Joe Oliver: Civil Liberties Depend on Public Support and Vigilance
Canadians take immense pride in their nation's strong tradition of human rights, which is deeply embedded within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, a critical question arises: why have citizens tolerated the antisemitism witnessed since October 7, 2023? This paradox highlights a broader issue where public support or acquiescence has historically enabled rights violations against unpopular or marginalized groups.
The Gap Between Pride and Practice
Over the past century, Canada has experienced numerous instances where minority protections were eroded, often with at least the tacit approval—and sometimes active backing—of the public. This occurs when targeted communities are perceived as threatening, politically marginal, or simply unpopular. The cognitive dissonance between self-congratulatory national pride and the acceptance of intolerance during times of fear or indifference creates a fundamental vulnerability.
Government and public pressures can combine to dismantle safeguards and undermine fundamental rights. Unfortunately, many commentators and civil libertarians become ensnared in social contagion, remaining silent when their voices are most needed to defend liberties.
Recent Court Rulings and Public Reaction
Last month, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld a lower-court decision that the Trudeau government lacked reasonable grounds to declare the "Freedom Convoy" a national emergency. Consequently, the invocation of the Emergencies Act was deemed unlawful. The court further found that measures implemented under the act, including financial surveillance and the freezing of bank accounts, infringed upon freedom of expression and protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
It is telling that this ruling has not provoked widespread outrage over human rights violations. Neither the governments nor officials involved have faced significant political or reputational consequences. The likely explanation is that most Canadians, including academics and journalists, supported these extraordinary measures against a disruptive group inaccurately portrayed as extremist.
Historical Precedents of Rights Erosion
The invocation of the War Measures Act during the 1970 October Crisis serves as another stark example. Civil liberties were suspended, leading to 405 arrests and detentions without charge—many involving individuals with no connection to terrorism or violence. While the FLQ had kidnapped two people, killing one, the scale of repression far exceeded the actual threat, which hardly constituted the "apprehended insurrection" claimed by Pierre Trudeau's government.
Policing Powers and Civil Liberties
Other violations have been linked to policing powers rather than emergency legislation. At the 2010 G20 summit in Toronto, 1,118 people were arrested, with nearly 800 released without charge. This group included journalists, bystanders, and peaceful demonstrators, marking the largest mass arrest in Canadian history. Civil liberties organizations reported arbitrary searches, denial of timely access to legal counsel, and indiscriminate detention.
Several years earlier, in the aftermath of 9/11, non-citizens were detained for extended periods under security certificates based on secret evidence. The Supreme Court eventually ruled aspects of this regime unconstitutional, necessitating legislative reforms.
To strengthen our nation, Canadians must heed their better angels and remain vigilant in safeguarding the rights and freedoms of all individuals. Public support and unwavering vigilance are essential to prevent the erosion of civil liberties during times of crisis or social unrest.
