Posts
This was politics at its worst. He was trying to play both sides of the issue, to cover his own posterior portions.
He says he speaks “in the interest of disappointing everyone in my audience.” This is a politician talking. He is doing the exact opposite—trying to avoid alienating anyone.
C.S. Lewis noted that the essential virtue is courage. Because when the test comes, doing the right thing always takes courage. Doing the right thing only when it is easy is not morality.
Erskine-Smith knows he is doing the wrong thing, and seeks to justify himself.
“Some Conservative colleagues have made the case that we could have ended the illegal blockades if only we ended federal vaccine mandates. A Neville Chamberlain approach to pandemic management.”
This begins by comparing concerned fellow Canadians to Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party. Not a good start.
It makes a difference that Hitler’s claims on Czechoslovakia were not legitimate.
Erskine-Smith neglects to consider whether the government policy of requiring vaccine mandates of truckers crossing the border, was an egregious violation of human rights, and/or unnecessary. He refuses to acknowledge that the protesters might have had a case to make.
More generally, is it wrong for government to bend to the will of a noisy minority?
Certainly, if they are right, certainly. An honourable and responsible government can admit error. Would Erskine-Smith have refused to ratify the US Civil Rights Act of 1964, because it meant giving in to such noisy protests by a minority? How abnout protests by Canada’s First Nations? Does that mean government must not change any of its Indian policies?
What should a government do if the protesters are simply wrong? Wrong about everything? For otherwise, compromise is possible.
A responsible government should then address the protesters, and explain why they cannot do as they wish. Then, so long as the protest is peaceful, they should let it continue. At worst, it will let off steam.
The government will protest that the demonstrators were shutting down businesses. They even want to sue the protesters on these grounds. This is profoundly dishonest. There was a street festival in downtown Ottawa; people were flocking from all over. The business opportunities were better than Winterfest. The protesters were demanding businesses reopen, and commerce resume. The government required then to shut down.
“we should proceed cautiously as we lift measures that have helped to save lives.”
This is a red herring. The evidence is unclear on whether the lockdowns or mandates have saved lives, or cost lives. Other jurisdictions have seen fit to raise all restrictions. The truckers were not making an unreasonable demand.
“everyone has the right to peaceful protest. But that right does not extend to blocking highways and bridges. It doesn’t extend to the intimidation, harassment, threats, and the endless and deafening noise we’ve seen in our national capital.”
Erskine-Smith would have a point if the protesters were blocking important highways or bridges. They were not. The Ambassador Bridge was a separate protest, and had already been cleared.
If some Ottawa protesters were guilty of intimidation, harassment, or threats, Erskine-Smith has an obligation to present the evidence. Many reports have it that the demonstration was a model of peaceful protest. There were cameras everywhere throughout: if there were any egregious examples of intimidation, harassment, or threats, we have a right to see them.
If there were isolated incidents, blaming the protest or “the protesters” for this is the fallacy of hasty generalization, or prejudice. This is the root of racism.
“The endless and deafening noise” no doubt refers to truckers honking their horns. Protests are always noisy. That is the whole point: to be heard. What is excessive must be a matter of opinion. The few people living near Wellington Street may have found truck horns too loud. This may not have seemed to to truckers, accustomed to them. Or the working class: try the noise level in a mine, or on a factory floor.
In any event, an injunction against honking was sought, and granted, and I hear generally observed. Any trucker sounding his horn could have been prosecuted.
The claim that truckers were sounding their horns at every hour of the day or night is certainly false: truckers need to sleep too.
Some locals were reputedly complaining of diesel fumes. Eeek! Welcome to the world of the working classes.
“These are crimes and they are quite obviously crimes.”
He has to say this precisely because they are not obviously crimes. The organizer of the protest, Tamara Lich, has been charged with ”inciting mischief.” This is a vague and subjective charge. It remains to be seen whether it will hold up in court.
“We can’t paint every protester with the same brush. But we can judge people by the company they keep.”
Erskine-Smith is painting every protester with the same brush, and trying to get away with it by claiming he is not doing it. Typical politician-speak.
When we are speaking of a crowd at a protest, this is obviously not true. Nobody has any control over who else is there.
This is an unsubtle example of guilt by association.
“we should never platform the language of treason, medical experiments, the Nuremberg Code, or support for white supremacy – all of which we saw on our democracy’s doorstep.”
These claims are oddly vague; probably because clarity would reveal their falsity. He means, I think, charges that the government is treasonous, is conducting medical experiments, is in violation of the Nuremberg Code. But he surely does not mean the government supports white supremacy. Lumping them together like this seems to be to give the impression that it is the protesters doing these things, not the government.
Either way, I have not seen any obvious examples of this, having watched many live streams and videos of the protesters. It is as though Erskine-Smith fears being accused of this, rather than that the protesters are doing this.
But even if such charges were there, they are covered by the right to free speech, guaranteed in our constitution. In a free democracy, one may accuse the government of treason, medical experiments, or being in violation of the Nuremberg Code. To “deplatform” such speech, to silence it, is totalitarian.
