not so this one. Yet the government continues to promote it as "safe and effective", and calls those who raise questions as toxic spreaders of "misinformation". This is a censorship agenda. As Joseph Goebbels said, "A lie told once is just a lie. A lie told a thousand times becomes the truth."
The police response at Fairy Creek was violent, heavy-handed and in many cases, illegal. I'm not sure why you're drawing a comparison to that when the convoy protest has been treated with kid gloves.
Hi Pat. No one can comment on this site unless they are a paid subscriber, so we do not generally have issues with aliases. (They would have to buy multiple subscriptions to do this.) I believe you can set your preferences to not receive email notifications when someone responds to you on this board, but I admit I don't know how to do that. Substack manages our IT infrastructure. JG
I'm a left voter who remembers the unequal application of the law during the 1960/70ss against civil rights, gay rights, women's rights and anti-war protesters: The rule of law requires consistency or it's just a political football used to bully our opponents.
If we deplore the convoy for holding transportation infrastructure hostage, we should equally deplore the rail blockade that took transportation infrastructure hostage (for far longer).
If we deplore the idea of negotiating with convoy hostage takers, we should equally deplore the negotiations with rail infrastructure hostage takers who had defied multiple injunctions. (We should, in addition, deplore that those negotiations shut out all leaders of the elected band councils who had played by the rules, which sent the terrible message you effect change by breaking the law. Note, too, that the agreement was kept secret, when those of us on the left demand transparency on other occasions.)
If we deplore foreign funding of the convoy, we should equally deplore the foreign funding of the rail blockaders.
(We should also remember that protesters never represent everyone they claim to. The convoy doesn't represent all truckers. The rail blockaders didn't represent *any* of the elected band councils or the female hereditary chiefs in the disputed area.)
Equal application of the law is not "what about".
Lifting all mandates, passports and restrictions would though.
Absolutely and it must be done.
Your opinion only. Moe is popular and the ones who disagree with his actions are the ones that have been frightened and cowed by the mainstream medias fearmongering that is promoted by the governments. The longer Trudeau can drag this pandemic out with restrictions and lockdowns the more harm is done and the more power he can keep. He does not want to go back to normal as he loses power when they end. That is why they continue regardless of "the science" that says its time to move on.
there's a difference between support and accept
I accept there may be an increase in deaths and ICU build up. Covid will be to blame, but so will our health system (that continues to totter on the razor sharp edge of scarcity)
and before you ask, Yes, I accept one of those deaths might be mine, or my mother
Lift restrictions now and the hospitals will crash.
Wait two months, lift restrictions and the hospitals will crash.
Wait six months, lift restrictions and the hospitals will crash.
Can public health officials explain the benefits of waiting to lift restrictions?
Well said
Even if that were true, the answer would of course be "yes". It is always wrong to violate the fundamental rights of one group of Canadians, simply because we are too lazy to fund hospitals, and too stupid not to drive out unvaccinated health care workers. That's on the segregationists to answer for.
Deflection is a poor debating tactic. It highlights the absence of any real argument.
Yes but unfortunately facts are not, unless your in the absence of any real argument. You have nothing to stand on because a fact is still a fact whether its convenient to your argument or not. Many indigenous communities are involved in the resource sector and mining and have brought their communities out of poverty, have productive and successful businesses they built up. They are involved. They also prefer to elect their leaders as they like a democratic system over an appointed leader due to their birth name, instead of their competency. You may deny this to be true or not have spoken to any of the indigenous people who prefer this, as those who are stuck in a narrative pushed by activists, social justice, and the Government, does not make it less of a fact. As it stands they are not being included in the narrative or the conversation for the future. This is a fact .
You know perfectly well that if the hereditary chiefs had opposed the blockade and the elected band councils had supported it that the white saviours in the environmental movement would have supported the elected councils and kicked the hereditary chiefs go the curb. I support environmental movements, but let's be honest.
In any case, this is another deflection: Either our government should negotiate with groups that hold our transportation infrastructure hostage or it shouldn't.
That was something I didn't know until the protests happened. It's a tough one as there also appears to be some controversy as to the legitimacy of elders speaking against the pipeline. Again points out the many challenges around the Indian Act and the need to make progress towards something more just for the good of Indigenous people *and* the rest of Canada.
Also points out the value of protest to raise awareness of issues.
