Mandryk: We should be worried about Bill 70 hampering right to protest
© Provided by Leader Post
Independent MLA Nadine Wilson welcomed by anti-COVID-19 restriction protestors on Throne Speech Day.
The irony about all the fuss over the alleged need for stricter Legislative Building security is there’s been no noisy, rambunctious protesters at the legislature since the beginning of the spring session.
They are already missed.
Now, don’t get me wrong. No one likes to see our politicians harangued daily for no discernible purpose by an unkept, disrespectful mob. But enough about me and my colleagues in the press gallery scrums.
What we’re talking about is the fundamental democratic right of people to — within the confines of law and reason — go to the seat of power and feel free to demand change as loudly as they please.
This part of democracy has never been pleasant or pretty … although, occasionally, it’s been funny.
Back in the late 1990s/early 2000s, it seemed there were daily rallies of angry farmers in front the legislature raising alarm about the lack of agricultural income support.
Yet they were always embraced by politicians and political staff who would wade in the crowds to hear their concerns first hand.
(One Liberal party strategist newly arrived from Ontario even went so far as buy new clothes to better fit into the crowd. Unfortunately, his only reference point as to how a rural person dressed appeared to come from Elmer Fudd in Bugs Bunny cartoons.)
One such demonstration in 2000 even saw farm protesters move inside the legislature for overnight sit-ins in the cafeteria. And even that only ended after security staff found one rather portly farmer wandering around the building in his (as we say in Saskatchewan) gitch.
One gets we now live in a different world, but shouldn’t we still abide by the notion that any step that moves the legislature grounds away from a place that’s open to public discourse is likely a step in the wrong direction?
Here’s today’s problem: It’s quite possible Bill 70 is nothing more than the byproduct of the Saskatchewan Party government’s annoyance with loud, anti-mask/anti-vaccine mandate protesters spoiling their throne speech day photo ops.
If so, it’s a ridiculous reason to fundamentally change not just how building security works, but also the century-old fundamental ability to protest at the Saskatchewan legislature.
Public Safety Minister Christine Tell told the aforementioned press gallery rabble Wednesday “what happened out front” on throne speech day resulted in “people that were at risk” being “escorted through another door of this building.”
It sounds rather ominous. Was Lt.-Gov. Russell Mirasty being menaced? Well, Tell wasn’t actually saying that, saying she couldn’t confirm that “even if it were true.”
Moreover, the minister has consistently said the need for Bill 70 is also about other things, which is Tell being rather telling.
We have long known the Sask. Party government was peeved that the Regina Police Service would not remove teepee protesters, including Justice for Our Stolen Children and Tristen Durocher’s protest who government took to court.
It’s also common knowledge this government has been frustrated that the sergeant-at-arms wouldn’t throw his weight around.
So it appears throne speech day was the last straw, giving rise to Bill 70 that wasn’t even mentioned in the 25-page throne speech Mirasty read that day.
Governing politicians shouldn’t have the right to protest who should be able to protest and who shouldn’t, but the Sask. Party, evidently, thinks otherwise.
Moe in January offered his support to the freedom convoy and the protesters in downtown Ottawa and even the rights of border protests in Coutts, Alta., and at the Windsor Ambassador Bridge.
He even condemned the federal government for using the Emergencies Act to stop actual illegal protests blocking international trade. If Bill 70 is some sort of profound declaration on the modern-day need to deal with protests threatening our democracy, shouldn’t the Sask. Party government call out all such protests?
More likely, Bill 70 was about protesters yelling “we want Moe” on throne speech day and spoiling the fun and the government wanting greater control so it can’t happen again.
It’s an unwelcome change if it results in governments getting greater say on who gets to protest.
Mandryk is the political columnist for the Regina Leader-Post and the Saskatoon StarPhoenix.
The irony about all the fuss over the alleged need for stricter Legislative Building security is there’s been no noisy, rambunctious protesters at the legislature since the beginning of the spring session.
They are already missed.
Now, don’t get me wrong. No one likes to see our politicians harangued daily for no discernible purpose by an unkept, disrespectful mob. But enough about me and my colleagues in the press gallery scrums.
What we’re talking about is the fundamental democratic right of people to — within the confines of law and reason — go to the seat of power and feel free to demand change as loudly as they please.
This part of democracy has never been pleasant or pretty … although, occasionally, it’s been funny.
Back in the late 1990s/early 2000s, it seemed there were daily rallies of angry farmers in front the legislature raising alarm about the lack of agricultural income support.
Yet they were always embraced by politicians and political staff who would wade in the crowds to hear their concerns first hand.
(One Liberal party strategist newly arrived from Ontario even went so far as buy new clothes to better fit into the crowd. Unfortunately, his only reference point as to how a rural person dressed appeared to come from Elmer Fudd in Bugs Bunny cartoons.)
One such demonstration in 2000 even saw farm protesters move inside the legislature for overnight sit-ins in the cafeteria. And even that only ended after security staff found one rather portly farmer wandering around the building in his (as we say in Saskatchewan) gitch.
One gets we now live in a different world, but shouldn’t we still abide by the notion that any step that moves the legislature grounds away from a place that’s open to public discourse is likely a step in the wrong direction?
Here’s today’s problem: It’s quite possible Bill 70 is nothing more than the byproduct of the Saskatchewan Party government’s annoyance with loud, anti-mask/anti-vaccine mandate protesters spoiling their throne speech day photo ops.
If so, it’s a ridiculous reason to fundamentally change not just how building security works, but also the century-old fundamental ability to protest at the Saskatchewan legislature.
Public Safety Minister Christine Tell told the aforementioned press gallery rabble Wednesday “what happened out front” on throne speech day resulted in “people that were at risk” being “escorted through another door of this building.”
It sounds rather ominous. Was Lt.-Gov. Russell Mirasty being menaced? Well, Tell wasn’t actually saying that, saying she couldn’t confirm that “even if it were true.”
Moreover, the minister has consistently said the need for Bill 70 is also about other things, which is Tell being rather telling.
We have long known the Sask. Party government was peeved that the Regina Police Service would not remove teepee protesters, including Justice for Our Stolen Children and Tristen Durocher’s protest who government took to court.
It’s also common knowledge this government has been frustrated that the sergeant-at-arms wouldn’t throw his weight around.
So it appears throne speech day was the last straw, giving rise to Bill 70 that wasn’t even mentioned in the 25-page throne speech Mirasty read that day.
Governing politicians shouldn’t have the right to protest who should be able to protest and who shouldn’t, but the Sask. Party, evidently, thinks otherwise.
Moe in January offered his support to the freedom convoy and the protesters in downtown Ottawa and even the rights of border protests in Coutts, Alta., and at the Windsor Ambassador Bridge.
He even condemned the federal government for using the Emergencies Act to stop actual illegal protests blocking international trade. If Bill 70 is some sort of profound declaration on the modern-day need to deal with protests threatening our democracy, shouldn’t the Sask. Party government call out all such protests?
More likely, Bill 70 was about protesters yelling “we want Moe” on throne speech day and spoiling the fun and the government wanting greater control so it can’t happen again.
It’s an unwelcome change if it results in governments getting greater say on who gets to protest.
Mandryk is the political columnist for the Regina Leader-Post and the Saskatoon StarPhoenix.
No comments:
Post a Comment