Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Just watch us?

This last 10 days have brought about a confluence of events that have provided me with what we call a "teachable moment." It started a week ago Thursday when I was teaching my Canadian politics class.
col-summerville.07.jpg
Tracy Summerville Aug 16 2012

This last 10 days have brought about a confluence of events that have provided me with what we call a "teachable moment."

It started a week ago Thursday when I was teaching my Canadian politics class. I like to teach with a narrative that puts policies and institutions into some kind of context. I love when I get to tell the story of Trudeau's time as Prime Minister.

Love him or hate him, he was a spectacular character in our history and his bravado (or arrogance depending on your perspective) led to a changed Canada. My lecture that day included a story about the October Crisis, the FLQ and the War Measures Act. I was prepping my students for their Tuesday class when they would be watching part of the Trudeau movie in which Colm Feore portrays the "rational" Trudeau facing two kidnappings and bombs in letterboxes.

His famous exchange with reporter Tim Ralfe took on the question of the tension between the state and the individual.

Here is part of the exchange that I have cut down for the sake of space:

Ralfe: What is it with all the men and guns around here?

Trudeau: Have you noticed?

R: Yes, I've noticed...

T: What's your worry?

R: I'm worried about living in a town that's full of people running around with guns...

T: Are you? Have they done anything to you? Have they pushed you around?

(Later) R: My choice is to live in a society that is free and democratic which means that you don't have people with guns running around in it. And one of the things I have to give up for that choice is that people like you may be kidnapped.

T: That isn't my choice obviously. I think it is more important to get rid of those who are committing violence against the total society and those who are trying to run the government through a parallel power by establishing their authority by kidnapping and blackmail...

R: I still go back to the choice that you have to make and the kind of society that you live in...

T: There's a lot of bleeding hearts around who don't like seeing people with helmets and guns. All I can say is go on and bleed but it's more important to keep law and order in society than to be worried about weak kneed people who don't like the looks of...

R: At any cost? At any cost? How far would you go with that? How far would you extend with that?

T: Well, just watch me.

R: ...at reducing civil liberties? To that extent?

T: To what extent?

R: Well if you extend this and say OK you are going to do everything to protect them. To wiretapping? To reduce civil liberties in some ways?

T: Yes...

I asked my students to consider the discussion about how far we are willing to reduce liberty for the sake of order and security because the debate is always on our doorstep.

On Friday morning the headlines were all about the new anti-terrorism bill that the Conservative government is proposing in the House. In an article in the Globe and Mail, Steven Chase and Daniel LeBlanc wrote: "This Anti-Terrorism Act is igniting a national debate about the proper balance between freedom and security in Canada in the 21st century, including whether there is sufficient outside scrutiny of the law-enforcement agencies that are gaining new powers."

It is easy to get drawn into the fear that makes us want to give the state extended power. It is hard not to be fearful when the horrific acts of ISIS make their way into the news.

What are our choices in an uncertain world? I am always brought back to the work of the political philosopher Michael Walzer who said that because politics is a dirty game we have to ask about who we trust to represent us and to protect us. Canadians have traditionally been deferential to authority (although perhaps less so in the last 40 years) and so we might want to extend powers that limit civil liberties.

The issue often comes down to a belief that such legislation would never extend to us personally. It is not an accident that Trudeau asked Ralfe why he was worried. "Have you done anything?" he asked.

Such a question implies that only criminals/terrorists need worry about the long-arm of the state but philosophers know that that argument is weak.

Any restriction on the civil liberties for one person or one group of people is a restriction for all of us.

And like Ralfe said: "It comes down to choice."