“Encouraging lawlessness and emboldening anti-government, anti-democratic voices does a disservice to our country”
Erskine-Smith is begging the question. The protesters were claiming that the government is acting unlawfully, violating the constitution; that is the essence of their complaint. They believed they were acting within the law, and took pains to remain within the law.
On the other hand, invoking the Emergency Act is a perfect example of acting lawlessly. It suspends the laws.
Being “anti-government” is not relevant. The Conservative Party or the NDP are also “anti-government.” Having the right to be anti-government is the essence of a free society.
It is true that any protest against a democratically elected government is “anti-democratic.” But the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is also anti-democratic. Democracy can easily become dictatorship of the majority. That is what happened in Nazi Germany. We therefore have protections for minorities. One is the right to peaceful protest.
“no matter how much hatred you have for your opponents.”
This is tasteless. The government has declared the protesters “mad,” “a fringe minority,” “Nazis,” “racists,” “white supremacists,” “Islamophobic,” misogynist,” “homophobic,” “insurrectionists,” “taking up space,” “unacceptable,” and so on. By comparison, what division have the protesters fostered? Or the Conservative Party?
This is the “I know you are, but what am I?” school of political debate. You may remember it from the Grade Three schoolyard.
“The failure to enforce the law in Ottawa, the acquiescence to occupation, emboldened similar blockades across the country.”
This works only if the concerns of the protesters were frivolous. Erskine-Smith has not established this. If they are serious, this is going to have the opposite effect. Silencing people who feel they are not being listened to is not a solution, but a way of escalating tensions.
When the authorities threatened to shut down the Ottawa protest, I predicted the Ambassador Bridge protest on this basis. It was “Whack-a-mole.” Now, as soon as the Canadian protests are suppressed, we have a larger convoy forming in the US. Who knows what longer-range dire consequences we will see in Canada? Probably a Western separatist movement; certainly deeper social divisions; hopefully not violence in the streets.
Erskine-Smith knows this. I pointed it out to him, citing historical examples. He is in denial, or just consciously lying.
Calling the Ottawa protest an “occupation” is also prejudicial language, “poisoning the well.” It was not, by dictionary definition.
“The specific section requires there be ‘activities in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective."
It’s obvious enough that the latter element is met, as warped as the ideological objectives may be.”
Erskine-Smith again simply asserts this for the good reason that he has no argument; it is not true. The protests were, many observers attest, a model or peaceful protest. There were no injuries. There was no property damage.
Of course the protesters had a political aim. In a free and democratic society, everyone does.
“We know that dangerous and extremist elements are embedded within these protests and blockades. In Coutts, for example, we saw conspiracy to commit murder charges, with two of the accused connected to a far-right extremist group. We also saw the police seize a cache of guns and body armour.”
We do not know this. The guns seized in Coutts were not found in the convoy. Their true significance awaits court proceedings. The Coutts blockade itself was not connected with the Ottawa group. It disbanded peacefully.
Some guns allegedly found in a farmhouse in Southern Alberta do not justify conclusions on something happening on the other side of the country. To suggest it does looks paranoid. Someone is not rational here. Is the obvious remedy to give them unlimited power?
“In Ottawa, we saw major intimidation of local residents, and threats against the police if they enforced the law.”
Here again, Erskine-Smith needed to specify what he means and give examples. Then we can decide whether his claims are credible. There were cameras and smartphones everywhere. If any of this happened, on any large scale, he and the government should have lots of evidence to show the public. So far, I have seen nothing. “Threats against the [heavily armed] police” by unarmed demonstrators, even if they happened, do not sound serious.
“the government has not clearly articulated which ground it relies on here.”
This is as much as to admit that invoking the Emergency Act is illegal.
The Charter of Rights “guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” To impose the Emergency Act, the government must demonstrate that it is justified. Erskine-Smith points out that they have not done so. They are simply saying “trust us.”
“When we look at the illegal blockades, and the negative impact they wrought on so many lives, there’s a fair argument that they meet the definition of a national emergency, so long as we understand capacity to mean both whether a province could act in theory as well as the reality of their action.”
“Capacity” means ability, not will. Erskine-Smith’s definition is illegitimate.
Not to mention, there are no ongoing blockades. No emergency. The provinces cleared them—demonstrating both the capacity and the will.
The case against the Emergency Act could not be clearer.
Erskine-Smith goes on to cite the supposed need for new laws to deal with “crowdfunding for illegal domestic activities.” If so, this is not done by invoking the Emergency Act. But, as Viva Frei (David Freiheit) points out, Freedom Convoy 2022 was registered with the federal government as a non-profit to collect funds on GoFundMe. It is dishonest to claim now that the funding was for “illegal activities.” The federal government certified that it was not.
Erskine-Smith has as much as said that the Emergency Act is illegal. And he has said he will vote for it anyway. Because nothing matters so much as his political future.
No comments:
Post a Comment