The Shotgun Blog
« Oh, you cute little Keynesians! | Main | Randy Hillier: G20 crackdown reeks of tyranny »
Monday, July 12, 2010
Only McGuinty Can Rationalize Trudeau
What the Dalt said:
In a closed-door meeting with MPPs on Wednesday, McGuinty deflected questions from members unhappy at the heavy-handedness of police in dealing with protesters—and the government’s complicity in failing to correct the mistaken impression officers had been given more powers.
“He told us, ‘Just remember, the same guy who gave us the Charter also gave us the War Measures Act,’” said one startled MPP, noting the premier also refuted calls from several members to strike a public inquiry into the G20 debacle.
Well no. The War Measures Act dates from 1914, five years before Pierre Trudeau was born, so he didn't give us the act. I'm not a big fan of Pierre Le Grande, but I do draw the line at blaming him for an archaic piece of legislation which he inherited. During the October Crisis the WMA was one of the few tools the federal government had at hand. It was replaced the following year by the less draconian Public Order Bill, which in turn was supplanted by the Mulroney-era (and still in force) Emergencies Act. Trudeau was uncomfortable with invoking the WMA but felt, given the time constraints and the uncertainly of the situation in Quebec, that he had little choice. His legendary quip of "just watch me" was typical Trudeau bluster, an attempt to put a brave face on an unpleasant necessity. In point of contrast with the G20 fiasco, only 465 were arrested during the invocation of the WMA in 1970, about half those arrested in Toronto in late June. This is only the beginning of where the Dalt's analogy goes off the rail.
The Front de libération du Québec (FLQ) had by the fall of 1970 been waging a seven year terrorist campaign against the federal government and "capitalism." Mailboxes, military installations, and the Montreal Stock Exchange had been bombed by the FLQ. A loose network of terrorist cells, some of whom had received training from the PLO, the FLQ aimed for an independent and socialist Quebec, and had little patience with the democratic process. It was a revolutionary organization whose members slipped in and out of the nascent - and essentially peaceful - separatist movement of the era.
These weren't kids playing with firecrackers, or unemployable graduate students handing out pamphlets at street corners, they were terrorists aiming at the violent overthrow of the legitimate government of a free country. Despite the best efforts of the RCMP, the extent of the FLQ's size and influence was difficult to ascertain. When the federal cabinet invoked the WMA it did so in the context of the most turbulent decade in Canadian history, and deep uncertainty as to whether the fate of Laporte and Cross was a harbinger of worse to come. Four decades later it is easy enough to condemn the actions of the Trudeau cabinet, but only with the certainty of hindsight.
It also easy enough to project an alternate history, where the cabinet had not invoked the WMA, and proceeded against the kidnappers as an ordinary police investigation. Perhaps Laporte would still have been murdered, and Cross have been released. The crisis might have naturally defused, or the federal government's inaction might have been interpreted as a signal of weakness, that Ottawa no longer had the stomach to defend the elected government of Quebec. October 1970 could have been trip wire to revolution. This all seems fanciful today. But 1970 was not 2010.
The vast differences between the Canada of forty years ago, and the Canada of today, make the Dalt's analogy so absurd. Two weeks ago in Toronto, the police were not facing a sophisticated terrorist network bent on revolution, but semi-organized vandals. Yes, they were dangerous, and yes the police needed to be more aggressive than usual to maintain public order. This does not, however, excuse the brutally clownish behaviour of some police officers, which has come to light since.
A public inquiry is needed. More important than the behaviour of individual officers and commanders, which might be understood as panicked overreactions, is the nature of the communications between the office of the Prime Minister, the Premier and the Chief of Police. What political constraints was Chief Bill Blair operating under that weekend? Was the "five meter" rule a deliberate deception, or merely a miscommunication that was cynically exploited? Individual violations of civil liberties can be dealt with on an individual basis. One crooked cop does not make a force. What the events of late June suggest is systematic abuse. Were these just rogue peace officers, or a rogue government? In his seven years in power Dalton McGuinty has been the teflon Premier, so far unpunished for his blatant lies ("I won't cut your taxes, or raise them.") and petty statism (pit bull bans). His nebbish personality has in some ways protected the premier. With any luck his handling of the G20 summit will wipe off what remains of the teflon.
Posted by Richard Anderson on July 12, 2010 | Permalink
Comments
What has protected McGuinty is the fact that he isn't Mike Harris.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-12 8:29:54 AM
All that the Quebec government needed was a few extra detectives on the case, and an appeal for calm. Instead, Pierre Pinochet suspends human rights and deploys military force against the population. He and his cabinet should have been deposed and put on trial for abuse of power. To invoke Pierre Franco's actions as a defense shows how weak Canadians' grasp of their history is. So long as you people live in this fantasyland about a tolerant, peaceful society, your government will get away with anything. Even the US government is more constrained.
The legal community at least learned something. They met the G-20 issue with equivalent force, unlike the the FLQ "Crisis". First, no suspension of human rights was needed. It is permissible only in the most extreme circumstances - this did not even come close to meeting that criteria, so it wasn't even considered. Second, the authorities responded appropriately to the G-20 rioters who, as it turns out, posed a far greater threat than the FLQ ever did to the population as a whole. The only difference between the two events is one murder and two kidnappings, both of which occur on a daily basis in Toronto. Property can be repaired.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-07-12 9:04:55 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.