“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” — Benjamin Franklin
This quote very accurately summarizes the question – should we have supported the federal government’s Emergencies Act, which was invoked on Monday, February 14th. It was revoked on Wednesday February 23rd.
Let there be absolutely no doubt about where I stand on the truckers Ottawa blockade. I am adamantly opposed. Their beliefs are an anathema to all right-thinking people.
They oppose COVID restrictions on the basis their “freedoms” were being impacted. Yet every day the truckers safely drive through controlled intersections on a green light, knowing that traffic crossing the other way stops for the red light, even though their “freedom” has been curtailed. These same truckers drive their trucks safely on the right side of road, confident that they will not be driven into by oncoming traffic because of the “restriction on their freedom” to drive on the other side of the road.
In society, we all accept certain restrictions for the good of all.
Even worse, from the beginning the truckers’ convoy was infiltrated, hijacked, and co-opted by very evil forces — Neo-Nazis, anti-Semites, and the like.
They literally wanted to, and had planned for, the overthrow of our federal government.
Given all of the above, how could anybody oppose invoking the Emergencies Act?
Any time a government ever curtails our civil liberties in the name safety, it is the beginning of a slippery slope. While it is true that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms was not suspended by this Act, it does give the government sweeping powers including the right to freeze the bank accounts of any individual who donated to the protest. While the government showed restraint this time and only targeted the accounts of key individuals and companies involved in the blockade, they had the power to target many more given enough time and intention.
I fear that once used, the Emergencies Act could be invoked again in the future.
I fear that today’s truckers’ blockade could be tomorrow’s Indigenous protesters’ blockade. Would my modest donation to support the Wet’suwet’en pipeline protest result in the closure of my law firm, which would occur immediately upon my bank account being frozen?
If I donated to Extinction Rebellion and they were successful in bringing about a stoppage of traffic in Downtown Vancouver, would my bank account be frozen?
If I donated to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), a group of mostly young activists pushing for a global treaty to ban the cataclysmic bombs, and they undertook a march that closed bridges, would I be unable to purchase food or pay my heat bill because my bank account had been frozen?
Tommy Douglas, former leader of the federal NDP, voted against Trudeau senior’s invoking the War Measures Act to deal with the Front de Libération du Québec (FLQ) who were exploding bombs during the day and kidnapping at night.
Trudeau junior invoked the Emergencies Act when those behind the Ottawa blockade were blowing their horns day and night, exploding no bombs, and kidnaping no one.
Where is Tommy Douglas when we need him?
For more on Tommy Douglas, see my February 17th blog. And join me online on Friday, February 25th at 7:00pm, when I will be showing the NFB film, Tommy Douglas: Keeper of the Flame. You can register here.
Daily atmospheric CO2 [Courtesy of CO2.Earth]
Latest daily total (Feb. 23, 2022): 420.31 ppm
One year ago (Feb. 23, 2021): 416.33 ppm
Subscribe to Tim Louis
Keep up to date Tim's latest posts.
“Yet every day the truckers safely drive through controlled intersections on a green light, knowing that traffic crossing the other way stops for the red light, even though their “freedom” has been curtailed.”
“Freedom is the natural faculty of doing what each person please to do according to his will, except what is prohibited to him of right or by force. Servitude, on the other hand may be said to be the contrary, as if any person contrary to freedom should be bound upon a covenant to do something, or not to do it.” (Henrici de Bracton de Lebigus et Consuetudinibus Angliae, Sir Travers Twiss, Q.C., D.C.L., trans. London: 1878, p. 369.)
So, it is quite clear that speed limits and red lights (and all acts of parliament that introduce new law, rather than declaring ancient right, e.g. nature) are in fact antithetical to freedom. The sort of argument that you are making (you stop for a red light, therefore you should be required to take medicine or forfeit civil service employment, air travel, etc.) is sort of ridiculous.
“And the reason why the king’s court can, but the sheriff and the
county court cannot, pass judgment on anyone’s freedom, as they can on
his villeinage, though the proof of freedom is, as it were, incidental
to the plea of villeinage, is the favour with which freedom is
regarded, for freedom is something beyond price and ought not to be
left to the decision of ignorant and injudicious men.” (Fleta, lib. 2
cap. 51. Fleta 72 Selden Society 174)
Here we see that the typical 20th century socialist argument against freedom (19th century socialists were, in my view, very much FOR freedom, e.g. unlimited free press and firearm ownership), in favor of servitude, is that by having servitudes (healthcare taxes, medical colleges, protected titles etc.) we all end up “better off” because in exchange for freedom, we get servitudes that provide health, security and safety. The problem with this is that none of these things can, legally speaking, be a fair exchange, because health, safety and security are not more valuable than freedom.
Also, under the definition of freedom, we see that freedom can be constrained in two ways,of right, meaning of natural right, as freedom is a natural power governed by that which grants it, nature, and by force. So when the constable pulls you over for speeding, that is force. If he does not care if you are free or not, just thinks “I learned everyone’s gotta obey this statue, im gonna apply it to him!” then that is more force, he is just forcing the statue on you even if you are not part of the corporation that enacted it.
Lawyers tend to avoid these nice technical discussions because, as Blackstone says, “It is well if the mafs of mankind will obey the laws when made, without fcrutinizing too nicely into the reafons of making them.” (2 Bl. Comm. 2)
One fun question: is there anything you can do for yourself that a lawyer cannot do for you? Maybe freedom means you have to speak for yourself, lawyers are for infants, and infants never have freedom.