Prosecuting Justin Trudeau

 

The continuing scandals and abuses by the Trudeau-Singh government present a grave problem. It will not be enough to vote the rascals out of government at the next opportunity—assuming there will still eventually be an opportunity. It also seems necessary to exact some greater punishment, for some protection against similar actions by future governments, and to restore public trust. The people must not be in fear of the government.

Yet any possible action looks just about as risky to democracy. If leaders face prosecution on leaving office, this becomes an incentive to refuse to leave office.

Appointing Tamara Lich and other leaders of the Freedom convoy to Lieutenant-Governorships and the Senate might help. It would at least make a statement. Putting up statues of Tamara Lich and of the aboriginal woman trampled by police horses during the February protests might also have symbolic value.

But here’s another, more substantive, idea.

NATO looks on the verge of admitting Finland and Sweden. At its recent summit, it also invited delegations from Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. If all these countries joined, NATO would come close to being an alliance of all the stable liberal democracies. This could be exceptionally useful, for purposes other than mutual defense; for purposes of protecting and preserving liberal democracy everywhere. There is much the United Nations cannot be trusted to do, in terms of human rights, because the bad actors are themselves full members.

NATO could also be appealed to a neutral outside party, in Cases like Canada’s, to prosecute violations of human rights or democratic principles by government bodies within member countries. Should any internal group try to seize or subvert the democratic government, or the democratic process, the alliance could combine against it just as they would an external threat.

This should be an important incentive for governments to join: so long as they are honest, it protects their regime and e3nsures they are not shot in their beds.

Perhaps it would be too intrusive to allow soldiers from Fort Drum to cross the border now; but a subsequent government could refer prosecution of a previous government to NATO as a neutral body, so that it would not be, and would not appear to be, a political show trial; and so that those leaving office could have some expectation of fair treatment. Indeed, the current government might, in all honour, pass prosecution of Tamara Lich and the other convoy leaders, and the investigation of the invocation of the Emergency Act, to such an outside tribunal as well. We could constitute a jury of peers: elected representatives from twelve sister democracies.

The same mechanism could be available to the USA to justly sort out January 6th and Trump’s possible guilt; and the legality of the 2020 federal election. It would no longer be partisan. 

The US might well resist, always sensitive to losing any sovereignty to untrustworthy foreigners. Even so, a formal condemnation by a NATO panel might still be of great moral force.

Paper Freedoms

 

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

My Filipina wife agrees that one big problem with living in Canada is the lack of freedom of speech. She notes that one could speak more freely in Saudi Arabia. I have heard the same from Polish friends—that you could speak more freely in the old Communist East Bloc than you can in Canada. 

It is not just that saying the wrong thing can get you two years in prison. A slight misstep can cost you your job, your career, your family.

In Canada, you need to think very carefully before you say anything, and you are still liable to get into trouble. Because the goalposts keep moving.

It is ironic that freedom of speech is guaranteed in the Canadian constitution. But a constitution is only a piece of paper, if it is not honoured by the government and the courts.

We are doing this liberal democracy thing wrong.

Atheism and Citizenship

A map of European atheism as of 2005. Apparently France, in particular, is going to the devil.

An atheist friend points out that several US states have laws, albeit unenforced, that prohibit atheists from holding office. This she sees as discrimination.

As a matter of fact, though, both Locke and Rousseau, the two philosophical founders of liberalism as a political doctrine, held that atheists could not hold public office, or indeed citizenship. When they advocated freedom of religion, they did not think it also meant freedom to have no religion.

The problem, as they saw it, was that atheists could not swear an oath. Therefore, they could not be party to a valid legal contract. Including the social contract on which liberal democracy is based.

From a religious perspective, too, there is a special problem with atheism. In the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “At all times and in every race, anyone who fears God and does what is right has been acceptable to him.” This covers sincere members of any monotheistic faith. It does not, however, cover atheists.

Consider, too, the Ten Commandments, an expression of universal morality. Atheists automatically violate the first three or four, which demand worship of the one true God. Similarly, when Jesus was asked what was the most important commandment, he responded, “to love God with your whole heart, and with your whole soul, and with your whole mind, and with your whole strength” “love your neighbor as yourself” comes second. Obviously, no atheist is following this first and most important commandment.

Atheism then becomes a moral issue. It is not cool to be an atheist; it is a conscious choice of evil.

This makes sense, of course, if and only if the existence of God is not up for grabs intellectually; if and only if no reasonable person could honestly believe God does not exist.

And I do believe that is the state of play.