I want to speak to a different kind of protest and a different kind of Canada: a simmering, largely male, copy-cat alt.right movement that looks to fault Justin Trudeau for everything. This movement comes in various forms, some of which are simply annoying in their inaccurate understanding of Canada. Others seem decidedly more militant. All aspects of this movement are concerning, although I will be arguing, for different reasons. It is this simmering movement of sort that this blog is devoted. I have a clear thesis: this alt.right politics of discontent is empirically inaccurate in its assessment of Canada. They clearly feel something of their Canada is under threat and they have latched on to Trudeau (among others) as the key architect of that threat. But, their concept of the problems they confront is in error and it is that very error that, I will suggest, tells us something important about their politics.
Here is an example that hit home to me. The other day I was listening to CBC News in advance of the opening of the "Atlantic Bubble" and the host was engaged in one of those "man on the street" interviews with an "ordinary person" who was complaining that he had not gotten to go to his cottage so far this summer even though he clearly did not have Covid-19 and lived very close to the NB border. He began his discussion in a polite, sounded completely reasonable, way and recognized that there was an unusual situation but then began to deploy an exaggerated language about the supposed threat of Covid-19 restrictions. This was, he said, an impingement on his freedom. His freedom, he said, had been taken away.
What is important here is that this individual's freedom was not under threat. In fact, there were virtually no differences in his life as a Canadian citizen -- in terms of the rights he enjoyed -- before and after Covid-19. And, as it has turned out. what restrictions there were are turning out to be both temporary and effective in controlling a deadly disease to the extent that it can be controlled. What do I mean?
First, there is no doubt that freedom is one condition of democracy but that freedom is always bounded. Every legitimate political theory that there is imposes limit on freedom. In a liberal democracy like Canada those limits are supposed to be far broader than in non-democratic societies, but they exist and we all recognize and support that fact. This is the basis of the one cannot "yell fire in a crowded building" (allowing that there is no fire) aphorism. The point is this: one cannot use one's freedom to needlessly endanger the lives of other people. One's freedom stops, another aphorism goes, at the point that it impinges on someone else's. Neither you, I, nor anyone else can use our freedom to commit a crime (my freedom does not allow me to rob a bank or walk into my neighbour's house and take her TV). So, we need freedom for democracy, no doubt and to be sure, but we also know that freedom does not mean that one can do anything anytime one wants, particularly if the exercise of freedom brings harm to others (because that would hamper their freedom).
There are other limits to freedom that I have mentioned over the years but you get the point. This is a light burden. We all accept these limits because they provide the basis for a good society and, in fact, protect us. When someone asks "why can't I steal my neighbour's TV if that is my exercise of freedom?", the answer is: the same thing that stops your neighbour from stealing your TV. The same thing that is supposed to ensure that the food you buy or the medicine your kids take is safe or that prevents someone from parking on your front lawn. The good news is that the vast majority of us don't want to do these things and so the idea that this is some serious limit on our freedom (as opposed to a matter of, say, the rule of law) never enters into our calculation. To ensure the safe exercise of our freedom, we give up something that we were never going to use anyway (in my example, the right to commit a crime or harm someone else for no reason other than my own gratification).
Second, we also all recognize that freedom can and should be limited in emergency situations. Emergency situations are, by definition, temporary. You might recall that that was one of the problems a lot of people had with the so-called "war on terror": it appeared to be never-ending and so temporary limits were extended into some future time without a clear end. Covid-19 is obviously a key example of an emergency situation, but there are others (ice storms and hurricanes; threats to national security; crimes in progress; fires). In all these instances, and I use them as examples, we as citizens cede authority to the state or institutions it designates (paramedics, fire fighters, police officers, etc.), in order to address that emergency situation. We do that because as a society we have determined that addressing that emergency situation -- which often involves saving someone's life -- is important and because, again, the burden is light. The police officer who stops me from driving down a road because there is a crime in progress is, indeed, limiting my freedom but she is doing so in the name of someone else's (or, say, my) life. In this example, as soon as the way is clear (the crime is over), I can drive down the road again in an hour or a few or the next day.
With these points in mind, let's think about the claim that restrictions on travel to cottages posed a threat to freedom. On the one hand, mobility was limited and I will come back to that. On the other hand, what bad happened? A whole series of other freedoms were not limited. For instance, legislatures and Parliament continued to meet, albeit in changed circumstances. Freedom of the press, speech, and protest were not limited. Freedom of assembly was curtailed but not eliminated: one could assemble, for instance, virtually and in small groups provided that social distancing was followed. No one lost their property (the status of which as a "right" in Canada is not clear); the rule of law was not suspended (so police could not just show up and drag people away). The right to equality and worship was not abridged. One could, in other words, continue to say what one wanted (within the framework of the law), worship as one wanted, think what one wanted, live in one's house, drive to the store, buy things, watch whatever one wanted on TV, write blogs, etc.
I don't mean to say that things were normal so don't hear what I am not saying. What I mean to say is that the entire infrastructure of freedom (equality, rule of law, free speech, conscience, protest) continued to exist. There was no change to these things. No new censorship was introduced; no new laws were created that allowed for legalized bigotry; due process was not suspended and one could go down the list. And, this was done, in the midst of the global pandemic.
Let me pause here to say that I am not writing in support of the federal Liberals' management of the pandemic. That is not my aim. We can and should think of provinces, territories, and municipalities, as well as the federal government. I am talking about an unusual convergence on the part of a range of political parties that worked together to address a national emergency. In NB, for instance, members of at least three different political parties supported emergency measures. This is not, then, a JT fanboy post.
Where, then, is the loss of freedom? If we acknowledge that things changed -- parents were more responsible for the education of their kids, people lost jobs, people had to work from home, etc. -- there were significant changes that affected people's lives and we do need to reflect on these. But, in terms of the infrastructure of freedom -- in terms of those things that make for liberal democracy -- shockingly little changed. In fact, in the case of this individual, the threat to his freedom lay in this and this alone. He had to argue that a late start to his vacation constituted a threat to freedom. I don't mean to minimize the hard work that went on. Indeed, it is what I going to say next. To make their case, this individual has to argue not only that a late start to their vacation by itself (since no other rights were affected or affected in only a minimal temporary way) posed a threat to freedom. Does that seem like a serious threat to you? Does it seem like a serious threat when weighed against the potential harm -- say to someone's life -- that could be caused?
I argue not, but someone now might ask: why talk about this? After all, someone might say, this is just a guy who wanted to get to his cottage; not a political theorist. That is true. Except ... I select this example because it seems to me to point to something that is important: the politics of exaggeration and its link to an alt.right politics of discontent. In my next blog I will try to argue that the alt.right in Canada is different than in the US. But, one of the things that is not different is that it is fueled by discontent and exaggeration and misapprehension. Exactly how a late start to a summer vacation in the midst of a global pandemic becomes a threat to freedom in a functioning liberal democracy is not clear. Nor, should it be. Quite simply, there was a reasonable and temporary restriction of some -- not all -- forms of mobility in the name of protecting lives.
This is, I will argue in my next blog, one of the characteristics of the alt.right in Canada. It works through a politics of exaggeration and points to threats that do not exist. It attempts, in other words, to convince us of things that are manifestly and demonstrably untrue. It sees, in this case, temporary inconvenience in the face of an emergency as a threat to fundamental freedoms. A late start to a vacation is a drag, but it is not a threat to democracy.
Should the journalist have called the "man on the street" on this point? Initially I thought they should but I now thing a different approach is needed. Exactly what that will be, will be a matter I address later too.
No comments:
Post a Comment