POGG; PEACE,ORDER AND GOOD GOVERNMENT
Wangersky: Consider carefully how 'freedom' is defined by advocates
© Provided by Leader Post
A protester holds up a freedom sign during a ceremony at the National War Memorial during the Rolling Thunder Convoy on April 30, 2022 in Ottawa, Canada.
Russell Wangersky - Yesterday
POSTMEDIA
Where does personal freedom begin and end in a community?
I wonder about that as I listen to Pierre Poilievre’s Conservative leadership campaign promises to “make Canada the freest country on Earth,” and while, on Saturdays, honking convoys of flag-bedecked cars still occasionally freely trundle around streets in this province, bemoaning the lack of appropriate freedom.
So, how much freedom is too much?
Perhaps there are those amongst us who would argue that personal freedom should be absolute.
But what happens when your freedom collides with someone else’s, or with society’s as a whole?
A good quick analysis is the one put forward by American John B. Finch, who put it this way: “I stand alone upon a platform. I am a tall man with long arms which I may use at my pleasure. I may even double my fist and gesticulate at my own sweet will.
“But if another shall step upon the platform, and in the exercise of my personal liberty I bring my fist against his face, I very soon find that my personal liberty ends where that man’s nose begins.”
So, where, in societal terms, does that nose actually start?
Well, for argument’s sake, when there’s demonstrable harm to others in the community as a result of your actions.
You can, for example, argue that you should have the personal freedom to flout pandemic public health rules that you don’t like or agree with.
But if those who disagree with rules get sick and take up hospital beds others need, then one person’s “freedom” has intruded into others’ lives, and there has to be more to the debate than “I want what I want for me, and I should have a right to it.”
I might want the freedom to line up empty beer cans on the fence between the neighbour’s yard and my own, and then shoot the cans with a .22, but, just as much, my neighbour might want to enjoy his yard without bullets passing through it.
(That example is extreme to the point of ridiculousness, but it’s a risk you run when the only part of the freedom equation is what you want the freedom to do, ignoring anyone else.)
That’s why there are basic societal and community rules that affect the freedom of just doing whatever you want.
As Finch put it in 1882, “Here civil government comes in to prevent bloodshed, adjust rights, and settle disputes.”
“Adjust rights.” It is not that hard a concept to understand. There can be competing rights, and balancing them doesn’t mean all freedom is lost — unless your definition of freedom is the four-year-old’s simple mantra of “me — me — me — me.”
There are extremely few times in the past few decades that, in this supposedly freedom-challenged country, anyone has come up to me and said, “You can’t do that here.” And, frankly, not even one where a clear and straightforward explanation for the restrictions on my behaviour didn’t make sense to me.
I’ve always recognized the need for my personal rights to be balanced against the needs and rights of other people in my community, and I’ve always known that my rights don’t supersede theirs, just because there’s some particular thing I want for myself.
In other words, I don’t think of myself as more important than others, or believe my rights are naturally more important than others, just because they are mine.
I know my need for a new set of bookshelves is not so great that I should have the freedom to run the table saw in my backyard at 3 a.m.
So, some people in this country feel we’re not free — and some politicians want to campaign on the “freedom” ticket. So, what does this “more free” Canada look like?
To me, it looks like an unregulated punch in the nose — but only from the point of view of the person throwing the punch.
Russell Wangersky is the editor in chief of the Regina Leader-Post and the Saskatoon StarPhoenix.
Where does personal freedom begin and end in a community?
I wonder about that as I listen to Pierre Poilievre’s Conservative leadership campaign promises to “make Canada the freest country on Earth,” and while, on Saturdays, honking convoys of flag-bedecked cars still occasionally freely trundle around streets in this province, bemoaning the lack of appropriate freedom.
So, how much freedom is too much?
Perhaps there are those amongst us who would argue that personal freedom should be absolute.
But what happens when your freedom collides with someone else’s, or with society’s as a whole?
A good quick analysis is the one put forward by American John B. Finch, who put it this way: “I stand alone upon a platform. I am a tall man with long arms which I may use at my pleasure. I may even double my fist and gesticulate at my own sweet will.
“But if another shall step upon the platform, and in the exercise of my personal liberty I bring my fist against his face, I very soon find that my personal liberty ends where that man’s nose begins.”
So, where, in societal terms, does that nose actually start?
Well, for argument’s sake, when there’s demonstrable harm to others in the community as a result of your actions.
You can, for example, argue that you should have the personal freedom to flout pandemic public health rules that you don’t like or agree with.
But if those who disagree with rules get sick and take up hospital beds others need, then one person’s “freedom” has intruded into others’ lives, and there has to be more to the debate than “I want what I want for me, and I should have a right to it.”
I might want the freedom to line up empty beer cans on the fence between the neighbour’s yard and my own, and then shoot the cans with a .22, but, just as much, my neighbour might want to enjoy his yard without bullets passing through it.
(That example is extreme to the point of ridiculousness, but it’s a risk you run when the only part of the freedom equation is what you want the freedom to do, ignoring anyone else.)
That’s why there are basic societal and community rules that affect the freedom of just doing whatever you want.
As Finch put it in 1882, “Here civil government comes in to prevent bloodshed, adjust rights, and settle disputes.”
“Adjust rights.” It is not that hard a concept to understand. There can be competing rights, and balancing them doesn’t mean all freedom is lost — unless your definition of freedom is the four-year-old’s simple mantra of “me — me — me — me.”
There are extremely few times in the past few decades that, in this supposedly freedom-challenged country, anyone has come up to me and said, “You can’t do that here.” And, frankly, not even one where a clear and straightforward explanation for the restrictions on my behaviour didn’t make sense to me.
I’ve always recognized the need for my personal rights to be balanced against the needs and rights of other people in my community, and I’ve always known that my rights don’t supersede theirs, just because there’s some particular thing I want for myself.
In other words, I don’t think of myself as more important than others, or believe my rights are naturally more important than others, just because they are mine.
I know my need for a new set of bookshelves is not so great that I should have the freedom to run the table saw in my backyard at 3 a.m.
So, some people in this country feel we’re not free — and some politicians want to campaign on the “freedom” ticket. So, what does this “more free” Canada look like?
To me, it looks like an unregulated punch in the nose — but only from the point of view of the person throwing the punch.
Russell Wangersky is the editor in chief of the Regina Leader-Post and the Saskatoon StarPhoenix.
He can be reached at rwangersky@postmedia.com.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace,_order,_and_good_governme
In many Commonwealth jurisdictions, the phrase "peace, order, and good government" (POGG) is an expression used in law to express the legitimate objects of legislative powers conferred by statute. The phrase appears in many Imperial Acts of Parliament and Letters Patent, most notably the constitutions of Barbados, Canada, Australia and formerly New Zealand and South Africa.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment