They are of course american values. and they should be universal values. But the word "liberty" is hardly ever used in a Canadian context. "Freedom" on the other hand only comes into vogue during the dying days of October and is used quite often up to Remembrance Day. But come November 12th the word is carefully packed away for another year. When "freedom" is used it is almost always used in an historical context when we talk about how veterans risked and gave up their lives so that we can be free. Freedom now means being free to cheer when our country decides not to go to war against the current threats of fascism that we like to pretend do not exist.
Too many Canadians disregard the concepts of freedom and liberty and seem perfectly content to settle for democracy. as long as we get to vote in a free election every four or five years (or sooner if there is a minority government) we don't much care what the government of the day takes away from us while they are in office.
Paul Martin and his Liberals have raised two issues so far in the campaign that should raise the ire of any Canadian that cares about freedom and liberty. The first of these arose when Martin waltzed into the crime-ridden Jane/Finch corridor of Toronto and announced a total ban on handguns. as we all know, there have been severe restrictions on handguns for years. It is virtually impossible for any Canadian to get the right to carry a concealed weapon and regulations have been in place for years to monitor those who possess the guns. Martin's proposal is aimed not at the street punks where it is virtually impossible for them to kill someone with a legal handgun, but at law abiding gun collectors. The theory goes that if gun collectors cannot possess these guns, then their guns cannot be stolen and the gun crimes will stop. The elitist Martin thinks that the young black males, who are the major source of Toronto's violent gun use and whom he considers to be the real victims of blooming culture of violence because they are excluded. Martin figures that if he takes lawful property away from law abiding Canadians, the bad guys, in the case of Toronto, most of who are young black males are just too dumb to acquire guns by other means. We can't stop guns coming in from the United States or any other country without bringing inter-border commerce to a complete halt.
Stephen Harper, who has run an excellent campaign thus far, cannot be expected to say too much about legal gun ownership lest he give Martin the opportunity to label him as a gun-loving pawn of the NRa. But Canadians should be angry over the taking away of the rights of law abiding citizens to possess private property. But there's hardly been a peep. although it is highly unlikely, if Liberals were to ban jewelry and vehicles in order to reduce theft of those items, it is difficult to believe many of the compliant Canadians would raise much of a fuss.
The greatest intrusion into the non-issue of the freedom and liberty of Canadians came during the English language debate when Paul Martin announced that his government wants a constitutional amendment to do away with the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights. Martin's proposal is limited to preventing use of the clause by the federal government only; after all he wouldn't dare suggest that Quebec not have the right to use the notwithstanding clause to limit the rights of their English minority.
In one fell swoop, Martin proposes to do away with the supremacy of Parliament in favour of the supremacy of the Supreme Court of Canada. In the case of a 5-4 judgment of that court, our elected representatives will be subjugated to the opinion of one person. and Paul Martin of course gets to appoint the judges, subject to a Cotleresque show hearing being held concerning any proposed appointees. With this suggestion Paul Martin has shown that he holds Parliament in more contempt than those Canadians who refuse to vote because "they're all corrupt" or "they're all the same. One wonders whether Martin has always felt this way or whether he developed his distain for the elected representatives of the people only after he became prime minister.
On this ground alone, Paul Martin and his boys and girls deserved to be booted from office and replaced with someone who will keep the tradition of the supremacy of Parliament. If Paul Martin wants to be a leader with a powerless parliament he should do what he did when he headed Canada Steamship Lines and wanted to avoid taxes — look for another country. There's always Zimbabwe; Robert Mugabe isn't getting any younger.
Oh Canada. Give me health care or give me death! Of course with our waiting lists we can have both. as for liberty and freedom, they don't really mean much.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement