Well said. The only finger pointing here resides with the very heavy handed top down approach being preached down to us from Ottawa. Nobody likes a protest, but understand that this stems from pent up frustration of being told that: 1. your values aren't, well valued; 2. listen to us because we're the experts; 3. do as I say, not as I do. Our politicians are more interested in preaching politics rather than governing our country. I fear it will get worse instead of better unless we start prioritizing bringing the country together rather than ripping it apart.
I don’t understand the focus on Ottawa to be honest. Health is a provincial matter so provincial health officers & Premier set updates. They have differed widely across Canada.
Almost 90% of Canadians are vaccinated. As Canada approaches the Covid finish line I think - Why? Why all this disruption now when the end is so near?
You are right. Yes, the Federal gov't set the border mandate but the US has the same thing so even if Trudeau cancels it these people are no farther ahead. The rest are provincial mandates so Ottawa has no say.
NOBODY is enjoying this. We all want it to end. Cutting the mandates prematurely will just extend the misery. The dimmness of this whole thing makes me shake my head. And why the horn honking? Trudeau isn't in town so who is it supposed to pressure? They are like kids at a birthday party.
This is a tantrum thrown by needle cowards. I get that I can't make you eat your vegetables because you are a big boy. Real big boys man up, get the shot and go back to work.
You're missing the point here. Trudeau removing the cross border rule does not remove the identical American rule. The needle cowards still won't be able to cross the border.
It’s to do with the vaccine mandates set by the Federal government. Specifically for the truckers crossing the border. It's having an impact though. Both Premier Moe (SK) and Kenney (AB) have said they will be altering their mandate legislation based on this protest.
They are both leading from their knees. The medical communities in both provinces say it's too soon but these cowards know that it's their voters causing the problems so all of a sudden it's "leadership is over-rated."
I mostly agree with the article's premise. Why are these conclusions and others only reached now?
Where was the action when churches were set fire last summer? Arson is against the law, but the spokesmodel who plays PM on TV and social media, found the actions "understandable". Or when train tracks were blocked in early 2020? Or access denied to legally permitted pipeline construction sites? Also laughable is concern over foreign funding. Occupy Wall Street, BLM and climate activism, such as the Tarsands Compaign, all had some degree of foreign funding. Laurentians only seem to care about the rule of law, or foreign funding when protests impact something in their own backyards, if they disagree with the alleged cause, or the protestors are unsympathetic or even worse, unattractive.
I've mentioned this before but Canada is not immune from the forces of populism. Run away house inflation, soaring food heating hydro costs, 2 years of insane lockdowns, demonising anyone who questioned the vaccine mandates so on and so forth. I live abroad so I have no take on this but the sheer volume of hate directed being at the protest deeply worries me.
The protests might end but the anger isn't going away.
Pat, I am not one of the protesters - but I could be!
I understand - and agree - with much of what they are saying. Oh, the stated aims of dismissing the government, etc., etc., etc. are loony tunes but their reasons for wanting those things are absolutely correct: the idea that government does not listen except to the "elites" (an odious descriptive but the best I can do), the media echoes the aims and goals of those "elites" but does not provide commentary that reflects the concern of real people, and so on and so forth.
So, to say that "most of us are sane" is insufficient; it may be true but it is absolutely insufficient. There was a movie in the 1980s (I think) by the name of "Network" in which the main character, Peter Finch, stated "I'm mad as hell and not going to take it anymore!" I think that attitude reflects the attitude of many, many, many Canadians now. A majority? No, but a very large and increasing minority.
Your assessment of the our federal government and main stream media is correct. However these protesters are not close to a large pocket of Canadians. They are the few who can not work with the rest of us to get by this. To self absorbed.
When this is over and it looks good, a proper review of what was done will teach us all to be smarter in the future. However I don't see any provincial politician wanted this to go on. Provincial leaders of all strips look like they aged 50 years.
Pat, I respectfully disagree with you. I think that a large portion of the population is very, very disenchanted with how the governments and bureaucracy have messed up this whole Covid thingy.
I further think that there are more people who are sympathetic to the aims (exclusive of the loony tunes wish to overthrow the government) of the convoy than you think. I refer you to the various demonstrations in all sorts of locations across the country over the weekend and continuing today.
I guess we aren't going to agree. Alternatives would be nice from these people instead of an hysterical 'we have to be Free' with no alternative that protects people.
I have no problem with disagreement; heck, my wife and I disagree on various things and we are still married after all these years (bad judgement on her part, of course).
I also have no problem with "we have to be free." But. But. But. If that is all someone says they are not too intelligent. That is an absolute statement; I did not label it as opinion. The reason is that there are absolutely no absolutes (a contradiction?) in life.
For example: Thou shalt not kill. Oh, I was defending myself from a homicidal maniac who was just about to kill me. Oh, okay.
My point is, that to simply assert freedom is insufficient. If, however, one asserts freedom and then notes why that freedom has (apparently) been restricted and the alternatives, etc. then we can talk - your point, I think.
I also want to be free and, I suspect that you do as well. Having said that, I look at the various programs and I have come to the opinions (very much plural) that a) for the most part, those programs were put in place without any real consideration of the downsides of those programs; b) there was not a great deal of consideration of the efficacy of those programs; c) there was a critical lack of consideration of alternatives; d) ... e) ... f) and so forth.
Now, some two years after the imposition of many of the programs I conclude that the governments that absolutely did not consider the issues of a, b, c, etc. at the beginning have denied those problems for the last two years. I could accept that many of those problems occurred at the beginning because of the rush of things and that any two or two million people would have differing opinions at that time but most of us would (perhaps unwillingly, but nevertheless) accept the initial need for the programs. The problem is that the governments (again, plural) have absolutely resisted accepting that any of the programs are flawed or outmoded or did not work to achieve the stated goals. Hell, many of the programs were instituted without stating a goal that was expected to be achieved or, if it was achieved, a new goal was immediately substituted for no discernible reason.
So, you argue that you want alternatives from "these people" and I can accept that but I counter argue that our worsers - they sure as hell are not MY betters - distinctly are not and have not provided alternatives to their various programs. Further, when people, including very thoughtful and very knowledgeable people, have provided alternatives they have been ignored, denigrated, deplatformed, accused of not following "the science," etc. when our worsers are very definitely themselves not following the science.
So, yes, the folks protesting are arguing about their rights, their liberties, but what are our worsers doing? Pretty much what they want with no checks and balances. For example, the concept of Parliament meeting in person (check other countries and see how their legislators operate!) is laughable in Canada. Remember, at the beginning, our Prime Idiot and his acolytes tried to get passed into law the idea of being able to rule by decree for a period of time. That is pretty much a good indication of what they wanted and want. So, yeah, I do understand about liberty and freedom.
And, yes, I do understand why the folks in the various convoys are so incensed.
