Sometimes I wonder what is happening to us in this new era of populism, where freedom is being redefined and cancel culture, disinformation and even fake news are rampant.
In my view, the tipping point was the recent COVID-19 pandemic where individual freedoms were in some ways trumped by government control in the national interest. Many Canadians objected to this especially when it came to vaccines, mask mandates, and freedom of movement. This resulted in a serious challenge of scientific credibility, the emergence of conspiracy theories, and to a significant extent civil unrest.
Freedom, as noted in a recent Toronto Star article, has become weaponized. There is now a real tug of war between those who believe in extensive individual freedom and those that feel the government should control many parts of our lives.
I am one who believes that government has a clear mandate to act in the public interest and at times, that restricts individual freedoms. We do not have the right to commit murder or harm others either physically or through the spread of disease. We do not have the right to discriminate against others or to restrict their fundamental rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
But I am also one who believes that government can not be, and should not be, all things to all people. Individuals should have as much freedom as possible to control their own lives and make their own decisions. They should have the freedom to succeed and yes, the freedom to fail. And I certainly agree with former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s well-known declaration that “government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.”
I do find it somewhat alarming that freedom has become politicized to the extent that it has. It has become a rallying cry for those who oppose the government and enabled actions and behaviours that would not have previously been tolerated.
Every time I see one of those Fxxxk Trudeau flags I shudder, not because I have any love for Justin Trudeau but because it is a desecration of our national flag and a total lack of respect for our democratic institutions, including the office of Prime Minister.
I also have a problem with governments that cater to populism such as Quebec’s thinly veiled Islamophobic legislation banning so-called religious apparel for people in public service. This is pure discrimination, likely popular with many people, but still, fundamentally wrong. Equally wrong is the failure of the Trudeau Government to confront it, even though they have the tools to do it.
Another concern I have in this regard is the apparent movement to dilute the sanctity of life. We already have legislation allowing consenting adults facing terminal illnesses to access medically assisted dying. This is actually no more or no less than assisted suicide. Now, however, politicians are contemplating allowing this for people who suffer from mental illness, and young children. I have some trouble with the existing legislation related to assisted dying but, allowing it to be accessed by people unable to give informed consent is, for me, a bridge too far, populism notwithstanding.
On the other hand, I have trouble with politicians who want to control what we can say, write or read within the boundaries of hate speech and libel or defamation laws.
Recently, Leah Gazan, an NDP member of Parliament, advocated legislation to combat Indigenous “Residential school denialism”. At first blush, this may seem reasonable given that much of the history of residential schools is tragic, but to make it a criminal offence to have reasonable discussions about this part of our heritage is an assault on the freedom of speech. If it can be used here, it can be used in other places where activists or governments alike can decide there are issues on which we should not be allowed to have an opinion or an ability to express them.
Of course, the evolution of the Internet has had an incredible effect on fake news and disinformation resulting in heated discussions about whether it should be controlled. In my view, some regulation is necessary just as it is today with radio and television being accountable to the CRTC.
However, we must ensure that government does not morph this regulation into the censorship of opinions, news reporting, and the freedom of expression by individuals. At least one government minister has associated controlling the internet in a manner compatible with government policy. The thought of that is appalling.
There is also talk about introducing legislation to ban Internet access to children under, I believe, 10 years of age. While I understand the concern about this, such a move would also ban online learning. As well, I question whether this kind of legislation is really the role of government. Government should not take the place of parents whose responsibility it is to decide what is good for their children.
And so, I ask, what is the real meaning of freedom? How much control should government have over our lives and what should be the proper balance? Whether we like it or not, that is a fundamental question in our public discourse these days.
Freedom today, in my view, is a moving target. We need to be very clear about where we stand.
Hugh Mackenzie
Hugh Mackenzie has held elected office as a trustee on the Muskoka Board of Education, a Huntsville councillor, a District councillor, and mayor of Huntsville. He has also served as chairman of the District of Muskoka and as chief of staff to former premier of Ontario, Frank Miller.
Hugh has also served on a number of provincial, federal and local boards, including chair of the Ontario Health Disciplines Board, vice-chair of the Ontario Family Health Network, vice-chair of the Ontario Election Finance Commission, and board member of Roy Thomson Hall, the National Theatre School of Canada, and the Anglican Church of Canada. Locally, he has served as president of the Huntsville Rotary Club, chair of Huntsville District Memorial Hospital, chair of the Huntsville Hospital Foundation, president of Huntsville Festival of the Arts, and board member of Community Living Huntsville.
In business, Hugh Mackenzie has a background in radio and newspaper publishing. He was also a founding partner and CEO of Enterprise Canada, a national public affairs and strategic communications firm established in 1986.
Currently, Hugh is president of C3 Digital Media Inc., the parent company of Doppler Online, and he enjoys writing commentary for Huntsville Doppler.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox so you don’t miss anything!
Click here to support local news
Can’t find much to object to in this commentary.
Is anyone really trying to deny the existence, purpose, operation and consequences of residential schools?
On freedoms things get messy. As citizens we may enjoy the right not to fight in wars, or be exempted from mandated health programs , but we are breaking laws when we refuse to use seatbelts , to cite an example.
On a lighter but still relevant note we now see the works of Raold Dahl being updated to iron out elements of his acerbic wit! Who’ll get the lucky ticket next?
