This morning Greenpeace protestors scaled the roofs of Parliament to unfurl protest banners while one of their fellows buzzed the city in a small plane. As watched the plane (it was maybe a 1000 feet up) I was thinking about the probable outcome if these activities had happened in Washington DC (substitute "rapidly expanding debris field" for plane and "undisclosed number of terrorists" for protestors). In Ottawa - well the plane didn't appear to have F18's on its tail yet and Parliament Hill security had yet to make any move other than to close down access for the rest of us (the non-protestors). Huh, that’s interesting. So the question of the day for me is why do some people get a pass and the rest don't?
There are numerous examples out there of what would appear to selective enforcement of the laws under which we all agreed to live under. One such example occurred today - Natives decided to block highways to protest the removal of their sales tax exemption that the loathsome HST will bring. So far no one from the government is doing anything to restore order. As in the past they will monitor the situation and hope it runs its course. In my worldview I wonder what would happen if I decided to protest the HST and blocked some road here in Ottawa. As an AMAWG (Angry Middle Aged White Guy) I would expect the SWAT team guys to dispatch me post haste so morning commuters can get back to line-ups at Tim's.
What these folks are protesting (Greenpeace, Natives etc) is all fine, I have no issue with anyone’s right to protest because I believe Canadian society can support different views (I am after all an Enlightened AMAWG). The question is does everyone have the same right to protest and does our government treat everyone who does have an opposing view equitably? My view is that the current practice of selective application of consequences for actions has had the effect of reducing our civil rights rather than supporting them.
What I see is application of consequences to groups and/or individuals not based on the rule of law but rather the issue of risk to the government of potential negative publicity. Using the example of the Native versus me road blockade the potential negative publicity risk to the government of enforcing the laws of our land is huge. The only consequence is that everyone else shrugs their shoulders and finds another way to get to where they're going (BTW I am not picking on Natives - EXACTLY the same suspension of civil liberties occurs during any major labour action where the public is involved). On the other hand if I set-up a protest then my muzzling/arrest/gulag poses no risk of negative publicity therefore its ok.
The difference is that everyone agrees that Natives have had and still have a rough go of it in Canada. No argument from me on that point. So we as a society (and by extension our elected officials) look at protests with a tacit combination of understanding and frustration. The examples of this are endless - everyone is concerned for the environment so let’s cut the various groups pushing their particular agenda some slack etc etc etc. What happens though if your opinion on something doesn't happen to fall into the "PC" category - does that mean its worth any less? All I can say is don't try this at home kids - you might figure out that although we are all equal in the eyes of the law we are most decidedly not equal in eyes of those who we have trusted to enforce those laws.
“A people who extend civil liberties only to preferred groups start down the path either to dictatorship of the right or the left.”
William Orville Douglas
