André Pratte - Yesterday
National Post
The demonstrators blockading downtown Ottawa and the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor claim they are doing so in the name of freedom. They constantly refer to the Canadian Constitution’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Their logic and their understanding of Canadian law are deeply flawed, for there can be no freedom in a country where the rule of law is not paramount. If society tolerates a group of citizens who ignore laws promulgated for the greater good, we are on the road to anarchy or dictatorship; both are destructive of individual liberties.
© Provided by National PostA trucker carries a gas canister as truckers and supporters continue to protest vaccine mandates and other COVID measures in Ottawa on Feb. 9, 2022.
What the Freedom Convoy activists are currently doing in Ottawa is clearly illegal. One cannot close the centre of a city for two weeks with 400 trucks, at catastrophic costs to the City of Ottawa and its businesses and citizens, under the guise of “freedom.” Laws are not the opposite of freedom, they are its prerequisite.
“The end of law is not to abolish or restrain freedom, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings who are capable of laws, where there is no law, there is no freedom,” the great English philosopher John Locke wrote.
The preamble to the Constitution opens with: “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law … .” The protesters cannot pick and choose only the parts of the Constitution that suit them.
What does the “rule of law” mean? The American Bar Association summarizes it well: the rule of law signifies that “no one is above the law, everyone is treated equally under the law, everyone is held accountable to the same laws, there are clear and fair processes for enforcing laws, there is an independent judiciary, and human rights are guaranteed for all.”
What happens when individual liberties collide with the rule of law, as is the case on Ottawa’s Wellington Street? The freedom of peaceful assembly is guaranteed by clause 2 c) of the Canadian Charter. Let us bear for now the doubtful proposition that this blockade constitutes “peaceful” assembly; it is clear from Canadian jurisprudence that the right of peaceful assembly is constrained by the rule of law.
For instance, Justice Douglas K. Gray, of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, wrote in 2009: “Whatever else might be encompassed within the freedoms of assembly and expression, they do not include the right to physically impede or blockade lawful activities.”
John Robson: In Ottawa, there's more than enough madness to go around
Carson Jerema: This isn't sedition just because Mark Carney thinks so — but the convoy still needs to be cleared
This argument may not impress the demonstrators, as some do not trust our court system. But you cannot invoke the Charter while ignoring what its principal interpreters have arbitrated; this would be the equivalent of taking the law in your own hands, which is the recipe for chaos.
There are those who say that civil disobedience is sometimes justified. In his decision in Hamilton (City) v. Loucks (2003), Justice Joseph R. Henderson of the Ontario Superior Court addressed this issue squarely: “I accept that historically many good causes have been promoted through the use of civil disobedience, but those who have engaged in such conduct have always been subject to the sanctions of the courts as a consequence. Individuals in our society cannot be allowed to engage in unsanctioned unlawful conduct. If that were allowed there would be little need for any of the laws of this country. All of the citizens of our country must be compelled to obey the law.”
By now it should be clear that by any standard, whatever the motivations and arguments of the occupiers, their open defiance of the law (including municipal bylaws) is unacceptable.
In the short video tweeted last Saturday to announce that he would seek the leadership of the Conservative party, MP Pierre Poilievre promised to make “Canadians the freest people on earth.” Considering that Poilievre has expressed his strong support for the Ottawa demonstrators, does this mean that as prime minister, he would side with those screaming “freedom,” as opposed to ensuring that the existing laws are complied with?
In view of his stand in favour of this illegal occupation, it is not without astonishment that we find in Hansard statements made by Poilievre regarding the blockade of railways held in protest of the Coastal GasLink project two years ago:
“The reality is that this illegal blockade of our economy represents a war on working people. When will the government stand up and fight back?” (Feb. 25, 2020). Doesn’t Poilievre care about the working people of Ottawa, too? And the thousands of working people, including truckers, impacted by the Windsor roadblock?
“How are we ever going to restore lawfulness and development in the country if the government makes concessions to reward those who have broken the law?” (Feb. 21, 2020). How indeed?
If Canada is to remain a liberal democracy, politicians of all stripes ought to stand up for the rule of law, not only when it suits them but at all times; not because the rule of law constrains individual freedoms, but because it allows them.