The line that resonates the most with me in this article is, "A society operating under such mutual suspicion simply cannot sustain itself and it will not last." Where are the leaders trying to resolve this through dialogue? The Prime Minister's dismissal giving impetus to a new hashtag #wearethefringe? Mark Carney threatening to jail anyone who supported the convoy? Bernie Farber smearing the convoy with false hate literature allegations? How can this be good?
It isn't and that should be obvious to any intelligent person. I honestly don't think Trudeau is too smart so it doesn't surprise me that he would knowingly vilify a portion of the citizenry he is supposed to be the leader of, for partisan gain. He actually isn't bright enough to know what his job is supposed to be!
I am not sure what group is treated better by the police. The disruptive protests in the last few years have been treated with kid gloves no matter what the group or cause. If the police do act they are second guessed by veryone and their dog. Yes The rule of law is in danger of being irrelevant in this wishy washy society we live in.
That’s a good point. These demonstrations seem to be getting longer and louder and at times, more ridiculous and thus, harder to tolerate. Part of the issue certainly lies with the leader when he immediately and unfairly painted the demonstrators as racist misogynistic etc. in spite of his own checkered past with these issues. In the past he dismissed other insurrections that echoed his own stated position as understandable. You have to pick a lane especially if you are the leader as you are the one that sets the standard. Governments at other levels have also set the bar extremely low with several published cases on do-as-I-say break downs during the pandemic so while I don’t agree with some of the nutty demands of the mob, I do fully understand the frustration of a society completely underserved by a well (and full time) paid government.
The government has spent 2 years shredding the Charter and every other law that guards the rights of Canadians, with the connivance of supine judges. If they want to restore the rule of law, they need to start by restoring our Charter rights and lifting the mandates. Anything else is just the rule of power.
The Liberals, and progressives in general, tend to selectively fall back on Charter arguments that support expansion of the state, rarely the opposite.
I, respectfully, decline to agree or disagree with your assertion.
Now, having said that, we DO have Charter protections that are written down and there for all to see. The problem is that the various protections have been twisted, warped and ignored, all in order to create jurisprudence that extends those protections in ways that were not considered at all by the signers of the Charter - and that was only forty years ago!!! - and to provide ways to ignore the protections, all in the name of "reasonable" extensions and exclusions.
The ultimate point is that the Charter protections that we nominally have are not at all really there unless the government of the day should (shockingly) choose to allow those protections.
Mark, I agree that the government has consistently sought - and found - judges to assist in violating Charter rights so that it is now clear that we have one of two situations: a) we have no rights except those the government wishes us to have from time to time; or b) we have no rights except those the government wishes us to have from time to time. So, which is it option a) or option b)? Myself, I don't see much of a difference!
Excellent article - I wish I had the solution but it is dismaying to see such disregard for the citizens of Ottawa. It took a citizen to take the convoy to court for levels of dangerous noise.
If this is the next place the press is going, the conversations are moving backward. This article starts off nicely, even sounds like it is headed in the right direction, then perhaps middle ground of "mutual tolerance and trust between people in the exercise of rights under the law". Great, sounds like trying to negotiate between the disparate views on this. But then goes to weird places that sound like "tough on crime" curmudgeon speak and with intermixed moments that read like high-school level cheap rhetoric
One cheap rhetorical tactic used to dismiss opposition is a simple strawman. "Hey, here was a blockade in 2020, and we have a blockade in 2022. They are both blockades, so having differing opinions on how to deal with them is hypocrisy." That's pretty shallow reasoning. That blockade was about a pipeline. If the same blockade was, say, because government authorities were systematically invading their homes and raping them, and everybody was complicit with it, do you think maybe how you deal with the blockade should be different? Context matters.
I'm no fan of Poilievre, but trying to equate these situations is pretty amateurish.
The opposite end of strawman rhetoric is seeking an extreme single point and try to smear the issue with it. This Freedom Convoy has nothing to do with Nazi symbols, confederate flags, or any hate-filled 'ism' of 'phobia'. These attacks are completely baseless. There's >100 hours of live streams you can watch online and I dare you to find any with any protestor displaying or supporting the ideas behind swastikas, confederate flags, or group-based hate. Whether an (obvious) agent provocateur or just some fringe guy who showed up with it (in full mask, with a photographer), that has nothing to do with the protest purpose.
This stalemate won't end without listening. Cheap smears just create more supporters for the protest. The impasse in conversation seems even in identifying a start point. The article picks as a starting point:
"The police seem to be the first culprits here. No matter the nature of the protest at issue, it is unacceptable—and frustrating—to see police facilitating the continued protest rather than easing it after a week."
Really? That's what you see is the problem here? Would you have said this if the protest was about mandatory abolishment of Islam, or denying people travel based on race, or requiring proof of heterosexuality to have a job, attend an event, or get on an airplane?
If your eyes are rolling and you are ready to dismiss the comparison, that reaction of yours is the problem that will keep this from ever getting fixed. We aren't just talking about esoteric rights here. We are talking about people's livelihoods being taken away and destroyed, and being denied participatory access, and having parental access rights removed, all because of their choice of conscience that is a fundamental human right, and we thought was protect in our own Charter and the human decency of our fellow Canadians.
These fundamentals of life are not being denied based on anything remotely reasonable. They are being denied based on irrational fear. People are acting like being unvaccinated is equivalent to being contagious, even de-humanizing them, like something out of the Nazi's 1939 film "The Eternal Jew", showing their homes with cockroaches and rats and claiming they do that by choice. It is disgusting misinformation that elicits fear and hatred to the point of dehumanizing them with statements from “If an unvaccinated person catches it from someone who is vaccinated, boo-hoo, too bad.” to “I have no empathy left for the wilfully unvaccinated. Let them die.” and “I honestly don’t care if they die from COVID. Not even a little bit.”: https://www.thestar.com/opinion/public_editor/2021/08/28/toronto-star-front-page-design-exacerbated-division-between-readers-greater-care-should-have-been-taken.html
"It cited an Angus Reid poll that most vaccinated Canadians are indifferent to the unvaccinated getting sick with the virus, with 83 per cent saying they have no sympathy for those who choose not to get the COVID-19 vaccine and then fall ill."
This normalized and rationalize ingroup/outgroup psychology is far bigger a threat to our society than COVID-19. This indifference to the oppression and marginalization of others because of their choice of conscience, and to the current magnitude, puts us well along the line toward tyrannical society. The fact that people summarily dismiss this notion IS the problem. Of course the people on one side don't weep for those on the other; that's been the point for 80 years of psychological understanding of how societies become such atrocious places.
It appears that people on "that" side think they have scientific justification somehow and don't appear to bother reading that science to check. While Trudeau was implementing his federal employee mandate in October, based on occupational safety and health claims that being unvaccinated was an increased risk to coworkers, the very source of national medical advice -- the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) -- put out an Advisory Committee statement that said there was limited evidence and insufficient to make conclusions about reducing asymptomatic infection and transmission. NACI's recommendations were also based on offering vaccines to people and seeking informed consent.