I don’t always agree with your opinions but this time Hugh I think your comments are well worth pondering. There are many seeming contradictions people have to deal with, it is not an easy time for those with an open and inquiring mind. Example: I consider myself ‘pro-life’, yet I do not believe anyone (governments or medical bodies) have any business telling a woman what she can or can not do with her body. Are there contradictions there, yes. Many. Including mental competency and intentional self harm.
I am vax free, yet I believe people have the right to choose. The only problem I have with vax choice is that not all the facts are clearly stated, like detailed contents of the vax and long term effects, so people are mostly choosing in the dark.
I don’t think the intent of this life is for things to be easy. Recently Elon Musk posted a comment (from memory) “~I do the things I do because I thought they would be easy, boy was I wrong” LOL. https://twitter.com/elonmusk
Very good article Hugh. I agree with all of your comments, and Gordon Middleton really nails it. The Internet should be a positive force but it is pretty clear that the rise of misinformation and abuse on the Internet, and now even mental illness, runs parallel with the rise of so-called social media, some of which is anything but social. Its also pretty clear that the social media owners are going to fight anything that interferes with the obscene profits they make from exploiting other people’s information. Its a tricky balance but every day, humans prove that the only thing worse than too much regulation is too little regulation. Humans are capable of doing horrible things to each other and to OUR collective environment. The government is trying to pass some basic common sense regulation of social media and it is in the interest of all parties to help with that.
In the Locke Foundation artwork at the beginning of this commentary, I wonder what is hidden in the glare at the end of the ‘Freedom Road’. Is it freedom?
Gord Middleton points out that total freedom is anarchy. I agree and add that, what we call freedom is a nebulous ideal. Like truth, it isn’t the same thing for all people.
Hugh Mackenzie notes that in certain instances, government has mandate to, and has, restricted or suspended certain rights and freedoms. They have to have such a mandate, and the governments of Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill and Pierre Trudeau, have used it. Other governments have used it too, but maybe not in the attempt to preserve the idea of freedom.
For me the greatest threat to our ‘freedom’ is the obvious disregard for honesty. In an individual it is sometimes ignored or overlooked. But when honesty becomes the omission of the herd, it becomes a threat. Indigenous peoples knew you could stampede a herd over a cliff.
Nowadays there is a good number of people who believe the laws of the land don’t apply to them. To others maybe; but not to them. They claim for themselves the freedom to ignore inconvenient laws.
It has become prevalent in politics. Our politicians are our lawmakers; we hear of our being ‘a nation of laws’. And how many times have you heard a politico make a pronouncement, and been ‘double ,dirty- dog, certain’ that what you just heard said, was pure crap?
The apex of this, must be the ludicrous duty of ‘Integrity Commissioner’. The country is being lied to and now, this poor individual is to make a declaration. “One lied. The other swore to it.” Just love those old adages. But can you fault the man when he was certainly been lied to himself. And even when said commissioner does find fault, there is no real consequence.
The freedom to be dishonest leaves our ‘nation of laws’ at risk.
Well said Gordon: agreed!
“Freedom” is the standard for many protests; hardly specific! Bumper stickers on vehicles, banners hanging from highway overpasses, and flying flags everywhere all assert that freedom should be maintained. But freedom to do what, exactly?
Whether it’s a freedom to refuse vaccines without the consequence of reduced mobility during a pandemic, or a freedom to either adopt or refuse to accept a pronoun preference, a freedom to own or carry certain varieties of firearm, freedom to practice a religion, a freedom from religion, or a freedom to do/have/say whatever, any protest under the banner of “freedom” needs to be specific.
There is no such thing as pure freedom. That’s anarchy! What we do have is a civil discourse that weighs the arguments of one factor over another, with the majority and the most sensible usually winning. We’re not always going to have it our way.
The response to this, if we feel strongly enough about our unpopular viewpoint, would be to continue to find ways to validate those views and present supporting evidence in the ongoing forum of civil discourse. That’s one freedom we have and one I’ll protest if it’s ever compromised.
Remember the “Freedom Convoy?” As far as I know it was a group of truckers upset about not being able to cross the border if they weren’t vaxxed for covid. That’s about the gist of it and I could be wrong. If I am wrong it’s because the specific reasons for that protest weren’t formally itemized (not formally enough for mainstream media to present, at least). Millions of Canadians watched these events unfold in Ottawa and were left with their own assumptions as to “why?” Many of us wondered if anyone waving a flag for “freedom” might actually be blowing a dog whistle to attract attention to more sinister views.
Freedom is an ideal – a hazy, blurry picture that means different things to different people. Protesting against a lack of freedom is pointless without telling us EXACTLY what you want (and why everyone else should want it). It is a mindless, foot-stomping tantrum. “Freedom” is an idea that can be used to fill the heads of people who are unable or unwilling to coherently eloquize WHY their specific beliefs should trump those of the majority.
Without a succinct thesis and supporting arguments, “I want my freedom,” is lazy belly aching at best. At worst, it’s ignorant of the majority’s best interest and a socially divisive practice. You’re free to put that on a flag and wave it, but it shouldn’t be necessary.
And as long as Canadians struggle to meet one another half way we can expect government to interfere in many more matters. Those who truly want freedom from authoritarianism will work harder to promote open and civil debate within their own communities. The “Freedom Fighter” whose only argument is “I’m right, you’re wrong” should expect official interference at every turn.