constitutional law 101

so i read with some interest on the ctv website a few minutes ago how the first protests of the upcoming g20 summit unfolded this afternoon without incident in downtown toronto. no surprises there. but what really caught my attention was one of the more frequent accusations levelled by participants at today's demonstration. apparently, according to at least some of those assembled for today's march, the canadian government is essentially in control of a "police state." that is certainly a rather strong term to employ when describing the democratically-elected representatives of our young federation. now i fully recognize the right of protesters to express their opinions via the instrument of peaceful demonstrations. indeed, sections two (b) and (c) of the canadian charter of rights and freedoms guarantees individuals those constitutionally-protected fundamental freedoms. but it is those same fundamental freedoms that i rely upon now to voice my vigorous opposition to the views expressed by protesters in toronto earlier today. and so, i would just like to respond by saying that to suggest canada is being governed as a "police state" is an insult to genuine police states everywhere.

to begin with, freedictionary.com defines a police state as "a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people, especially by means of a secret police force." secret police force? in canada? now if by "secret" police force you mean "invisible" police force, then perhaps we have something to discuss. but let me ask you this: how often do you come across a peace officer or a police cruiser in your daily travels? speaking personally, if i bump into more than one copper a month then it's been an unusually active month in terms of policing within my community.

to be precise, i have had the police inside my home on exactly two occasions over the past thirty years. on one of those occasions, the officer in question was actually invited into my home by yours truly as my wife had just gone into labour and we required the services of a police escort in order to deliver the mother-to-be to the hospital in time. on the lone other occasion, i had contacted the police because my oddball neighbour had gone apoplectic after learning that i had asked her adolescent children to stop throwing dead flowers onto my balcony. it's a complicated story but the long and the short of it is this: the officers came to my condo, jotted down the details of my complaint and then went off on their merry way. pleasant and accommodating yes, but hardly rigid or repressive in their treatment of me.

now compare the current situation in canada to that in, say, iran. according to human rights watch, an internationally respected human rights ngo, "iran’s government is tightening its grip, harassing, imprisoning, and using violence against its own people one year after the disputed 2009 presidential election and the start of its brutal crackdown." does this really sound like canada to you? of course, it doesn't.

human rights watch also cites the humanitarian crisis unfolding in the democratic people's republic of korea in their 2010 world report by stating: "...human rights conditions in north korea remain dire. there is no organized political opposition, free media, functioning civil society, or religious freedom. arbitrary arrest, detention, and torture and ill-treatment of detainees, and lack of due process remain serious issues. north korea operates detention facilities including those popularly known as "political prison camps" where hundreds of thousands of its citizens - including children - are enslaved in deplorable conditions for various anti-state offenses... periodically, the government publicly executes citizens for stealing state property, hoarding food and other "anti-socialist" crimes." does this really sound like canada to you? of course, it doesn't.

and let's not forget about that favoured vacation hot spot for law-abiding canadians from coast to coast. so what did human rights watch have to say about that post-fidel workers' paradise known as cuba: "as the new head of state, raúl castro [fidel's brother] inherited a system of abusive laws and institutions, as well as responsibility for hundreds of political prisoners arrested during his brother’s rule. rather than dismantle this repressive machinery, raúl castro has kept it firmly in place and fully active. scores of political prisoners arrested under fidel castro continue to languish in cuba’s prisons. and raúl castro’s government has used draconian laws and sham trials to incarcerate scores more who have dared to exercise their fundamental freedoms. raúl castro’s government has relied in particular on a provision of the cuban criminal code that allows the state to imprison individuals before they have committed a crime, on the suspicion that they might commit an offense in the future. this “dangerousness” provision is overtly political, defining as “dangerous” any behavior that contradicts socialist norms. the most orwellian of cuba’s laws, it captures the essence of the cuban government’s repressive mindset, which views anyone who acts out of step with the government as a potential threat and thus worthy of punishment." does this really sound like canada to you? of course, it doesn't.

and yet protesters in toronto for the g20 summit feel compelled to label the canadian government a "police state"? so what's my beef then? well, most of these protesters would probably describe themselves as human rights advocates. but if you're a human rights advocate, then by definition, you must advocate on behalf of the fundamental rights and freedoms of all humans, not just those in select regions of the world. yet how many of the anti-corporate, anti-capitalist, anti-globalization protesters in the streets of toronto today do you reckon have ever attended a rally protesting the treatment of journalists in iran or political prisoners in north korea or union organizers in cuba? hmmm. at the very least, i'd be willing to bet that none of today's protesters has ever marched through the streets of tehran or pyongyang or havana criticizing human rights abuses in those countries as residents there lack the basic right to demonstrate peacefully - a freedom afforded to them, somewhat ironically, by only truly democratic nations like, say, canada. and yet they have the nerve to indirectly compare the democratic regime of this nation to those of iran and north korea and cuba! shameful. in the end, it all comes down to the credibility of the protesters' claims and the credibility of the protesters themselves. that said, the constitution of canada guarantees even fools the right to express their thoughts and opinions, misinformed as they may be, by way of mass media and peaceful assembly, inter alia. what a great country it is indeed.

"it is easy to take liberty for granted when you have never had it taken from you." - m. grundler

p.s. a fair criticism does not take the form of "i disagree." in order for your critiques to have any weight with me, you must complete the following sentence: "i disagree with you because..."