Health Canada's risk mitigation plan for the vaccines requires diversifying the risk via informed consent, and keeping the product monographs up to date. The latest monographs still say that it is unknown if these vaccines affect fertility, pregnancy, can be passed in breast milk, that risk to the newborn cannot be excluded, and that risks and benefits of the vaccine should be discussed and weight between the mother and her doctor. All of this risk mitigation is undermined when coercion is applied.
The World Health Organization has repeatedly come out against vaccine mandates and vaccine passports, as well as vaccinating children and adolescents, as well as boosters if not in a high risk category, the latter of which they referred to as a "catastrophic moral failure". The Nuffield Council on bioethics has also come out with similar statements against mandatory vaccination. It isn't becomes the WHO and other orgs are fringe conspiracy theorists; their objections include the lack of necessity, lack of strong evidence for the need, lack of effectiveness of such restrictive coercive measures, loss of public trust, and because these things systematically and disproportionately harm the poor, marginalized, and vulnerable in society.
The relative and absolute risk of unvaccinated vs vaccinated for transmission and spread is negligible, when you bother to actually write down the numbers. Even the worst case says at at most an unvaccinated person is only as risky to be around as 2-3 vaccinated people. Yet people will sit in a restaurant with 50 vaccinated people with no fear, but won't have an unvaccinated family member at their house at Christmas or around their kids. Judges are taking away parental access, perfectly fine with the kid being around 2, 3, or 100 other vaccinated people, but not their unvaccinated parent? Where is the rationality or science in any of that?
This is why you won't find support for vaccine mandates in the science in general. Not in NACI. Not Health Canada. Not the WHO or Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
This hatred, fear, and mistreatment of unvaccinated people is irrational, unwarranted, and unscientific. It is the moral equivalent of doing the same thing to Muslims, Jews, or homosexuals simply following from irrational fear. I've heard the dismissive response too many times: "You know, "they" could just choose to disavow their beliefs and convert to ours, which is much better for them."
On Aug 31, Trudeau referred to them as "those people" and said they are a threat to their children, and to our children. We've heard this demagoguery many times before. After 9/11, "Those people are a threat to our children." In WWII, whether American-Japanese internment camps or German concentration camps, "Those people are a threat to our children." We heard it from the KKK, and from slurs comparing homosexuals to pedophiles, "Those people are a threat to our children."
But they aren't. It is oppression driven by irrational fear and demagoguery.
The truckers and their supporters are opposing that. No more lost jobs. No more marginalization. No more vaccine mandates or vaccine passports. Listen to the World Health Organization, and bioethics orgs, and numerous scientists and doctors who oppose these, and do what the UK, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and almost half of U.S. states are doing in abandoning such atrocities toward fellow human beings.
If you disagree, fine. Let's have that debate, but on honest terms, not smear tactics.
One thing this article gets right: "While the rule of law has a special application in restricting state power, it also provides a set of rules or guidelines for how we should live in relation to one another. These rules are contained in our Constitution and our laws, but upholding those rules requires more than just recording them on a special piece of paper. It requires a critical mass of agreement to be bound by these rules. "
Right now, the authorities and a large portion of the public have abandoned these principles. The rest falls out from there. Everybody is the hero of their own story, but the oppressive curmudgeons reveal that they know they are on the wrong side when they resort to cheap smear tactics and divisive, hate-filled rhetoric instead of simply addressing the real issues. It ends when we all can talk about those issues openly and in good faith. I have yet to see a sign of that willingness.
Mark, I agree with much of what you say - well, at least in theory.
The "in theory" part is that we must remember that the rule of law imposes - again, in theory - penalties for violating those laws. We have seen that police forces of all stripes have great difficulty in enforcing those laws by issuing tickets, arresting people, seeing the courts turn "the guilty" free with less that a slap on the wrist, etc.
My point is that our whole society gives lip service to the phrase "civil disobedience" but then forgets that when one chooses civil disobedience one also chooses (except in Canada, of course) to accept the penalties associated with that disobedience.
So, to the truckers.
[A point I must first state: I do support the concept of that protest; I feel that some of the stated aims are absurd but the protest itself about the idiocy and hypocrisy of our government that does not listen to the public I do support strongly.]
The police must start issuing tickets and enforcing the law. Perhaps arrests are appropriate; I don't know the ins and outs of the law on that point but I expect the police know more than I.
One terrifically unusual issue in this case is the actual trucks themselves. They cannot be moved unless driven away. Please don't talk about tow trucks as there are very few tow trucks for big rigs available in Ottawa, not many in Ontario or Quebec and I suspect that many of the drivers of those tow trucks would decline a request to assist the police in removal. A difficult situation, to be sure.
So, police, issue your tickets, arrest as you feel appropriate but understand that the fact of these trucks means that these trucks will likely be there until the owners choose otherwise.
A word of warning, however, Mr. / Ms. Policeperson, be aware that the members of this convoy are ready and willing to be ticketed / arrested and that they have supporters who have contributed money because they (the supporters) also feel that the "elites" are not listening, etc. That money can pay the tickets, compensate for lawyers, jail time, etc.
Of course, our "betters" - actually, our worsers - meaning the Prime Idiot of Canada and his ilk could decide to actually do their job and listen to people. But, I am not at all hopeful on that
If Martin Luther King has followed your premise, there would have been no Civil Rights Act and the US would still be segregated. Same with Nelson Mandela in South Africa. Sometimes civil disobedience is necessary in the face of bad laws or government suppression.
Different circumstances, but same underlying motivations. Government suppresses a minority - in this case those who are not vaccinated - limits their rights, imposes sanctions against them, and denigrates them publicly. The minority eventually decides it has had enough and rises up against the authorities, demanding an end to what they perceive as unjust actions against it. The government can choose to crush the revolt through force if it wishes, but that will only cement a continued uprising. Not much different than the examples I cited earlier. Whether anyone outside of it believes the uprising is justified or not doesn't matter.
Actually, he is talking about civil disobedience. Something that MLK espoused and something that the stupidity of the various levels of government and bureaucracy have forced people into here in Canada as said, government and bureaucracy have ignored "the science" when it doesn't support their view of what they want.
I want to respond to your column with a few thoughts on the rule of law and its origins.
I found some notes from the Ontario civics course I took way back 2001. According to this class, the rule of law originates in the year 1215 with the creation of the Magna Carta - The King is not above the law.
However, we can go further back, to the ancient days, to see the true, mythological origins of the rule of law. In those earliest of days, Gods and Titans roamed the earth. Cronus was the great ruler, all existence was centred around him. Whatever he wanted, he got. If he was losing at the weekly curling match, well, he could just change the rules. Everyone and everything bowed to the whim of Cronus.
