WhatFinger

Mr. Ivison's wonderful demonstration of fear mongering and backward thinking

Soldiers Are Also Citizens


By Guest Column Jeff Rose-Martland——--October 11, 2010

Canadian News, Politics | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us


Dear Editor, On 27 September, the National Post’s John Ivison stated that allowing members of Canada’s military to participate in political discourse would result in the overthrow of our government by a military dictatorship.

I should like to thank Mr. Ivison for his wonderful demonstration of fear mongering and backward thinking. The fact that he called on ancient Rome for an example shows just how far behind he is politically. My learned colleague also neglected history in his citation. It was not Julius Caesar who took Rome, it was the XIII legion, and the reason for their rebellion against the Republic was somewhat similar to the situation at hand. The Senate of Rome reneged on a promise to the soldiers that they would receive land upon retirement in exchange for service. As in the current affair, the democratically elected government found it expedient to send forth the troops, but too expensive to look after the veterans. In his haste to frighten, Mr. Ivison proved my point very well: mistreating the military is about the worst mistake a government can make. However, the republic of Rome was a long time ago. Perhaps Mr. Ivison would have done better to look to a more recent period. In 1647, Britain’s New Model Army delivered their Humble Representation to parliament. While laying the foundations for representative democracy, the army declared they had not ceased to be citizens upon becoming soldiers. Are Canada’s military any less citizens for having served the needs of their nation? Should service to the people require the forfeiture of Charter rights? Do we require that volunteers to our greater good sacrifice not only their limbs and lives, but also their souls? It is disingenuous to suggest that any adequate benefit plan could be developed without input from the beneficiaries. How can you fill a need if you do not know what the need is? What Mr. Ivison has conveniently overlooked is that the restrictions placed on the Forces go both ways: members cannot comment on what is bad or good. It is not just opposition which is silenced, but all commentary, suggestions, recommendations, and thoughts. Perhaps Mr. Ivison believes in an all-powerful, all-knowing government, but do we not know better? Mr. Ivison would have everyone shaking in their boots and hiding under the bed in fear of our military, but are they not us? Is it not our fellow citizens who devote themselves? He evokes an image of madmen, draped in weapons, ready to seize power the moment we glace away, but to whom is he referring? Is it those we send to bring peace to others? Those who protect foreign civilians from aggressors? Does he mean the ones who clear snow in Toronto, fight forest fires in B.C, carry supplies into icy Montréal, or bridge roads in Newfoundland? Are these the terrifying troops at which Mr. Ivison points? He believes that those trusted to protect us cannot be trusted. He believes the leash must be kept short and the collar tight, lest the dog turn on its master. He believes the beast should be fed sparingly and put down when it can no longer bite. Mr. Ivison would have us believe that as well, and to accept our fellows, not as equal citizens, but as something far, far less. Our good friend Mr. Ivison, and others like him, would say that they are different, these women and men in uniform: that the RCMP (who endure similar restrictions) and the Armed Forces are not like other workers. Having already sold us the myth of the monster, Mr. Ivison would like us to subscribe to this doctrine of difference. He wants us to believe that enlistment sets one beneath the rest of society, that servants to a nation are less than citizens, that working for the people makes you less than a person. Have we not heard this before? That a group cannot be trusted, that their betters should decide for them, that to let them speak would endanger our way of life? Are these not the selfsame arguments previously put forth to justify the subjugation of minorities, women, and the lower classes? Were not those ridiculous points raised repeatedly in anti-labour speeches? That workers are too dumb to know what they need? That, given half the chance, the workers would seize companies and destroy commerce? That collective bargaining would mean an end to production? That giving proper pay and benefits to workers would bring society to ruin? Do not be deceived by the Mr. Ivisons! This situation is not about the military. This is not about the police. This is simply a labour issue. In all codes of labour practice, and in the Charter of Rights itself, any group has the right to expression and to association. Any group, that is, except for those who defend our rights. The RCMP and Armed Forces are the last organizations in Canada whose members can be legally fired or imprisoned for merely expressing dissatisfaction. Let us turn from Mr. Ivison’s delirium and reflect on the things which are, rather than his might be’s. What we have is a very large group of workers doing very dangerous work - work so hazardous that injury is inevitable, disability common, and death frequent. Who decides their working conditions? The Boss. Who sets their tasks? The Boss. Who sets their wages? The Boss. Who decides their benefits? The Boss. Who sends them to jail if they speak up? The Boss. Who is their boss? Us. You, me, and Mr. Ivison. Should we not be ashamed? Canada is recognized around the world as the home of the scarlet Mountie and the blue-beret Peacekeeper. Should we also be known as the democracy standing on the neck of both? We, the citizens of Canada, have found a need to employ people in these professions and we work them until they break. Therefore, we, the citizens of Canada, have a duty to provide for them when they do break. Our Duty is not a veterans association, nor is it connected to the Forces or the Mounted. Our Duty is a non-partisan group devoted to the belief that there is more to being a citizen than claiming rights. With citizenship comes obligations; we cannot simply pass full responsibility to elected officials. We are each responsible for seeing that our government is working, for helping better our society, and for ensuring those who serve us are treated fairly. These are our duties. "To see the right and not to do it is cowardice." - Confucius Jeff Rose-Martland is a writer and the founder of OurDuty.org

Support Canada Free Press

Donate


Subscribe

View Comments

Guest Column——

Items of notes and interest from the web.


Sponsored