“FREEDOM” ISN’T FIRST PERSON SINGULAR
Those who equate freedom with irresponsibility and heedless self-indulgence neither understand nor deserve it. For what it’s worth, that’s my take on the so-called “Freedom Convoy” protest that began in Canada with the rallying cry “Freedom” and spawned copycats around the world. Herewith why…
Protesting, criticizing, grousing about and even cursing government policies are sacred rights in a democratic society. That’s freedom.
The “Freedom Convoy” protestors choked the center of Ottawa, blocked vital bridges, inconvenienced fellow citizens and did hundreds of millions of dollars damage to the economies of Canada and the U.S. No snarling dogs, teargas or water cannons were used to disperse them. Not a single head was bashed in by baton wielding police. No one was shot by police. That kind of restraint and respect for citizen’s rights only happens in a country where there’s freedom — of expression, thought and assembly.
In exchange, freedom obliges responsibility, which would by any measure of common sense rule out children in the midst of a noisy and exhaust-filled protest (Ottawa police estimated that there were about 100 minors in the 400 trucks parked in the city). Ditto lugging cans of combustible fuel for trucks and heaters through city streets.
During the first eleven days of the Ottawa protest, truck air horns blasted for up to 16 hours a day. What, pray tell, does that have to do with freedom? How does it contribute in any way to sensible discussion of an issue? How do the truckers and their supporters justify harassing people for wearing masks, which is a personal right and freedom that does not in any way inflict upon rights and freedom of others?
As the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle put it: “Every man should be responsible to others, nor should anyone be allowed to do just as he pleases; for where absolute freedom is allowed, there is nothing to restrain the evil which is inherent in every man.”
FREEDOM’S ENEMIES
Shouting “how dare you” and forcing journalists to flee a venue — as happened when a TV reporter asked about weapons found at a protest — and then defending the action, puts the truck protest leaders in fine company. At a meeting of right-wing White extremists in South Africa many years ago, a man hissed “skuim van die aarde” (Afrikaans for “scum of the earth”) in my ear as he shoved my camera crew and me towards the door. His idea of freedom was apartheid.
Protesting in a democratic society doesn’t even require a legitimate cause or considered point of view, just the bare essentials: banners, flags, megaphones and slogans. People who show up with guns and body armour have no place at a protest in a society where the ballot box provides the means to object to and even remove politicians who pass laws you don’t like.
SCIENCE VERSUS PREFERENCE
Anti-vaxxers frequently justify their stance as an objection to having something put into their body that they don’t think is safe, or may have side effects. For their sake I hope the truck protestors aren’t living on fast food. They might also want to read the multitude of possible side effects listed in tiny print on over-the-counter medications as a defence against law suits.
Pro-vaxxers at least have science on their side. According to the U.S. Centres for Disease Control (CDC): “Unvaccinated people are about six times more likely to test positive than vaccinated people, nine times more likely to be hospitalized, and 14 times more likely to die from COVID-related complications.”
Similar figures have been reported from every country with high vaccination rates. With those statistics, mandated vaccines could arguably be considered a case of good governance, which is a basis of the Canadian constitution.
So, here’s a proposal: grant the anti-vaccination, anti-mask protestors their version of freedom – provided they have the courage of their convictions. They should agree, in writing, to eschew all treatment if they contract Covid.
As for the avowed QAnon believers and protestors waving Confederate flags and signs in support of Donald Trump, I suggest offering them one-way tickets to any U.S. state of their choice where the MAGA crowd proliferate.
The way things are, or we believe they ought to be in Canada, was summed up in three lines of an editorial in the St Catherines Standard:
“Freedom where an individual can act in ways that harm others has historically been anathema to civil society. Never mind your individual happiness. Do your duty to benefit society as a whole.”
COMMON SENSE, COMMON GOOD
Mandatory seat belts, speed limits and any number of other laws could be considered by some as violations of individual freedom. Whether they like them or not, truckers and pretty much everyone else with an iota of common sense obeys them in the name of self-preservation and the common good, however.
Those who think freedom is exclusively an individual right, that no one owes so much as a tinker’s dam to the rights and freedoms of anyone else, might take a lesson from a man who knows more about it than just about anyone in modern history:
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.
So said Nelson Mandela.
Comments are welcomed. Click CONTACT on the site header.
To receive e‑mail alerts to new posts, Click SIGN-UP on the header.
6 thoughts on ““FREEDOM” ISN’T FIRST PERSON SINGULAR”
As usual, well said
Good reasoning. I’ve often wondered why, in the interest of protecting the orderly operation of our hospitals, proof of vaccination wasn’t mandated for incoming patients!
would this mean the unvaccinated would not be
eligible for hospital treatment and admission?…
maybe such a requirement should apply to
visitors…
Re: Freedom — perfectly put Allen. I am convinced that we need to have the debate in Canada to separate the right to protest — which I uphold as essential in a democracy — from the right to disrupt — which I think is an unfair imposition of one person’s views on another. I would advocate that we create areas for legitimate protest or airing of views — think Speakers Corner in London — that are separate from places where the protest will disrupt or even suspend the daily lives of others who think differently. Then people can protest to their hearts content, sharing their views with all who agree or care to listen, and police can be given powers to curtail activities which negatively affect others. That way it can never be said that the freedom to protest has been stifled. My ten cents!
three words, intermingled in today’s world, complicate the issue…
my FREEDOM might be another man’s PROTEST…
and my FREEDOM might mean STUPIDITY for
others…
if I’m free to mask or unmask am I claiming my
actions as a call for freedom or am I protesting
against government oversight or am I just stupid?…
are the truckers an example?…
i am convinced, at least in my small portion
of the states(heavily red), the initial refusal to mask was a political decision and rebellion…
freedom and protest are fine but when
incorrectly intertwined everyone looks stupid…
and I’m wondering if as the st. catherines standard writes “do your duty to benefit
society as a whole” would that forgive the
white slave owners whose ownership of
slave labor could be construed as benefiting
the prevalent society of america’a early days”?
The first lines of the article are profound.