But Cronus knew one day he would produce a child who would be all powerful and all knowing. No problem, he said, I'll just eat all my kids. And life went on, Cronus ate his kids, and all the gods and the titans and creatures could do whatever they pleased. They lived by chaos.
Until one child escaped the jaws of Cronus. Raised in Cave, he was full of patience. He was all-powerful. He was all knowing. His name was Zeus, and he controlled the Thunder and the Lighting. Zeus knew that he could beat Cronus in a fight any day. Zeus knew that it was his destiny to replace Cronus as the Master of the Universe. But Zeus was different. He knew that Cronus was a nasty piece of work, and Zeus did not want to be the new tyrant on the block. So he devised a plan. He reached out to the gods, he made allies and friends amongst them, he created a new pantheon, and he led them into battle against the old gods and the titans. Against Cronus and his crew.
It was a ferocious battle. In the end Zeus' new Pantheon put down the rabid titans and their callous master Cronus.
From now on, the power of the gods would be restrained. Instead of chaos, the new pantheon lived by the rule book.
First, I think the expression 'rule of law' is not entirely transparent. Usually it is contrasted with the rule by men, as in authoritarian leaders. But even authoritarian regimes have laws. So it's vital that the concept of the 'rule of law' be recognized as intertwined with democratic rule. That is, the law is produced through democratic processes such as majority rule, with minority rights overseen by courts, and the peaceful transfer of power, all being essential and intertwined. The rule of law does not describe the mechanism of a machine, it describes the collective behaviour of members of a society (as the article suggests) through its institutions.
So the use of force needs to be recognized as the expression of a democratic will which is not absolute but which is regularly tested. Again, societies, including democracies, are not perfect running machines. They will be tested. Ours is being tested now. Complacency is not a wise option. Clarity of understanding and will is. Thus the institutions of debate and reflection, parliaments and courts, which have feedback loops for review, are the principle institutions for testing the will of a democratic society.
So it's times like this that courts become essential to test the claims at issue. Subject them to careful scrutiny before any abundance of force is deployed, and done so, in a politically non-partisan way, as noted in this article. Partisan deployments of force are essentially authoritarian in nature. The undemocratic imposition of the will of one segment of society, through force, upon another, without recourse through the courts to protect minority rights.
The fundamental problem with the protest is not the protest, the arguments or the inconvenience. It's the attempt to use force by the protestors, through an occupation subjecting citizens to hostage-like punishments, in order to force an outcome, facilitated by the apparent abdication of police (the democratic institution granted the monopoly to use force as overseen by the courts) when the vast majority through their actions have indicated a willingness to support vaccination as a solution to the pandemic.
The protestors need to test their claims in the courts and at the ballot box. If they lose at both and choose force instead. A democratic society will have justified the use of force against them. The institutions of force, for their part, must remain aloof to the partisan contest, otherwise they are choosing an authoritarian, fascist solution.
The rule of law is always being tested in a democracy, at the ballot box and in the courts. And sometimes through protests in the streets. However, the use of force is sacred. It tests the sacred connection of trust between rulers and ruled, of power and the consent of the governed, in a society that claims to be democratic. One of the goals is to avoid civil war which is symptomatic of a fundamentally broken society where courts and parliaments can not produce the peaceful reproduction of society, the peaceful transfer of power. We are being tested. We are no where near broken. Yet.
We have, though, seen politicians and policy be changed through mob protests (how many organizations are now being subjected to diversity workshops in response to our PM bending his knee in Parliament?). You are correct in defining how democratic societies are *supposed* to work, but our politicians - of all stripes- have moved far beyond their mandate in making a pledge in governing our country, and smack dab into preaching their partisan party ideology. And this is what requires further scrutiny, because when our legislators fail to do the job they are elected to do, and instead dabble in rhetoric and ideology, that means they’re unable to do the job before them. And if that is the case, we are in a whole bunch of trouble. More fiddling while Rome burns. I do believe the cracks in the system will only get worse.
Your remarks suggest a misunderstanding of political institutions. They are by nature partisan and ideological. That's where the partisan, ideological debates occur. Those debates are tested, ultimately, at the ballot box and in reviews by courts of law. It's the courts (i.e., judges) and the police (the use of force) which need to remain aloof from partisan ideology, at least, in principle. Lawyers, on the other hand, like politicians, are, by definition, partisans.
I am fully aware what constitutes a political institution; what constitutes Parliament, however, is governance of our country, with the assumption that partisan politics are put aside in order to work together effectively. And this is where our politicians have failed. There is no governance in Ottawa anymore, it’s ALL partisan politics and throwing money at problems instead of working together and solving the problems intelligently. I am also fully aware of the structure of Courts, having gone through the process myself, and how the police force should operate. Again, though, with partisan policies and ideology overtaking our governance model of these institutions, these same institutions are unable to function effectively. If the police had moved in and physically removed these protesters by force, howls of police brutality and lawsuits would follow because that precedent has already been set - not by the police, but by outraged politicians and legislation which has been upheld by the Courts. I don’t disagree with what you are saying, I think though we need to further examine the underlying shift in what is motivating these events. If we don’t, it will only get worse.
I don't disagree. But partisan behaviour is tolerable, if not desirable, amongst politicians and lawyers in a way it is not on the part of judges and police. The tool for dealing with overly partisan politicians is the ballot box. Judges and cops are removed through other institutions of review.
I realize that when all the politicians ratchet up the partisanship the ability of voters to choose the more moderate choice becomes more difficult. But typically there are moderate voices out there (O'Toole?) and if voters fail to choose them because they enjoy the partisan verbal gun fights (Poilievre?) then perhaps they deserve the results.
And the protestors have demonstrated, for all Canadians, what the results of partisan gridlock look like. So voters need to take those results and decide at the ballot box how they would like to proceed, ex., elect moderates willing to "work together effectively". Trudeau may call a snap election if, as he lamely attempted to justify in the last go-round, the current gridlock is seen as paralyzing effective governance. If the voters agree with him this time, they may elect a majority or punish those partisans openly promoting gridlock.
Well said. I would only add an observation on the phrase, "partisan politics". It seems our political leaders are more interested in promoting their brand, rather than promoting their political stripes. Yes, partisan behaviour should be tolerated, but Tik Tok videos and Twitter hashtags have replaced all thoughtful discourse on Parliament Hill. Perhaps because those we have elected, aren't intelligent enough to provide thoughtful debate, and instead choose to pursue clickbait rhetoric meant to provoke, and jazzy 10 second videos to woo the voter. It's pathetic, and reveals the mentality of the leadership of our country.
Well said. The only finger pointing here resides with the very heavy handed top down approach being preached down to us from Ottawa. Nobody likes a protest, but understand that this stems from pent up frustration of being told that: 1. your values aren't, well valued; 2. listen to us because we're the experts; 3. do as I say, not as I do. Our politicians are more interested in preaching politics rather than governing our country. I fear it will get worse instead of better unless we start prioritizing bringing the country together rather than ripping it apart.