I strongly disagree with the current protests and am skeptical of the people organizing them -- their aims and motivations. But, I still think frustrated people have the right to protest. We needed clearer lines on what's legal and what's not and how we should react when protests move to the illegal -- and that reaction should be consistent and ttansparent. Let's start with using large trucks to multiply the impact of your protest is a no-go; take the vehicles away and this is a much, much smaller protest. But should people be able to camp out at Parliament or Queen's Park to raise awareness for their cause and apply political pressure. I think they should.
Reminds me of a metaphor David French used to describe the toxic nature of partisan politics/life which is getting dialed up to 11 these days.
"Since my political divorce, however, I’ve been able to see more clearly the nature of partisanship itself, including the way in which it distorts our view of the world. To use a legal analogy, at a fundamental level, partisanship converts a person from a judge (one who decides among competing arguments, hopefully without bias) to a lawyer (one who steadfastly and relentlessly defends their client, almost regardless of the facts).
The partisan is prone to act like a lawyer, and the party is their client. He or she picks a side, and then—convinced that the common good or social justice is ultimately served by their triumph—behaves exactly how lawyers behave. Are there facts that make your “client” (Democrats or Republicans) look good? Emphasize those facts. Do negative developments harm your case? Find a way to change the focus.
The operative rule of partisanship is that once any issue becomes partisan, the lawyer model locks in. The two sides double down on their positions, amplify supporting facts, and deny, minimize, or rationalize negative information.
"
Respect for the rule of law? The poor are given no choice; it's the rich (HSBC, SNC Lavalin, Boris Johnson) that flout it with impunity. Or the rich just set up laws that apply only to others, "The Law, in its majesty, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges."
The article is attempting something that's a constant in right-wing journalism: spark up arguments between culturally-left working class people and culturally-right working-class people over which is treated worse by police, regulators, corporations. The real conflict is between the entire economic class and the ones above it.
The real flouters of rule-of-law are Boris Johnson and his parties. Demonstrations are actually the ONLY time that any working class can break the law and get away with it.
The article is about the importance about the neutrality of the law. I am amazed at how many people here insist that it is about something else. It really isn’t.
It's about the neutrality of law between "left" and "right" (culturally) protest groups, when the law has a much, much larger problem with neutrality between economic classes, and I felt that lack should be noted.
That is a fair point, and one that deserves its own discussion. One of the things about living in Ottawa is seeing the pain suffered by the frontline workers, blue collar workers, small business owners and the self-employed. The decisions about mandates have been made by those who have suffered no consequences whatsoever for those decisions - no missed paycheques, no cutting of benefits or loss of pensions, no decimation of life savings. And this is always the way. The FN bands trying to lift themselves out of government-sanctioned poverty are stymied by illegal blockades, supported by American money and our own government. The truckers are working class and self-employed. This particular article is about the consequences of the law being used as a partisan weapon. Consequences which are painfully obvious at this point.
Excellent column. Lays out the bleeding obvious.
Good article. Sad state of affairs in this country when politicians undermine the law and police are afraid to enforce it.
One of the most debated social issues in Canada is equality. The fundamental notions of equality is the impartial application of the law. We, as a society, can only remain such where this equality is recognized, respected and and maintained by our institutions. When subsections of our society disagree with laws or feel that they are not being treated impartially under the law, they can exercise their lawful right to protest, but not to break, the law.
Protestors do not have the right to break any law as apart of their right of assembly other than where sheer numbers cannot convene temporarily without doing so.
Nor can protests inflict harm on anyone - other than temporary inconvenience.
Once a protest becomes more than a temporary display of preference that leads to more than temporary inconvenience to those subject to its effects, where laws are broken continuously and with escalating collateral damage impact on those not party to the objectives of the protest, it is time for the law to be enforced.
The possibility of violence always exists where those protesting the law think that enforcing the law is simply evidence that it is being applied partially against them.
At the stage where the protest has been made and temporary exclusions made for assembly are no longer appropriate, it is time for the protestors to turn to the orthodox avenues available to them and stand down from public dissent.
Some may feel it is appropriate to confront those charged with disbursing protests that seek to morph into long term opposition institutions embedded in the public realm.
It is not.
The government and law enforcement agencies must act to ensure that protest does not result in the occupation of public or private spaces for indeterminate periods.
Protestors who become lawbreakers must be dealt with - no matter what the political price.