National Post
National Post
The demonstrators blockading downtown Ottawa and the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor claim they are doing so in the name of freedom. They constantly refer to the Canadian Constitution’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Their logic and their understanding of Canadian law are deeply flawed, for there can be no freedom in a country where the rule of law is not paramount. If society tolerates a group of citizens who ignore laws promulgated for the greater good, we are on the road to anarchy or dictatorship; both are destructive of individual liberties.
© Provided by National PostA trucker carries a gas canister as truckers and supporters continue to protest vaccine mandates and other COVID measures in Ottawa on Feb. 9, 2022.
What the Freedom Convoy activists are currently doing in Ottawa is clearly illegal. One cannot close the centre of a city for two weeks with 400 trucks, at catastrophic costs to the City of Ottawa and its businesses and citizens, under the guise of “freedom.” Laws are not the opposite of freedom, they are its prerequisite.
“The end of law is not to abolish or restrain freedom, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings who are capable of laws, where there is no law, there is no freedom,” the great English philosopher John Locke wrote.
The preamble to the Constitution opens with: “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law … .” The protesters cannot pick and choose only the parts of the Constitution that suit them.
What does the “rule of law” mean? The American Bar Association summarizes it well: the rule of law signifies that “no one is above the law, everyone is treated equally under the law, everyone is held accountable to the same laws, there are clear and fair processes for enforcing laws, there is an independent judiciary, and human rights are guaranteed for all.”
What happens when individual liberties collide with the rule of law, as is the case on Ottawa’s Wellington Street? The freedom of peaceful assembly is guaranteed by clause 2 c) of the Canadian Charter. Let us bear for now the doubtful proposition that this blockade constitutes “peaceful” assembly; it is clear from Canadian jurisprudence that the right of peaceful assembly is constrained by the rule of law.
For instance, Justice Douglas K. Gray, of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, wrote in 2009: “Whatever else might be encompassed within the freedoms of assembly and expression, they do not include the right to physically impede or blockade lawful activities.”
John Robson: In Ottawa, there's more than enough madness to go around
Carson Jerema: This isn't sedition just because Mark Carney thinks so — but the convoy still needs to be cleared
This argument may not impress the demonstrators, as some do not trust our court system. But you cannot invoke the Charter while ignoring what its principal interpreters have arbitrated; this would be the equivalent of taking the law in your own hands, which is the recipe for chaos.
There are those who say that civil disobedience is sometimes justified. In his decision in Hamilton (City) v. Loucks (2003), Justice Joseph R. Henderson of the Ontario Superior Court addressed this issue squarely: “I accept that historically many good causes have been promoted through the use of civil disobedience, but those who have engaged in such conduct have always been subject to the sanctions of the courts as a consequence. Individuals in our society cannot be allowed to engage in unsanctioned unlawful conduct. If that were allowed there would be little need for any of the laws of this country. All of the citizens of our country must be compelled to obey the law.”
By now it should be clear that by any standard, whatever the motivations and arguments of the occupiers, their open defiance of the law (including municipal bylaws) is unacceptable.
In the short video tweeted last Saturday to announce that he would seek the leadership of the Conservative party, MP Pierre Poilievre promised to make “Canadians the freest people on earth.” Considering that Poilievre has expressed his strong support for the Ottawa demonstrators, does this mean that as prime minister, he would side with those screaming “freedom,” as opposed to ensuring that the existing laws are complied with?
In view of his stand in favour of this illegal occupation, it is not without astonishment that we find in Hansard statements made by Poilievre regarding the blockade of railways held in protest of the Coastal GasLink project two years ago:
“The reality is that this illegal blockade of our economy represents a war on working people. When will the government stand up and fight back?” (Feb. 25, 2020). Doesn’t Poilievre care about the working people of Ottawa, too? And the thousands of working people, including truckers, impacted by the Windsor roadblock?
“How are we ever going to restore lawfulness and development in the country if the government makes concessions to reward those who have broken the law?” (Feb. 21, 2020). How indeed?
If Canada is to remain a liberal democracy, politicians of all stripes ought to stand up for the rule of law, not only when it suits them but at all times; not because the rule of law constrains individual freedoms, but because it allows them.
National Post
No comments:
Post a Comment