I don’t understand the focus on Ottawa to be honest. Health is a provincial matter so provincial health officers & Premier set updates. They have differed widely across Canada.
Almost 90% of Canadians are vaccinated. As Canada approaches the Covid finish line I think - Why? Why all this disruption now when the end is so near?
You are right. Yes, the Federal gov't set the border mandate but the US has the same thing so even if Trudeau cancels it these people are no farther ahead. The rest are provincial mandates so Ottawa has no say.
NOBODY is enjoying this. We all want it to end. Cutting the mandates prematurely will just extend the misery. The dimmness of this whole thing makes me shake my head. And why the horn honking? Trudeau isn't in town so who is it supposed to pressure? They are like kids at a birthday party.
This is a tantrum thrown by needle cowards. I get that I can't make you eat your vegetables because you are a big boy. Real big boys man up, get the shot and go back to work.
You're missing the point here. Trudeau removing the cross border rule does not remove the identical American rule. The needle cowards still won't be able to cross the border.
It’s to do with the vaccine mandates set by the Federal government. Specifically for the truckers crossing the border. It's having an impact though. Both Premier Moe (SK) and Kenney (AB) have said they will be altering their mandate legislation based on this protest.
They are both leading from their knees. The medical communities in both provinces say it's too soon but these cowards know that it's their voters causing the problems so all of a sudden it's "leadership is over-rated."
That’s a curious interpretation and use of the English language. Is this guy a coward for speaking out as well? Because this is what protests can do https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/quebec-liberal-mp-publicly-breaks-with-trudeau-over-vaccine-mandates
No that guy is an opportunist.
I mostly agree with the article's premise. Why are these conclusions and others only reached now?
Where was the action when churches were set fire last summer? Arson is against the law, but the spokesmodel who plays PM on TV and social media, found the actions "understandable". Or when train tracks were blocked in early 2020? Or access denied to legally permitted pipeline construction sites? Also laughable is concern over foreign funding. Occupy Wall Street, BLM and climate activism, such as the Tarsands Compaign, all had some degree of foreign funding. Laurentians only seem to care about the rule of law, or foreign funding when protests impact something in their own backyards, if they disagree with the alleged cause, or the protestors are unsympathetic or even worse, unattractive.
I've mentioned this before but Canada is not immune from the forces of populism. Run away house inflation, soaring food heating hydro costs, 2 years of insane lockdowns, demonising anyone who questioned the vaccine mandates so on and so forth. I live abroad so I have no take on this but the sheer volume of hate directed being at the protest deeply worries me.
The protests might end but the anger isn't going away.
The anger will go away because most of us are sane. The anger is in the faces of those protesters.
Pat, I am not one of the protesters - but I could be!
I understand - and agree - with much of what they are saying. Oh, the stated aims of dismissing the government, etc., etc., etc. are loony tunes but their reasons for wanting those things are absolutely correct: the idea that government does not listen except to the "elites" (an odious descriptive but the best I can do), the media echoes the aims and goals of those "elites" but does not provide commentary that reflects the concern of real people, and so on and so forth.
So, to say that "most of us are sane" is insufficient; it may be true but it is absolutely insufficient. There was a movie in the 1980s (I think) by the name of "Network" in which the main character, Peter Finch, stated "I'm mad as hell and not going to take it anymore!" I think that attitude reflects the attitude of many, many, many Canadians now. A majority? No, but a very large and increasing minority.
Your assessment of the our federal government and main stream media is correct. However these protesters are not close to a large pocket of Canadians. They are the few who can not work with the rest of us to get by this. To self absorbed.
When this is over and it looks good, a proper review of what was done will teach us all to be smarter in the future. However I don't see any provincial politician wanted this to go on. Provincial leaders of all strips look like they aged 50 years.
Pat, I respectfully disagree with you. I think that a large portion of the population is very, very disenchanted with how the governments and bureaucracy have messed up this whole Covid thingy.
I further think that there are more people who are sympathetic to the aims (exclusive of the loony tunes wish to overthrow the government) of the convoy than you think. I refer you to the various demonstrations in all sorts of locations across the country over the weekend and continuing today.
I guess we aren't going to agree. Alternatives would be nice from these people instead of an hysterical 'we have to be Free' with no alternative that protects people.
I have no problem with disagreement; heck, my wife and I disagree on various things and we are still married after all these years (bad judgement on her part, of course).
I also have no problem with "we have to be free." But. But. But. If that is all someone says they are not too intelligent. That is an absolute statement; I did not label it as opinion. The reason is that there are absolutely no absolutes (a contradiction?) in life.
For example: Thou shalt not kill. Oh, I was defending myself from a homicidal maniac who was just about to kill me. Oh, okay.
My point is, that to simply assert freedom is insufficient. If, however, one asserts freedom and then notes why that freedom has (apparently) been restricted and the alternatives, etc. then we can talk - your point, I think.
I also want to be free and, I suspect that you do as well. Having said that, I look at the various programs and I have come to the opinions (very much plural) that a) for the most part, those programs were put in place without any real consideration of the downsides of those programs; b) there was not a great deal of consideration of the efficacy of those programs; c) there was a critical lack of consideration of alternatives; d) ... e) ... f) and so forth.
Now, some two years after the imposition of many of the programs I conclude that the governments that absolutely did not consider the issues of a, b, c, etc. at the beginning have denied those problems for the last two years. I could accept that many of those problems occurred at the beginning because of the rush of things and that any two or two million people would have differing opinions at that time but most of us would (perhaps unwillingly, but nevertheless) accept the initial need for the programs. The problem is that the governments (again, plural) have absolutely resisted accepting that any of the programs are flawed or outmoded or did not work to achieve the stated goals. Hell, many of the programs were instituted without stating a goal that was expected to be achieved or, if it was achieved, a new goal was immediately substituted for no discernible reason.
So, you argue that you want alternatives from "these people" and I can accept that but I counter argue that our worsers - they sure as hell are not MY betters - distinctly are not and have not provided alternatives to their various programs. Further, when people, including very thoughtful and very knowledgeable people, have provided alternatives they have been ignored, denigrated, deplatformed, accused of not following "the science," etc. when our worsers are very definitely themselves not following the science.
So, yes, the folks protesting are arguing about their rights, their liberties, but what are our worsers doing? Pretty much what they want with no checks and balances. For example, the concept of Parliament meeting in person (check other countries and see how their legislators operate!) is laughable in Canada. Remember, at the beginning, our Prime Idiot and his acolytes tried to get passed into law the idea of being able to rule by decree for a period of time. That is pretty much a good indication of what they wanted and want. So, yeah, I do understand about liberty and freedom.
And, yes, I do understand why the folks in the various convoys are so incensed.
