|
Montreal, February 15, 2003 / No 119 |
|
by
Randy Hillier
The progressive abandonment of private choice and individual rights in Canada by our government is frightening. Is anyone keeping track of the score in this game of individual liberty versus collective security? The battle between these two concepts has been with western society since recorded history. The extreme of public security was reached during the fascist-communist period leading up to WW2. Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Franco all promoted safety, security, and significant government control. |
The high point for individual liberty and freedom was of course the American
Declaration of Independence. Jefferson, Adams and Patrick Henry and others
were the most ardent proponents of individual freedom, liberty, and rights.
Between these two ends, the common men and women of society have struggled
to maintain moderation and restraint on both the government and upon individuals.
The scorecard in most major Canadian cities looks dismal for individual liberty. Traffic cameras are used to spy on and record the public's moves; the intention was to catch traffic violators. Private property owners are fined for allowing patrons to smoke in their bars. People are losing their hard-earned property and livelihood in bankruptcy due to smoking bylaws. The police have created special programs that allow them to stop each and every vehicle, and inspect whether you are wearing a seatbelt or have proper documentation; the intention was to stop impaired drivers. In Ottawa, people are ticketed and fined for walking on the frozen Rideau Canal, or having dogs in a park. Ottawa Hydro will identify to the police suspicious consumers of electricity, and cut off their power, without the benefit of a judge or jury. Federally and provincially, the concept of liberty is buried under the collective layers of bureaucratic regulations. Gun registration that allows the search and seizure of people's homes and property is now legal; the intention was to reduce crime. Revenue Canada has started a database to track our travels and holidays; the intention is to stop terrorists. Constitutionally individual property is not recognized as a right nor protected as such, although the intention of law is to protect persons and property. Plant, animals, habitat, and wetlands are protected, but what protection is afforded the homeowner, the businessman, and the farmer.
These people require government approvals and reams of paperwork, regulations, and licenses to install a well, or to landscape their cottage lot. Parents who take responsibility for their children and provide love, nurturing, and discipline must be on the lookout for the outstretched arm of the Children's aid Society. This agency can remove children and place them in bureaucratic institutions and foster care if a parent disagrees with them. The school boards are allowed to lock down our schools, and our children, and mete out punishment without consequence under the omnipotent zero tolerance policy. Zero tolerance is a bureaucratic phrase that justifies "zero thinking." It is clear to all that governments are adept at creating new laws, rules and regulations, but seldom remove them. The casual actions of a person today are often the criminal act of tomorrow. The intentions of the law today are forgotten by the police and lawmakers of tomorrow. To all of the people who are clamouring and supporting these abuses, and cheering for greater safety: what will you say, when you are imprisoned, or fined for having a beer in your backyard, eating fatty foods, or creating smoke from your BBQ? What will you do when your child is taken away, or your house expropriated? Will you think it is still in the public interest to fine or imprison you? Or will you cry out, and ask others to defend your liberty? There is an axiom that is forgotten: "If you wish for me to defend your rights, then you must be here to respect and defend mine." Our courts and bureaucracy have come to believe that individual rights are not real, only privileges that need justification. But what defines a right is the knowledge that it never needs to be justified.
|
<< retour au sommaire |
|