There has been an unfortunate departure from this reality over the past decade and unfortunate precedents have been set - primarily by government - that have resulted in the legitimate conclusion that some protestors and protests are not subject to equal treatment in the application of the law.
It is better now to take measures to return to impartiality and to understand that any future deviations or exceptions will result in similar if not worse situations arsing.
Given the performance of the current government, that may be a very tall order to fulfill.
If only things were so cut and dried. You break the law, you pay: you're the bad guy, legally speaking. But as the war crimes trials at Nuremberg made crystal clear, it isn't enough to say you were simply following the law. When it comes to true guilt or innocence, laws can only ever function as guidelines; the ultimate appeal each individual must make is to his/her own conscience. It's up to each of us to decide whether a law is just or unjust, and act accordingly; and this isn't a responsibility that can be delegated to the state, or to any other institution or person.
If you break laws, sure, you can expect to be punished. Your guilt becomes 'official truth,' the 'truth' that's going to prevail. But it doesn't follow that you've acted incorrectly or unethically, or that the officials are right. And while the state has the power to enforce its will and is highly unlikely to back down, history might vindicate you all the same. Any society that pretends to be free, no matter how respectful it is of laws, has to permit this kind of debate, which is essential to freedom and central to the philosophy of law. Authority so absolute as to leave no space for conscientious objectors and other dissenters cannot be other than tyrannical.
Wise leaders, judges, and even intelligent cops, understand this and spare the rod when the occasion calls for it (the philosophical expression of this is called 'act-utilitarianism,' as opposed to 'rule-utilitarianism').
I agree that when laws or proposed laws that significantly abridge the rights or freedoms of anyone, people have the duty to ignore and contest them. That said, it is the magnitude of the abridgement that is the prime consideration. In the case of the current issue, it is not the subject of the protest but, rather, the right to protest that was the issue of far greater magnitude. The anti-vaccination/vaccination argument was far less the threat to freedom than the arbitrary condemnation of the protest and protestors by the media and federal government. The protest was made and that alone was a victory for freedom.
Now that the protest has been made, however, it is time for the protestors to accept that society needs to recover from the impact of their dissent. The tolerance of the large assembly of protestors and the need for relaxation of laws needed to accommodate it has been positive but the extent of that tolerance is being overextended by the protestors. They have made their dissent obvious and now it is time to back-off and let the lives of people impacted by it return to relative normalcy.
There simply nothing to be gained by extending the inconvenience other than to legitimize the growing negative reaction to it. Permanent protest can be conducted by means other than forcibly enmeshing non participants in the method of dissent.
The remains that there is a wide diversity of opinion on covid and the means employed to combat it - the debate will continue but the magnitude of this issue does not merit an ongoing occupation of Ottawa or anywhere else.
The truckers have delivered their message - now it is time to go home, write letters and attempt to convince neighbours of their cause.
I fully agree, of course. The disruption cannot continue indefinitely, and it's time for the freedom convoy to start winding things down. The interest the protest has sparked and the sympathy and support it's attracted internationally must have exceeded the organizers' most optimistic fantasies.
What's infuriating is the government's determination to place the onus for behaving so responsibly entirely on the protesters. There's no evidence their "message" has been heard by the government, or that the government has the least intention of devoting any thought to it in future. If the Prime Minister were truly concerned about ameliorating the "impact of dissent," he could easily meet with the protesters, concede the legitimacy of some of their concerns, and offer an olive branch or two that would allow them to begin withdrawing, able to claim that their remarkable feat of mobilization had at least earned the courtesy of a simple acknowledgement.
Instead, he seems perfectly prepared to weaponize "inconvenience" and "growing negative reaction" to force the protesters to cave--a strategy that, however successful it ultimately proves, cynically exploits (at the citizenry's direct expense) the very disruption it purports to abhor. Essentially, what the protesters are being asked to do now is behave more flexibly, compassionately and responsibly than their government.
I hope they will sensibly do so; either way, though, strategies of contemptuous unresponsiveness and evasion rarely prove winning ones for governments, long-term. That our Prime Minister has failed to rise to this occasion in a manner befitting his office hardly seems a controversial statement.
When people talk about the rule of law without mentioning the way that governments at all levels have shredded the law for two long years, when the connivance of supine judges, I just roll my eyes. The first principle of the rule of law is that governments are bound by law. Equal application to all citizens, while important, is secondary.