The line that resonates the most with me in this article is, "A society operating under such mutual suspicion simply cannot sustain itself and it will not last." Where are the leaders trying to resolve this through dialogue? The Prime Minister's dismissal giving impetus to a new hashtag #wearethefringe? Mark Carney threatening to jail anyone who supported the convoy? Bernie Farber smearing the convoy with false hate literature allegations? How can this be good?
I think this sort of response is exactly what the article pointed out was the problem.
It isn't and that should be obvious to any intelligent person. I honestly don't think Trudeau is too smart so it doesn't surprise me that he would knowingly vilify a portion of the citizenry he is supposed to be the leader of, for partisan gain. He actually isn't bright enough to know what his job is supposed to be!
But people like Carney should know better.
I am not sure what group is treated better by the police. The disruptive protests in the last few years have been treated with kid gloves no matter what the group or cause. If the police do act they are second guessed by veryone and their dog. Yes The rule of law is in danger of being irrelevant in this wishy washy society we live in.
That’s a good point. These demonstrations seem to be getting longer and louder and at times, more ridiculous and thus, harder to tolerate. Part of the issue certainly lies with the leader when he immediately and unfairly painted the demonstrators as racist misogynistic etc. in spite of his own checkered past with these issues. In the past he dismissed other insurrections that echoed his own stated position as understandable. You have to pick a lane especially if you are the leader as you are the one that sets the standard. Governments at other levels have also set the bar extremely low with several published cases on do-as-I-say break downs during the pandemic so while I don’t agree with some of the nutty demands of the mob, I do fully understand the frustration of a society completely underserved by a well (and full time) paid government.
The government has spent 2 years shredding the Charter and every other law that guards the rights of Canadians, with the connivance of supine judges. If they want to restore the rule of law, they need to start by restoring our Charter rights and lifting the mandates. Anything else is just the rule of power.
Oh, did I miss them calling the end of the pandemic? Has the WHO determined that honking your horn kills the virus?
The Liberals, and progressives in general, tend to selectively fall back on Charter arguments that support expansion of the state, rarely the opposite.
I, respectfully, decline to agree or disagree with your assertion.
Now, having said that, we DO have Charter protections that are written down and there for all to see. The problem is that the various protections have been twisted, warped and ignored, all in order to create jurisprudence that extends those protections in ways that were not considered at all by the signers of the Charter - and that was only forty years ago!!! - and to provide ways to ignore the protections, all in the name of "reasonable" extensions and exclusions.
The ultimate point is that the Charter protections that we nominally have are not at all really there unless the government of the day should (shockingly) choose to allow those protections.
Mark, I agree that the government has consistently sought - and found - judges to assist in violating Charter rights so that it is now clear that we have one of two situations: a) we have no rights except those the government wishes us to have from time to time; or b) we have no rights except those the government wishes us to have from time to time. So, which is it option a) or option b)? Myself, I don't see much of a difference!
Excellent article - I wish I had the solution but it is dismaying to see such disregard for the citizens of Ottawa. It took a citizen to take the convoy to court for levels of dangerous noise.
I agree - I don't understand the point of the horns. This interview gives a more nuanced perspective - from someone living in the Byward Market area of Ottawa. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/truckers-rip-the-mask-off-the-covid-consensus-full-comment-with-anthony-furey
(Edit) Shorter version: "When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty."
If this is the next place the press is going, the conversations are moving backward. This article starts off nicely, even sounds like it is headed in the right direction, then perhaps middle ground of "mutual tolerance and trust between people in the exercise of rights under the law". Great, sounds like trying to negotiate between the disparate views on this. But then goes to weird places that sound like "tough on crime" curmudgeon speak and with intermixed moments that read like high-school level cheap rhetoric
One cheap rhetorical tactic used to dismiss opposition is a simple strawman. "Hey, here was a blockade in 2020, and we have a blockade in 2022. They are both blockades, so having differing opinions on how to deal with them is hypocrisy." That's pretty shallow reasoning. That blockade was about a pipeline. If the same blockade was, say, because government authorities were systematically invading their homes and raping them, and everybody was complicit with it, do you think maybe how you deal with the blockade should be different? Context matters.
I'm no fan of Poilievre, but trying to equate these situations is pretty amateurish.
The opposite end of strawman rhetoric is seeking an extreme single point and try to smear the issue with it. This Freedom Convoy has nothing to do with Nazi symbols, confederate flags, or any hate-filled 'ism' of 'phobia'. These attacks are completely baseless. There's >100 hours of live streams you can watch online and I dare you to find any with any protestor displaying or supporting the ideas behind swastikas, confederate flags, or group-based hate. Whether an (obvious) agent provocateur or just some fringe guy who showed up with it (in full mask, with a photographer), that has nothing to do with the protest purpose.
This stalemate won't end without listening. Cheap smears just create more supporters for the protest. The impasse in conversation seems even in identifying a start point. The article picks as a starting point:
"The police seem to be the first culprits here. No matter the nature of the protest at issue, it is unacceptable—and frustrating—to see police facilitating the continued protest rather than easing it after a week."
Really? That's what you see is the problem here? Would you have said this if the protest was about mandatory abolishment of Islam, or denying people travel based on race, or requiring proof of heterosexuality to have a job, attend an event, or get on an airplane?
If your eyes are rolling and you are ready to dismiss the comparison, that reaction of yours is the problem that will keep this from ever getting fixed. We aren't just talking about esoteric rights here. We are talking about people's livelihoods being taken away and destroyed, and being denied participatory access, and having parental access rights removed, all because of their choice of conscience that is a fundamental human right, and we thought was protect in our own Charter and the human decency of our fellow Canadians.
These fundamentals of life are not being denied based on anything remotely reasonable. They are being denied based on irrational fear. People are acting like being unvaccinated is equivalent to being contagious, even de-humanizing them, like something out of the Nazi's 1939 film "The Eternal Jew", showing their homes with cockroaches and rats and claiming they do that by choice. It is disgusting misinformation that elicits fear and hatred to the point of dehumanizing them with statements from “If an unvaccinated person catches it from someone who is vaccinated, boo-hoo, too bad.” to “I have no empathy left for the wilfully unvaccinated. Let them die.” and “I honestly don’t care if they die from COVID. Not even a little bit.”: https://www.thestar.com/opinion/public_editor/2021/08/28/toronto-star-front-page-design-exacerbated-division-between-readers-greater-care-should-have-been-taken.html
"It cited an Angus Reid poll that most vaccinated Canadians are indifferent to the unvaccinated getting sick with the virus, with 83 per cent saying they have no sympathy for those who choose not to get the COVID-19 vaccine and then fall ill."
This normalized and rationalize ingroup/outgroup psychology is far bigger a threat to our society than COVID-19. This indifference to the oppression and marginalization of others because of their choice of conscience, and to the current magnitude, puts us well along the line toward tyrannical society. The fact that people summarily dismiss this notion IS the problem. Of course the people on one side don't weep for those on the other; that's been the point for 80 years of psychological understanding of how societies become such atrocious places.
