Wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a world where we only had to obey the laws we liked and disregard or flagrantly flout those we didn't? And wouldn't it be nice if, having broken those laws, someone came along afterward and wiped away our criminal record?
Welcome to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's world.
Harper was in Kindersley this week exercising the Royal Prerogative of Mercy to pardon 13 Alberta farmers who defied the Canadian Wheat Board and illegally transported grain across the Canada-U.S. border in the 1990s and early 2000s. "These people were not criminals, they were our fellow citizens, citizens who protested injustice.''
By praising and pardoning scofflaws as "marketing freedom fighters,'' Harper is essentially condoning and counselling Canadians to disobey the laws of the land. In Harper's world, marketing freedom is like any other human right, like freedom of speech and expression, freedom of assembly and association. But is it?
I would argue that marketing freedom - the economic right to market your own grain the way you see fit - is a lower order of human right and freedom.
Why shouldn't farmers or anyone else have the right to sell their own property or produce? The answer is: When it is deemed to be in the public interest to do so, and legislation is duly passed by Parliament to restrict that economic right.
Without recounting the history of the Canadian Wheat Board, suffice to say that the CWB's monopoly on export sales of western grain for human consumption was legislated in 1943 because previous attempts to voluntarily pool grain through the CWB and other pools failed miserably or ended in bankruptcy.
By the way, that restriction on the economic freedom of western farmers continued to be reviewed by Parliament every five years and was never opposed by a majority of MPs - until Bill C-18, which removed the CWB's monopoly on Aug. 1, was passed last December.
Did some farmers disagree with their economic rights being restrained? Absolutely. Did a majority of farmers disagree with the CWB's monopoly powers? We'll never know the exact answer to that question, but the CWB's own plebiscite of nearly 70,000 producers last year indicated that a majority supported the monopoly for both wheat and barley. And since 1998, producers have elected single-desk supporters to the CWB's board of directors at a ratio of fourto-one over its opponents.
Of course, Harper and Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz would argue it doesn't matter whether the majority of farmers support the CWB's single desk or not. It's a question of economic rights. Either you have them or you don't.
That's why the Harper government blithely ignored Section 47.1 of the CWB Act, which calls for a plebiscite of producers before making major changes to the single desk.
If duly passed legislation and the views of the majority don't matter to this government, what does? Well, economic rights, in this case, the freedom to market your own grain.
If that's the case, what's to stop the federal government from giving Canadians the economic freedom to choose their own health care insurance provider (instead of the government, under our single-payer health care system)? What about our economic right to buy basic auto insurance coverage from whatever company we want (rather than SGI, under our single-payer public auto insurance system)?
Some will say that you can't compare universal health care or public auto insurance with a monopoly imposed upon a minority (producers) by the majority (government). If that's the case, why do we have marketing boards for poultry, egg and dairy products, which are provided for by a legislated monopoly given to dairy and chicken farmers?
For obvious political reasons, the Harper government seems less committed to giving farmers in vote rich Ontario and Quebec marketing freedom.
Similarly, will Harper adopt the same enlightened attitude to civil disobedience when it comes to environmentalists protesting pipeline projects or chaining themselves to trees in old-growth forests?
Somehow I can't see Harper using the Royal Prerogative of Mercy to pardon members of Greenpeace or other "environmental terrorists" for their crimes against the state or private property.
After all, rights are a relative thing, aren't they, Mr. Harper.
Original Article
Source: the star phoenix
Author: Bruce Johnstone
Welcome to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's world.
Harper was in Kindersley this week exercising the Royal Prerogative of Mercy to pardon 13 Alberta farmers who defied the Canadian Wheat Board and illegally transported grain across the Canada-U.S. border in the 1990s and early 2000s. "These people were not criminals, they were our fellow citizens, citizens who protested injustice.''
By praising and pardoning scofflaws as "marketing freedom fighters,'' Harper is essentially condoning and counselling Canadians to disobey the laws of the land. In Harper's world, marketing freedom is like any other human right, like freedom of speech and expression, freedom of assembly and association. But is it?
I would argue that marketing freedom - the economic right to market your own grain the way you see fit - is a lower order of human right and freedom.
Why shouldn't farmers or anyone else have the right to sell their own property or produce? The answer is: When it is deemed to be in the public interest to do so, and legislation is duly passed by Parliament to restrict that economic right.
Without recounting the history of the Canadian Wheat Board, suffice to say that the CWB's monopoly on export sales of western grain for human consumption was legislated in 1943 because previous attempts to voluntarily pool grain through the CWB and other pools failed miserably or ended in bankruptcy.
By the way, that restriction on the economic freedom of western farmers continued to be reviewed by Parliament every five years and was never opposed by a majority of MPs - until Bill C-18, which removed the CWB's monopoly on Aug. 1, was passed last December.
Did some farmers disagree with their economic rights being restrained? Absolutely. Did a majority of farmers disagree with the CWB's monopoly powers? We'll never know the exact answer to that question, but the CWB's own plebiscite of nearly 70,000 producers last year indicated that a majority supported the monopoly for both wheat and barley. And since 1998, producers have elected single-desk supporters to the CWB's board of directors at a ratio of fourto-one over its opponents.
Of course, Harper and Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz would argue it doesn't matter whether the majority of farmers support the CWB's single desk or not. It's a question of economic rights. Either you have them or you don't.
That's why the Harper government blithely ignored Section 47.1 of the CWB Act, which calls for a plebiscite of producers before making major changes to the single desk.
If duly passed legislation and the views of the majority don't matter to this government, what does? Well, economic rights, in this case, the freedom to market your own grain.
If that's the case, what's to stop the federal government from giving Canadians the economic freedom to choose their own health care insurance provider (instead of the government, under our single-payer health care system)? What about our economic right to buy basic auto insurance coverage from whatever company we want (rather than SGI, under our single-payer public auto insurance system)?
Some will say that you can't compare universal health care or public auto insurance with a monopoly imposed upon a minority (producers) by the majority (government). If that's the case, why do we have marketing boards for poultry, egg and dairy products, which are provided for by a legislated monopoly given to dairy and chicken farmers?
For obvious political reasons, the Harper government seems less committed to giving farmers in vote rich Ontario and Quebec marketing freedom.
Similarly, will Harper adopt the same enlightened attitude to civil disobedience when it comes to environmentalists protesting pipeline projects or chaining themselves to trees in old-growth forests?
Somehow I can't see Harper using the Royal Prerogative of Mercy to pardon members of Greenpeace or other "environmental terrorists" for their crimes against the state or private property.
After all, rights are a relative thing, aren't they, Mr. Harper.
Original Article
Source: the star phoenix
Author: Bruce Johnstone
No comments:
Post a Comment