You are begging the question by the way you use the words "deadly", "enough", "reasonable", and "well-being". 4 fallacies in one sentence. You might as well be saying "nyah nyah nyah nyah". So, my reply is Honk Honk.
If you want to actually think sensibly, try this: https://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/time-end-vaccine-mandates-dr-matthew-strauss-inside-policy/
Is that what elected officials are elected to do? I thought they were my representatives in government who basically had to canvass the country asking people what they want and then implement this in government. 'Snoe phlakes' are ones needing taking care of by Big Daddy Government. I will take care of myself, thanks.
Russia and Brazil 'take care' of their people by ruling through oligarchy and authoritarianism and never caring much about what regular people want. I think you would like Russia or Brazil.
The freest state in the USA? I would like this, yes. I am not threatened by freedom and diversity of people.
The convoy blockades would have never happened if the BLM protests and church burnings weren't excused by the political elites on the left.
Now that Ontario has attempted to seize all the money donated to the peacefully protesting truckers (for a second time), I think we all ought to agree that the rule of law in Canada is a thing of the past. This is now a pure power struggle to see who will break first.
The truckers refuse to back down because they think that expelling 15% of Canadians from society as a permanent underclass is wrong, and they know they are heroes for standing against that.
Why our rulers think shredding the rule of law is better than backing down and just ending the mandates, I don't know. What else would they prefer to backing down? I am a bit afraid to find out. But I suspect we will.
Well, after Ontario's move to seize the funds donated to the truckers by countless Canadians, I think we can all agree that the rule of law is dead in Canada. Governments can simply steal the money of any organization that disagrees with them.
Is all this really better than just lifting the mandates? Why?
I like the article, but there's a deeper conversation that's wanting the author to have it, and more fundamental answers to his "Why not?" question. Logic isn't everything but it's basic, and whatever the merits or demerits of the positions we take on issues, they must at a bare minimum be logically consistent if we're to avoid "contradiction." Arbitrary law enforcement fails this simple test, as it similarly fails the test of ethics. No ethical system or theory permits turning a population, or part of it, into pawns to be manipulated and sacrificed on the altar of one's own interests, political or otherwise. People are 'ends in themselves,' as Kant put it, not 'means' we're at liberty to subordinate to our purposes.
A leader who discriminates between different groups of protesters solely on ideological grounds behaves both incoherently (because illogically), and unfairly (unethically). It is transparently incoherent and unfair to bring to bear on protesting truckers the same laws that one has set aside in order to pow wow with protesting aboriginals, for example; and it is hypocritical to pretend one is appealing to "the law," or protecting "democracy" while so discriminating. The Ottawa protesters aren't protesting democracy or the rule of law but specific government policies, which they claim are unfair and contrary to the democratic spirit. Far from seeking to "overthrow the government," they hope to awaken government to its democratic and freedom-safeguarding responsibilities.
It's legitimate to question the protesters methods, of course; but mischaracterizing their plainly stated aims, as our Prime Minister and a compliant, evidently ideologically captured media have done, is something else altogether. The institutions claiming to represent us, that one would have hoped to see setting benchmark examples of tolerance, fair-mindedness and openness to rational dialogue, aren't exactly emerging from this impasse covered with glory. The Prime Minister's sole concern seems to be discrediting a fairly sizable chunk of the population while evading any responsibility for "disruption:" it's the protesters who are at fault, not his policies. This is the same strategy management has always used to break strikes: it's the strikers who are hurting you, not our administrative failures or approach to labour relations. Would that the same energy the PM is currently devoting to demonization were directed to critical reappraisals of his policies and approach to governing.
I wanted to go on to address our equivocal relationship with law, which has been fraught for millennia (it is really necessary to cut the baby in half in order to satisfy the law; is this the route to justice?), but I'd better stop here.
Brian, I enjoyed and pretty much agreed with all aspects of your column.
Now, having said that .....
Civil disobedience is a (somewhat) valued and (again, somewhat) valued aspect in our society. To refer to American examples, the Alabama bus sit ins, Martin Luther King led demos, etc. civil disobedience has a history. Even in Canada there have been useful examples of civil disobedience.
Now, for my qualifier, a very important qualifier, in my opinion.
The rule of law is absolutely essential and the impartiality of authorities is also absolutely essential. It is important that the authorities are flexible in interpreting rules and laws but they cannot be so flexible as to bend over backwards. At some point the authorities must enforce the particular rules and laws.
