When Rosa Parks refused to sit at the back of the bus and give up her seat for a white man, it was an unlawful act.
When Mahatma Gandhi led marches in opposition to the British salt monopoly, they were unlawful acts.
And when students took to the streets of Montreal in 2012 to protest Quebec’s new anti-protest law, it was unlawful.
Rosa Parks was thrown in jail, as was Gandhi, as were hundreds of Montrealers. Today, however, these historical actions are viewed as just and have led to needed, real and meaningful change.
All over the world, civil disobedience has been a powerful tool for change. Those who use it are usually well aware they are breaking the law and will likely face consequences. In fact, that is part of what makes it so effective. It says, “I feel so strongly about the injustice of this law, I am willing to go to jail to oppose it.”
I wonder, though, if they would be willing to go to jail for life.
Under the Conservative’s new anti-terrorism bill, that is a possibility. I’m not trying to be hyperbolic and I realize it is a slim possibility, but Bill C-51 is so flawed, it really needs to be fixed before it becomes law.
For one thing, it suffers from some of the definitions being way to vague. For example, it defines “activity that undermines the security of Canada” as anything that interferes with the economic or financial stability of Canada including “critical infrastructure.”
Environmentalists are afraid this is directed squarely at them. I can understand why environmental groups do not trust this government. It has been openly hostile to them and an RCMP report recently obtained by Greenpeace has fanned the flames.
“There is a growing, highly organized and well-financed anti-Canada petroleum movement that consists of peaceful activists, militants and violent extremists who are opposed to society’s reliance on fossil fuels,” the report concludes.
The government’s response to criticism has been basically, ‘don’t worry about it,’ ‘trust us.”
They point to a clause in C-51 that states, “For greater certainty, it does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression.”
Unfortunately, that does not in any way provide greater certainty. Here’s the problem, as I have demonstrated, non-violent civil disobedience is frequently unlawful. Furthermore, the proposed legislation lowers the threshold of proof to the point that if someone “may” be planning or advocating, say, a blockade of a highway, as First Nations did during the Idle No More campaign, CSIS could conceivably deem it terrorism and get a warrant to hold people for up to a year without charge.
Again, it’s a stretch—and I am not suggesting, as some have, that the Conservatives are creating a secret police force—but what is the problem with clarifying the language?
The biggest problem with this law by far, however, is the lack of oversight. The Canadian Intelligence Review Committee (CIRC) is woefully inadequate and the requirement for judicial warrants simply does not go far enough. Virtually everybody in the country and civilized world agrees on this point except Canadian Conservative MPs. They actually seem to treat it like some kind of badge of honour to be in the minority with the power to ignore good advice.
It is actually confusing that they are so reticent about providing proper oversight. In his opposition days, Stephen Harper used to scream for oversight of everything. What happened to that guy?
And here’s the crazy thing, Canadians overwhelmingly support many of the provisions in this piece of legislation. The Conservatives could easily have widespread, non-partisan support for the law just by making this one concession.
Instead, they pull out the old strawman talking point that the NDP and Liberals are opposed to protecting Canadians, which is absolutely ludicrous and insulting.
They seem to not only want to legislate their agenda, but to crush dissent at the same time.
What they ought to be doing is embracing the progressive heritage of their party.
“If Parliament is to be preserved as a living institution His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition must fearlessly perform its functions,” said John Diefenbaker in 1949. “When it properly discharges them the preservation of our freedom is assured. The reading of history proves that freedom always dies when criticism ends. It upholds and maintains the rights of minorities against majorities. It must be vigilant against oppression and unjust invasions by the Cabinet of the rights of the people. It should supervise all expenditures and prevent over-expenditure by exposing to the light of public opinion wasteful expenditures or worse. It finds fault; it suggests amendments; it asks questions and elicits information; it arouses, educates and molds public opinion by voice and vote. It must scrutinize every action by the government and in doing so prevents the short-cuts through democratic procedure that governments like to make.”
