There’s such a din in Ottawa you’d think the truckers were back. And in a sense they are, because hearings are finally under way into the federal government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act, and the ratio of noise to sense threatens to be worse than in the original go-round. Which is a pity because what is really called for, here and in public discussion generally, is truth and clarity, not screeching.
Apparently this person was subject to hurtful remarks, a stunning development in politics. But since acts of violence are illegal unless undertaken in self-defence, were these ones reported to the police? Did they even happen? It matters, unless hearsay justifies suspending civil liberties.
On the other side, and in following comments on Twitter I get what I deserve, some people have said the whole thing could have been avoided if the prime minister had just given in to the truckers’ demands. Which, while true, is worse than irrelevant.
In the first place, Canadians have the right to peaceful, law-abiding protest. But it shouldn’t dictate policy. It’s just one way of being heard.
In the second, Canadians do not have the right to violent, law-breaking protest. If crimes were committed, they should have been prevented or punished.
In the third, which is where the story really starts, if there was law-breaking, from parking or noise violations to physical assaults, it does not justify invoking the Emergencies Act unless other forms of law enforcement were non-existent, unavailable, or inadequate.
It is this point, and it alone, that the hearing needs to investigate and clarify. And to suggest that abject surrender would have avoided the need for law enforcement gives the authorities an out they do not deserve by suggesting the choice was mob rule or Emergencies Act, which, if true, is an argument for the latter, not against it.
So never mind whether the trucks were loud or smelly, someone now hears phantom honking, or vaccine mandates were cruel and stupid. Ask only whether any illegality that did occur could have been dealt with by existing police powers.
On honking, the answer is an immediate non-deafening “Yes.” As soon as a private citizen sought an injunction and got one, it more or less ceased.
What about paralysis of the downtown core? I think it matters to establish whether the agitated rhetoric we still hear about a city terrorized, shut down, etc., bears any relationship to reality, because if the Emergencies Act were invoked to clear a siege that wasn’t even happening it would be a gross violation of honesty or sanity. (Some journalists had been tweeting Uber Eats receipts from downtown while I was able to drive to lectures within six blocks of Parliament Hill without even a delay, during an “occupation” that would not impress residents of Ukraine.)
Still, suppose the inquiry establishes that this phantom occupation was real. Then volume two of the story starts, because it must then determine why local authorities didn’t make it stop. Did they lack the legal authority? Did they fail to use that authority? Or did they use it but meet with such massive resistance, passive or active, that they could not accomplish their goals?
On the first point, they clearly had the authority. Despite feeble squawking about uncooperative tow trucks, nothing that has been alleged, from refusal to move vehicles to hidden firearms to arson, is not forbidden by existing laws or bylaws Ottawa police are authorized to enforce.
On the third, the answer is also clear. Ottawa police did not attempt to act vigorously.
Thus, we are down to this issue: Did the federal government have to invoke the Emergencies Act because local authorities could not act, due to an inexplicable collapse of nerve or plausible evidence that acting unaided would have resulted in successful insurrection, not compliance or failed resistance?
Public inquiries have a weird way of going off the rails, especially nowadays, partly because witnesses often seem more concerned with their own feelings and animosities than the truth. So this one should stick firmly to the core question: Were established law enforcement mechanisms to keep or restore peace, order, and good government in Ottawa during the convoy protest demonstrably absent, inaccessible, or insufficient?
If yes, invoking the Emergencies Act was justified and whoever made it necessary, in the convoy or in authority, should face criminal charges. If no, it wasn’t and heads should roll. The rest is, or should be, silence.