Carrying that point further, however, when someone voluntarily undertakes an act of civil disobedience they knowingly choose to violate rules / laws and they, therefore, accept the possibility, even likelihood, of prescribed consequences.
[Now, a point of personal clarification. I support much of what the various convoys, etc. have published / publicly stated as their goals. Oh, not the looney tunes stuff about overthrow, etc., etc. but the need for dialogue with governments that refuse to consider alternatives is a very important point for me.]
So, in my opinion, the current civil disobedience is an honorable thing that these folks have chosen and, it follows, that being (I presume - really, I do, folks) honorable themselves, these protesters should accept legal consequences of their actions. In other words, (unfortunately!) the authorities will have to do what the authorities have to do. But civilly, please! The protesters can seek compensation from their supporters, as is their right. They might or might not come out whole, but the world must go on.
Oh, that last point, "the world must go on" why, or why, can those calling for dramatic consequences against the protesters not understand that the world must go on? We really do need to get dialogue and reduction of all these stupid Covid tules.
A good article and I don't disagree with anything written in it. However he has overlooked the effect of activist judges and their interpretation of the law. Think of the "free the beer" case and the mental gymnastics that went into actually upholding interprovincial trade barriers. That kind of thing truly erodes respect for the law.
This is the second article promoting "the rule of law" in The Line over the last several days. To think that unjust government actions will not be met by civil disobedience is naïve. And the level of disobedience will generally meet the level of government entrenchment on the issue. It has always been that way. Just ask Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela. Ask the anti-Vietnam war protesters, or environmentalists trying change forest policy, or First Nations trying to change a century of unjust treatment. These are greatly aggrieved people, and you cannot rationally expect them to be "polite". Same with the truckers. Government forcibly removed their ability to earn a living for themselves and their families, and tries to force a dubious medical procedure on them to boot. They feel their rights as citizens are being threatened, and how can you disagree with them? They have been forced to resort to civil disobedience, in the time-honored tradition of the oppressed, to persuade a blinded government that its actions are incorrect.
It is an article about the importance of the neutrality of the law. I am wondering if you’ve even bothered to read it.
Well, neutrality of the law where it applies equally to all can be considered important. The author also argues that protests are okay if they are polite and don't impede anyone else. In the real world things don't happen that way, even as the author manages to find one acceptable example. In a protest such as this one, arguing that laws should just be applied without further thought is just fiddling while Rome burns. It's the same unworkable "rule of law" argument that imagines theoretical responses to widespread civil disobedience, none of which are handy in actually solving the problem.
In real life, people are entitled to protest peacefully in Canada, and there have been plenty of those. Thanks for expanding on your thoughts. I responded because your opening suggested that the article was about the rule of law. It’s also amazing to me (and this is not about you) that some people apparently think that the rule of law is an outrageous far-right concept. Personally, I think that the government’s behaviour in this, as in so many other issues, gas been entirely boneheaded.
To deprive citizens of their right to earn a living is not unjust?? As far as ignorance of vaccines is concerned, where is your evidence that they are "good for the whole population"? A clinical trial performed by Pfizer itself between Dec. 1st, 2020 and Feb. 28, 2021 recorded over 42,000 adverse events and over 1,200 deaths. The FDA tried to withhold this information and only released some of it because it lost in court. In the past any vaccine that caused 50 deaths would have been pulled until the causes could be determined. Not so this one. Yet the government continues to promote it as "safe and effective", and calls those who raise questions as toxic spreaders of "misinformation". This is a censorship agenda. As Joseph Goebbels said, "A lie told once is just a lie. A lie told a thousand times becomes the truth."
Uh, not much to say to that, except that if these sorts of thoughts represent the vast majority, then God help us.
I agree. But I don’t think they do. Fortunately.
The police response at Fairy Creek was violent, heavy-handed and in many cases, illegal. I'm not sure why you're drawing a comparison to that when the convoy protest has been treated with kid gloves.
Hi Pat. No one can comment on this site unless they are a paid subscriber, so we do not generally have issues with aliases. (They would have to buy multiple subscriptions to do this.) I believe you can set your preferences to not receive email notifications when someone responds to you on this board, but I admit I don't know how to do that. Substack manages our IT infrastructure. JG
It's easy actually. There's a "Mute Thread" box that shows up in the email.