I had been wrestling with the idea of starting a project like this for several months, when an event that garnered unwanted world-wide attention for the City of Vancouver started a series of events that finally pushed me to begin it. The events themselves were fairly innocuous compared to the ones that led to the final birth of this blog; they were proverbial icing on a cake that had been baked already by events far worse than the ones that finally got me writing. In reality, this final straw was rather a minor affair compared to the several events preceding it.
The event mentioned that brought unwanted attention was of course, the riots which came after the Vancouver Canucks were defeated by the Boston Bruins in the Final of the Stanley Cup. Shortly after the riots, the Vancouver Courier published a story which was carried by the two larger Vancouver papers, The Sun and the Province, which revealed that the mayor of Vancouver lied about the use of surveillance cameras during the ensuing riots. The link to the original article can be found here:
At first brush, this is just another example of typical Vancouver incompetence, or worse, cover-up. The mayor is quoted on May the 31st saying that “there’s no plan to use surveillance cameras.” The riots however, would occur 15 days later. Having to shift positions within two weeks—the riots were June 15, clearly the request to use them had to have been made prior to that—at worst shows poor foresight on the part of Vancouver’s City Hall (something that no one who follows Vancouver politics can find even slightly surprising), or, a willful deception on the part of the mayor. This in and of itself was disturbing (given the ensuing riots, whatever justification the VPD felt for calling for the use of the cameras is surely questionable; obviously, they did nothing to prevent the lunacy which followed). Clearly, the mayor was either a) incompetent for not anticipating at least the possibility of riots (given the past riots in Vancouver as well as other Canadian cities during their Stanley Cup runs), or b) if he did have a clue, he was dishonest.
While there have been far worse government and police scandals than this one, what I found especially disturbing was the reaction of several people I talked to about the issue of their government—an institution which in (utopian it seems) theory is supposedly accountable to them—being deceitful towards them. In discussing this with several friends—most of whom are educated professionals—the typical response was a collective shrug of the shoulders that spoke of resignation to governmental deceit, and worse, the complete acceptance of it. There was a unanimous feeling in everyone that I talked to that this was just business as usual. Perhaps the saddest response I got was from what may have also been the most thoughtful answer I heard or read. A friend informed me that you couldn’t really use the term “lie” to describe the mayor’s initial statement, because he was only using the “double-speak” that the majority of the politicians use.
This apathy and acceptance has been the fuel which the ever-turning engine of government has used to erode of our civil liberty, or what has passed for it here in Canada. We have gradually accepted that governments lie to us; and while we find it disagreeable, we seldom do anything much about it, in fact, much like my friend, we explain it away as expected behaviour.
I have come to think that there are two reasons for this. The first is that it is likely because we think it irrelevant who or which party governs us, the outcome will be the same: government lies, and there is nothing to be done. We likely haven’t yet subscribed in theory to Plato’s Noble Lie inasmuch as we understand that politicians are not lying for our good as Plato glamorized, but rather to benefit themselves and their own images; yet, for all practical purposes, we have allowed ourselves to be governed by those who practice it without holding them into account.
The second is more troubling to me. Governments rarely do things in monumental leaps. This is especially true if they fear that what they are doing may be unpopular, and they would inevitably face large backlash from their constituents. I am concerned that what has happened in our country has been a long, gradual process that has seen every generation lose some of the freedom that the one previous to it possessed.
The government goes about this by first informing us that our safety is at risk if we don’t allow them to do whatever it is that they are currently about to undertake. I can think of no better recent example of this than the recent push by the Federal Government to expand it’s telecommunication and internet surveillance laws (for more info, go to OpenMedia.ca). The government has wrapped this assault of our privacy using the most time-honed technique it has ever drawn upon: mass fear propagation. If we don’t pass this bill, terrorists are lurking at our doorsteps; the Canadian equivalent of 9-11 awaits us. And of course, your children are the ones most at risk: internet snooping will surely find the pedophiles in your neighbourhood…that’s right, YOUR neighbourhood! If this bill doesn’t become law QUICKLY, then your children are at risk…it’s only by the grace of God that they haven’t been duly abducted and raped already.
The absurdity of this ploy should be easy to spot; unfortunately, the only thing that can be easily surmised is that this Orwellian tactic has been astonishingly successful, and even recently sold wonderfully by our current Prime Minister when he gave us his own spin on Benjamin Franklin’s timeless quote on liberty and freedom by asserting that Canadians would “rather give up a little freedom for more safety.” (Franklin: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”). The problem is, Mr. Harper—like each of his predecessors, regardless of political affiliation—never really stops to let us know what his evermore authoritarian government is saving us from in any credible way. We know there are bogeymen out there and they are coming for us; the fact that they have not yet consumed us is only because we have heeded the call to be protected. The problem is, the more we “get protected” the more one tends to fear that the “protectors” are the real bogeymen themselves.
It’s my conviction that as Canadians, we have a limited concept of liberty—and therefore, aren’t even aware of our lack of it—despite in theory being a “free country.” And I believe that one of the main reasons is that too often people like me have seen our potential contributions as being too insignificant to make a difference. I have no delusions of grandeur; just the opposite actually. I may just be writing to appease my own conscience. However, I feel compelled to say something, if only for that conscience’s sake. Whenever I read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, despite any points on which I may disagree, I feel I am reading one of the great documents of a free society; whenever I read the news or observe current events in Canada, I am sickened by the contrast. And when I discuss it with my friends, I am ultimately saddened by the defeatist apathy.
I want it to change. Welcome to my blog.
