The so-called Freedom Convoy was never about truckers, or border mandates..

‘Freedom convoy’ – the good, the bad, and the ugly constitutional aspects

Even before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms entrenched constitutional rights to freedom of expression and association, the Canadian Supreme Court recognized these as implicit structural features of Canada’s democracy. The ability for individuals to collectively and openly criticize government is an important foundation of democratic government – even (maybe especially) when it is unpopular. Section 2 of the Charter protects this right, and the Supreme Court has given a “generous and liberal” interpretation to the expression that is protected. The value of the speech – whether it is good public policy, based in science, or accepted by the general public – is not a condition for its protection under the Charter. To the extent that the “freedom convoy” has involved peaceful protests to convey political messages and criticism of pandemic law and policy – it reflects this constitutional commitment. A noisy public “marketplace of ideas” that allows individuals to “search for truth” through open debate is an ideal of Canada’s constitutional democracy. This ideal is not something we should cast aside lightly – even if we might profoundly disagree with some of the messages it allows individuals to send.

A peaceful protest where individuals convey discontent with pandemic policy, public health restrictions, vaccine mandates and even express unscientific opinions can be seen as a “good” of Canadian democracy.

The Bad

While the rights under Section 2 of the Charter are vital to Canadian democracy, the Charter, and the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) both explicitly recognize that no right is absolute. In Section 1, the Charter states that the rights it protects are subject to limits “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” In explaining why constitutional rights can be limited, former SCC Chief Justice Brian Dickson pointed to our broader commitment to a set of foundational values inherent in our democracy. Among these, he named: “respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, commitment to social justice and equality, accommodation of a wide variety of beliefs, respect for cultural and group identity, and faith in social and political institutions which enhance the participation of individuals and groups in society.” Under the Supreme Court’s Charter jurisprudence, government is seen as having both a right and responsibility to balance competing rights and claims in pursuit of these larger objectives.

When it comes to Section 2b rights, both the courts and government have recognized numerous justified limitations. Expression through violence has always been excluded from the scope of the Charter’s constitutional protection, and threats of violence are also now clearly outside Section 2b. Freedom of expression does not include an unlimited right of expression in any particular place. The right can “run out” when there is a fundamental incompatibility between the expressive activity and the place it is being carried out. Aspects of the “freedom convoy” protests that involve relentless noise, harassing residents, vandalism or destruction of public property, and rendering public infrastructure unusable would all easily be justifiably limited, or lie outside the scope of the right. There is no space under a constitutional banner for “freedom” to threaten or engage in violence.

Protests often involve some transgression of the law – especially if they are targeting particular laws as “unjust.” While government can show some flexibility, there is a boundary between legitimate protest and defiance of the law that undermines the broader values of democratic governance. Protests that shade into unilateral demands backed by even implicit threats of violence stop being democratic debate.

While space for legitimate political expression is something that the “freedom convoy” might claim, many aspects of the protest are now falling outside the scope of that constitutional right. Governments have a responsibility to enforce limits on expression, especially those already reflected in justified existing laws.

The Ugly

There are certain aspects of the evolving “freedom convoy” movement that are simply incompatible with the rights and freedoms in the Charter and our broader democratic ideals.

The inclusion of individuals who openly display swastikas, or confederate flags taints the protest with endorsement of racist and hateful ideas that deny the freedoms and equality of others. The message matters for constitutionally justified limits on expression. Messages like these that seek to undercut the rights of others conflict with the purposes of Section 2b, taking us farther from any search for truth or public debate consistent with our commitments to equality and human dignity.

The mobilization of millions of dollars to support the protests, that appears to draw on foreign supporters and far right groups promoting division and partisanship for their own ends, is a deeply concerning element of the “freedom convoy.” Limits on political advertising by third parties have been upheld in Canada, based on concern that unlimited spending will lead to monopolization of debate. The megaphone unlimited money buys can also magnify the harms of low-value speech.

These influences are potentially corrosive to Canadian democracy and the freedom it provides us. The “freedom convoy” has exposed the extent to which the modern environment in which expression takes place is controlled by money and private platforms that are largely self-regulating the activity they support. This raises serious questions about how we should understand the scope of constitutional “free expression” or “freedom to associate” through financing when they take place in these largely private, poorly regulated arenas. The consequences for Canadian democracy can be severe. As a country, we do not currently share the deeply partisan divide of our U.S. neighbour, but we should not be complacent. The “freedom convoy” highlights the need for Canadian governments to get much more serious in addressing these threats to Canada’s democracy.

https://law.queensu.ca/news/Freedom-convoy-good-bad-ugly-constitutional-aspects

Truckers who participated in a cross-country convoy culminating in protest at Parliament Hill this weekend have been duped into believing the convoy was about them.

It never was. It wasn’t about your rights to continue crossing the border unvaccinated. And by the time the convoy rolled through Ontario it had already fully morphed into something much bigger – and more dangerous – than what truckers were ever told.

I raised alarms early in a blog ‘The murky matter of protests and the donations that drive them,’ when I noticed who was behind the convoy. These weren’t truckers organizing a GoFundMe that at the time of that writing had yet to surpass $1 million, on the way to $8.5 million just a week later.

The principal fundraiser was Tamara Lich, the secretary of the federal separatist Maverick Party in Alberta. Prior to that role, she was active with other far-right movements such as Wexit Alberta – a party whose founder advocated for Alberta to separate from Canada and join the Trump-led U.S.

The blog fueled a lot of anger. How dare you question the motives of the organizers? Why don’t you support the revolution? How much money did Trudeau pay you to write such drivel? Take your jab and die.