It appears that people on "that" side think they have scientific justification somehow and don't appear to bother reading that science to check. While Trudeau was implementing his federal employee mandate in October, based on occupational safety and health claims that being unvaccinated was an increased risk to coworkers, the very source of national medical advice -- the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) -- put out an Advisory Committee statement that said there was limited evidence and insufficient to make conclusions about reducing asymptomatic infection and transmission. NACI's recommendations were also based on offering vaccines to people and seeking informed consent.
Health Canada's risk mitigation plan for the vaccines requires diversifying the risk via informed consent, and keeping the product monographs up to date. The latest monographs still say that it is unknown if these vaccines affect fertility, pregnancy, can be passed in breast milk, that risk to the newborn cannot be excluded, and that risks and benefits of the vaccine should be discussed and weight between the mother and her doctor. All of this risk mitigation is undermined when coercion is applied.
The World Health Organization has repeatedly come out against vaccine mandates and vaccine passports, as well as vaccinating children and adolescents, as well as boosters if not in a high risk category, the latter of which they referred to as a "catastrophic moral failure". The Nuffield Council on bioethics has also come out with similar statements against mandatory vaccination. It isn't becomes the WHO and other orgs are fringe conspiracy theorists; their objections include the lack of necessity, lack of strong evidence for the need, lack of effectiveness of such restrictive coercive measures, loss of public trust, and because these things systematically and disproportionately harm the poor, marginalized, and vulnerable in society.
The relative and absolute risk of unvaccinated vs vaccinated for transmission and spread is negligible, when you bother to actually write down the numbers. Even the worst case says at at most an unvaccinated person is only as risky to be around as 2-3 vaccinated people. Yet people will sit in a restaurant with 50 vaccinated people with no fear, but won't have an unvaccinated family member at their house at Christmas or around their kids. Judges are taking away parental access, perfectly fine with the kid being around 2, 3, or 100 other vaccinated people, but not their unvaccinated parent? Where is the rationality or science in any of that?
This is why you won't find support for vaccine mandates in the science in general. Not in NACI. Not Health Canada. Not the WHO or Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
This hatred, fear, and mistreatment of unvaccinated people is irrational, unwarranted, and unscientific. It is the moral equivalent of doing the same thing to Muslims, Jews, or homosexuals simply following from irrational fear. I've heard the dismissive response too many times: "You know, "they" could just choose to disavow their beliefs and convert to ours, which is much better for them."
On Aug 31, Trudeau referred to them as "those people" and said they are a threat to their children, and to our children. We've heard this demagoguery many times before. After 9/11, "Those people are a threat to our children." In WWII, whether American-Japanese internment camps or German concentration camps, "Those people are a threat to our children." We heard it from the KKK, and from slurs comparing homosexuals to pedophiles, "Those people are a threat to our children."
But they aren't. It is oppression driven by irrational fear and demagoguery.
The truckers and their supporters are opposing that. No more lost jobs. No more marginalization. No more vaccine mandates or vaccine passports. Listen to the World Health Organization, and bioethics orgs, and numerous scientists and doctors who oppose these, and do what the UK, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and almost half of U.S. states are doing in abandoning such atrocities toward fellow human beings.
If you disagree, fine. Let's have that debate, but on honest terms, not smear tactics.
One thing this article gets right: "While the rule of law has a special application in restricting state power, it also provides a set of rules or guidelines for how we should live in relation to one another. These rules are contained in our Constitution and our laws, but upholding those rules requires more than just recording them on a special piece of paper. It requires a critical mass of agreement to be bound by these rules. "
Right now, the authorities and a large portion of the public have abandoned these principles. The rest falls out from there. Everybody is the hero of their own story, but the oppressive curmudgeons reveal that they know they are on the wrong side when they resort to cheap smear tactics and divisive, hate-filled rhetoric instead of simply addressing the real issues. It ends when we all can talk about those issues openly and in good faith. I have yet to see a sign of that willingness.
Mark, I agree with much of what you say - well, at least in theory.
The "in theory" part is that we must remember that the rule of law imposes - again, in theory - penalties for violating those laws. We have seen that police forces of all stripes have great difficulty in enforcing those laws by issuing tickets, arresting people, seeing the courts turn "the guilty" free with less that a slap on the wrist, etc.
My point is that our whole society gives lip service to the phrase "civil disobedience" but then forgets that when one chooses civil disobedience one also chooses (except in Canada, of course) to accept the penalties associated with that disobedience.
So, to the truckers.
[A point I must first state: I do support the concept of that protest; I feel that some of the stated aims are absurd but the protest itself about the idiocy and hypocrisy of our government that does not listen to the public I do support strongly.]
The police must start issuing tickets and enforcing the law. Perhaps arrests are appropriate; I don't know the ins and outs of the law on that point but I expect the police know more than I.
One terrifically unusual issue in this case is the actual trucks themselves. They cannot be moved unless driven away. Please don't talk about tow trucks as there are very few tow trucks for big rigs available in Ottawa, not many in Ontario or Quebec and I suspect that many of the drivers of those tow trucks would decline a request to assist the police in removal. A difficult situation, to be sure.
So, police, issue your tickets, arrest as you feel appropriate but understand that the fact of these trucks means that these trucks will likely be there until the owners choose otherwise.
A word of warning, however, Mr. / Ms. Policeperson, be aware that the members of this convoy are ready and willing to be ticketed / arrested and that they have supporters who have contributed money because they (the supporters) also feel that the "elites" are not listening, etc. That money can pay the tickets, compensate for lawyers, jail time, etc.
Of course, our "betters" - actually, our worsers - meaning the Prime Idiot of Canada and his ilk could decide to actually do their job and listen to people. But, I am not at all hopeful on that
If Martin Luther King has followed your premise, there would have been no Civil Rights Act and the US would still be segregated. Same with Nelson Mandela in South Africa. Sometimes civil disobedience is necessary in the face of bad laws or government suppression.
You are equating apartheid with public health restrictions?
Different circumstances, but same underlying motivations. Government suppresses a minority - in this case those who are not vaccinated - limits their rights, imposes sanctions against them, and denigrates them publicly. The minority eventually decides it has had enough and rises up against the authorities, demanding an end to what they perceive as unjust actions against it. The government can choose to crush the revolt through force if it wishes, but that will only cement a continued uprising. Not much different than the examples I cited earlier. Whether anyone outside of it believes the uprising is justified or not doesn't matter.
Actually, he is talking about civil disobedience. Something that MLK espoused and something that the stupidity of the various levels of government and bureaucracy have forced people into here in Canada as said, government and bureaucracy have ignored "the science" when it doesn't support their view of what they want.
This is a great theme of the pandemic.
I want to respond to your column with a few thoughts on the rule of law and its origins.
I found some notes from the Ontario civics course I took way back 2001. According to this class, the rule of law originates in the year 1215 with the creation of the Magna Carta - The King is not above the law.
