People on opposite sides are making the same arguments but at different times. Can that gap be bridged?
Watching the response to Doug Ford’s decision to use the Notwithstanding Clause to block education support workers from striking – they still went on strike anyway – it has been amazing to see pushback.
Particularly, the language being used by those pushing back.
Opponents of Ford’s action are referencing their civil liberties, their rights, their freedoms, and slamming Ford’s use of heavy-handed state power.
If that sounds familiar, it’s because it is very similar to the language used by those – myself included – who opposed the draconian mandates and restrictions imposed by the federal government and various federal governments, and in our criticism of the Emergencies Act.
Now, people can – and certainly will – argue that these situations aren’t the same.
Many feel that there can be no comparison between legislation that restricted the right to travel, see loved ones, worship, and work, and legislation that compels people to go back to work.
And many of those who are now talking about civil liberties were dismissive of those who opposed lockdowns, mandates, and other restrictions. Indeed, many of those angry at Ford now were practically cheering him on when he imposed some of the longest and most restrictive lockdowns/school closures in all of North America.
Ford himself even praised Justin Trudeau’s use of the Emergencies Act, only to be thrown under the bus by Trudeau.
So, hypocrisy abounds.
However, I want to highlight the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, as they have been a bastion of principled consistency in these trying times.
Here is what they said about Trudeau’s use of the Emergencies Act:
“The legal threshold to use emergency powers is intentionally high. Ensuring this threshold is met is a critical protection for the democratic process, rule of law, and the civil liberties of individuals that may be impacted by emergency orders.
The federal government’s use of the Emergencies Act to limit freedom of peaceful assembly and intrude into the privacy of individuals across the country was unnecessary, unjustifiable and unconstitutional.”
The CCLA also took the decision to court:
“After the emergency orders came into effect, we launched a court challenge to the government’s national proclamation of an emergency and portions of the two emergency orders. CCLA also released numerous statements and wrote letters calling on the government to revoke the emergency proclamation.”
And here is what the CCLA said about the imposition of Bill 28 in Ontario:
Our statement on the passage of Ontario's Bill 28. #onted pic.twitter.com/vVR4md9x1i
— Canadian Civil Liberties Association (@cancivlib) November 3, 2022
Consistency
This consistency is admirable.
The CCLA is standing against heavy-handed state power, regardless of the partisan stripe of those wielding that power, and regardless of whether they agree with the specific cause of those subjected to that power.
If Canadians as a whole could embrace that type of thinking, we may find that there is actually more of a consensus on civil liberties than it seems.
At our core, Canada – and much of the Western world – was built on the idea of individual freedom. The West is still much more free on an individual level than the rest of the world.
That belief in freedom manifests in different ways, and we are often great at defending freedom for ourselves while looking the other way when our ‘opponents’ have their freedom taken away or restricted.
But if we can see things from a broader perspective, we can see that there is the potential for us to build a country where freedom is respected and protected in a much more consistent way.
That is the path forward for Canada if we want to keep our increasingly divided nation together.
Spencer Fernando