It also brought a lot of attention to the fundraiser and the people behind it. GoFundMe froze the funds for a time until it was satisfied the money would be disbursed appropriately.

I received many calls from mainstream media outlets, asking me what the protest was about. I couldn’t bring myself to call this a trucker protest. I opined it was an anti-vax, anti-mandate, anti-government, and possibly even pro-separatist movement that’s attached itself to the frustrations of a small segment of the trucker population.

SEE MORE HERE:

https://www.trucknews.com/blogs/the-so-called-freedom-convoy-was-never-about-truckers-or-border-mandates/

How Canada’s ‘freedom convoy’ was overtaken by a radical fringe

The protest of commercial truckers swarming Canada’s capital in Ottawa shows how an issue can quickly be hijacked by extremist groups spouting themes of racism, hatred and violence. The unwritten playbook of successful public protest is to instil widespread awareness through news and social media coverage about a simple and clear issue that poses a direct and immediate threat to people. The issue must have an obvious solution to a glaring unfairness that those in power refuse to acknowledge. This is standard across the vast literature on social movement action. For example, psychologist Bert Klanderman’s The Social Psychology of Protest pointed out that in framing an issue to protest, anger is the emotion “expressed by people who hold external agents responsible for an unwanted situation.” The shorthand to igniting a protest is: fear to anger to leadership to action. In other words, a fearful person often becomes an angry person demanding quick action that is provided through exploitative leadership. Read more: Canada's 'freedom convoy' exposes political missteps — and Donald Trump's ominous legacy There’s no doubt many of the protesting truckers are fearful on many levels. In interviews, they cite fear of losing their livelihoods and having their civil liberties quashed by COVID-19 mandates. This fear has been easily transferred to anger at governments and health agencies. Their solution? End COVID-19 restrictions, not just for truckers, but for all Canadians. The fear and anger made a powerful, volatile brew seeking leadership and visible action — hence the so-called “freedom convoy.” And that’s when it all went wrong.

An amalgam of many forces

Within hours of truckers jamming the streets of Canada’s capital, what rose quickly to the surface like a toxic buoy were images and news stories of protesters waving swastikas, urinating on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, demanding free food from homeless shelters and raising the wrath of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who said:

“I want to be very clear; we are not intimidated by those who hurl insults and abuse at small business workers and steal food from the homeless. We won’t give in to those who fly racist flags. We won’t cave to those who engage in vandalism or dishonour the memory of our veterans. There is no place in our country for threats, violence, or hatred … it needs to stop.”

A large protest can often be an amalgam of many forces with many purposes and agendas. This ecosystem of demands, rage and energy can easily serve as the host to smaller yet powerful groups who — with feverish commitment, organizational skills, resources and experience — hijack the agenda.

These groups are not playing to the general public but to their own narrow audience of supporters, using provocative and sensational actions to gain news and social media coverage and hopefully a few more adherents. They are, upon examination, a grab bag of far-right extremists, anarchists and Donald Trump acolytes.

Exposing an ugly truth

My research and others over the decades on what level of public protest is acceptable to most of us has continually yielded the same result. We accept peaceful protests as an inherent right within democracies. But we also want protests to be orderly, generally not disruptive to our everyday lives, short-lived and non-violent.

For example, the World Values Survey shows that between 2017 and 2020, 29 per cent of Canadians would never attend a “lawful, peaceful protest” but 48 per cent might, depending on the issue. The operative words are peaceful and lawful.

Researchers generally agree that violent events that evoke fear and other strong emotional responses are ingrained and remembered far more by the human brain than more benign, non-violent events. This phenomenon is especially true of public protest actions where the tone of a protest (violent versus non-violent) can quickly sway public opinion from supportive to opposition.

What the “freedom convoy” has succeeded in doing is tear off the protective tissue on “being a Canadian” to expose an ugly truth — that perhaps racism, violent radicalization and disrespect simmers within much of the Canadian psyche, more than we were willing to admit.

https://theconversation.com/how-canadas-freedom-convoy-was-overtaken-by-a-radical-fringe-176111

Freemen, Sovereign Citizens, and the Challenge to Public Order in British Heritage Countries

Movement members believe that they can declare themselves independent of the government and the rule of law, holding that the only "true" law is their own idiosyncratic interpretation of "common law". Freemen on the land also advocate schemes to avoid taxes which they consider to be illegitimate.

Stephen A. Kent: Department of Sociology, University of Alberta, Canada

Throughout the English-speaking world, an extremist antigovernment movement comprising unknown thousands of people and numerous particular groups is rejecting the authority of law enforcement, the courts, and banking. Two such groups that are receiving increased attention from law enforcement and the media are called the Freemen and Sovereign Citizens, and boundaries between these two groups (and several others) are fluid. Sociologically,Freemen and Sovereign Citizens have their origins back with American racist and radical antigovernment movements in the 1960s and 1970s. They gathered greater support during the American farm crisis during the late 1970s and 1980s, and also during an interest-rate crisis in the United States and Canada during the same period.

Psychologically, some members may adopt these groups’ ideologies because of personality disorders that skew the members’ perceptions of self in relation to the world. In any case, because adherents see the state as a corporation with no authority over free citizens, members are belligerent toward any authority figures such as police, judges, park rangers, tax collectors, and court clerks whom they see as state agents. American police have had several deadly exchanges with members, and Canadian courts have issued two long decisions concerning them and their “paper terrorism” tactics (i.e., flooding courts with bogus, Freemen-generated “legal” documents). Variously claiming authority from the Bible, British common law, and international maritime law, Freemen and Sovereign Citizens.

https://skent.ualberta.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Freemen-Internl-J-of-Cultic-Studies.pdf