However, we can go further back, to the ancient days, to see the true, mythological origins of the rule of law. In those earliest of days, Gods and Titans roamed the earth. Cronus was the great ruler, all existence was centred around him. Whatever he wanted, he got. If he was losing at the weekly curling match, well, he could just change the rules. Everyone and everything bowed to the whim of Cronus.
But Cronus knew one day he would produce a child who would be all powerful and all knowing. No problem, he said, I'll just eat all my kids. And life went on, Cronus ate his kids, and all the gods and the titans and creatures could do whatever they pleased. They lived by chaos.
Until one child escaped the jaws of Cronus. Raised in Cave, he was full of patience. He was all-powerful. He was all knowing. His name was Zeus, and he controlled the Thunder and the Lighting. Zeus knew that he could beat Cronus in a fight any day. Zeus knew that it was his destiny to replace Cronus as the Master of the Universe. But Zeus was different. He knew that Cronus was a nasty piece of work, and Zeus did not want to be the new tyrant on the block. So he devised a plan. He reached out to the gods, he made allies and friends amongst them, he created a new pantheon, and he led them into battle against the old gods and the titans. Against Cronus and his crew.
It was a ferocious battle. In the end Zeus' new Pantheon put down the rabid titans and their callous master Cronus.
From now on, the power of the gods would be restrained. Instead of chaos, the new pantheon lived by the rule book.
First, I think the expression 'rule of law' is not entirely transparent. Usually it is contrasted with the rule by men, as in authoritarian leaders. But even authoritarian regimes have laws. So it's vital that the concept of the 'rule of law' be recognized as intertwined with democratic rule. That is, the law is produced through democratic processes such as majority rule, with minority rights overseen by courts, and the peaceful transfer of power, all being essential and intertwined. The rule of law does not describe the mechanism of a machine, it describes the collective behaviour of members of a society (as the article suggests) through its institutions.
So the use of force needs to be recognized as the expression of a democratic will which is not absolute but which is regularly tested. Again, societies, including democracies, are not perfect running machines. They will be tested. Ours is being tested now. Complacency is not a wise option. Clarity of understanding and will is. Thus the institutions of debate and reflection, parliaments and courts, which have feedback loops for review, are the principle institutions for testing the will of a democratic society.
So it's times like this that courts become essential to test the claims at issue. Subject them to careful scrutiny before any abundance of force is deployed, and done so, in a politically non-partisan way, as noted in this article. Partisan deployments of force are essentially authoritarian in nature. The undemocratic imposition of the will of one segment of society, through force, upon another, without recourse through the courts to protect minority rights.
The fundamental problem with the protest is not the protest, the arguments or the inconvenience. It's the attempt to use force by the protestors, through an occupation subjecting citizens to hostage-like punishments, in order to force an outcome, facilitated by the apparent abdication of police (the democratic institution granted the monopoly to use force as overseen by the courts) when the vast majority through their actions have indicated a willingness to support vaccination as a solution to the pandemic.
The protestors need to test their claims in the courts and at the ballot box. If they lose at both and choose force instead. A democratic society will have justified the use of force against them. The institutions of force, for their part, must remain aloof to the partisan contest, otherwise they are choosing an authoritarian, fascist solution.
The rule of law is always being tested in a democracy, at the ballot box and in the courts. And sometimes through protests in the streets. However, the use of force is sacred. It tests the sacred connection of trust between rulers and ruled, of power and the consent of the governed, in a society that claims to be democratic. One of the goals is to avoid civil war which is symptomatic of a fundamentally broken society where courts and parliaments can not produce the peaceful reproduction of society, the peaceful transfer of power. We are being tested. We are no where near broken. Yet.
We have, though, seen politicians and policy be changed through mob protests (how many organizations are now being subjected to diversity workshops in response to our PM bending his knee in Parliament?). You are correct in defining how democratic societies are *supposed* to work, but our politicians - of all stripes- have moved far beyond their mandate in making a pledge in governing our country, and smack dab into preaching their partisan party ideology. And this is what requires further scrutiny, because when our legislators fail to do the job they are elected to do, and instead dabble in rhetoric and ideology, that means they’re unable to do the job before them. And if that is the case, we are in a whole bunch of trouble. More fiddling while Rome burns. I do believe the cracks in the system will only get worse.
Your remarks suggest a misunderstanding of political institutions. They are by nature partisan and ideological. That's where the partisan, ideological debates occur. Those debates are tested, ultimately, at the ballot box and in reviews by courts of law. It's the courts (i.e., judges) and the police (the use of force) which need to remain aloof from partisan ideology, at least, in principle. Lawyers, on the other hand, like politicians, are, by definition, partisans.
I am fully aware what constitutes a political institution; what constitutes Parliament, however, is governance of our country, with the assumption that partisan politics are put aside in order to work together effectively. And this is where our politicians have failed. There is no governance in Ottawa anymore, it’s ALL partisan politics and throwing money at problems instead of working together and solving the problems intelligently. I am also fully aware of the structure of Courts, having gone through the process myself, and how the police force should operate. Again, though, with partisan policies and ideology overtaking our governance model of these institutions, these same institutions are unable to function effectively. If the police had moved in and physically removed these protesters by force, howls of police brutality and lawsuits would follow because that precedent has already been set - not by the police, but by outraged politicians and legislation which has been upheld by the Courts. I don’t disagree with what you are saying, I think though we need to further examine the underlying shift in what is motivating these events. If we don’t, it will only get worse.
I don't disagree. But partisan behaviour is tolerable, if not desirable, amongst politicians and lawyers in a way it is not on the part of judges and police. The tool for dealing with overly partisan politicians is the ballot box. Judges and cops are removed through other institutions of review.
I realize that when all the politicians ratchet up the partisanship the ability of voters to choose the more moderate choice becomes more difficult. But typically there are moderate voices out there (O'Toole?) and if voters fail to choose them because they enjoy the partisan verbal gun fights (Poilievre?) then perhaps they deserve the results.
And the protestors have demonstrated, for all Canadians, what the results of partisan gridlock look like. So voters need to take those results and decide at the ballot box how they would like to proceed, ex., elect moderates willing to "work together effectively". Trudeau may call a snap election if, as he lamely attempted to justify in the last go-round, the current gridlock is seen as paralyzing effective governance. If the voters agree with him this time, they may elect a majority or punish those partisans openly promoting gridlock.
Well said. I would only add an observation on the phrase, "partisan politics". It seems our political leaders are more interested in promoting their brand, rather than promoting their political stripes. Yes, partisan behaviour should be tolerated, but Tik Tok videos and Twitter hashtags have replaced all thoughtful discourse on Parliament Hill. Perhaps because those we have elected, aren't intelligent enough to provide thoughtful debate, and instead choose to pursue clickbait rhetoric meant to provoke, and jazzy 10 second videos to woo the voter. It's pathetic, and reveals the mentality of the leadership of our country.