Do politicians really want engaged citizens?
While many predicted that this lengthy federal election campaign would not get into full swing until September, candidates and parties have already sought to engage Canadians on a daily basis. We are urged to attend rallies, donate funds and stick signs on our front lawns, announcing to our neighbours which candidates we support, perhaps encouraging them to do the same.
But where does this zest for an engaged citizenry go once the election is over? When their jobs are no longer at stake, do the candidates still care about what we have to say? The same people that craved our engagement may take a different view when signs are not stuck on our lawns but instead mounted in the air in protest — even on the same range of is- sues they asked us to care about (and vote on) pre-election. We only get to vote every few years, but protesting is one way that we can engage in our political system all year long. When we cast our ballots, it’s worth considering whether the names we check will stand up for our right to protest, even when it may not be popular.
As we’ve learned in recent years, our elected politicians may not be quite so enthusiastic about our civic engagement when, instead of candidate names, our placards call for accountability, protection of the environment, consultation with First Nations communities or respect for privacy or due process. While the everyday management of street protests usually falls within the scope of municipal governments and police departments, our federal representatives can and do have significant influence on how protesters are viewed, and how they, in turn, are treated.
Recent revelations that the federal Government Operations Centre (charged with co-ordinating the government’s response to national emergencies and natural disasters) has been monitoring protest activity, paint a picture of a government more suspicious than supportive of an engaged electorate. Coupled with reports that the online activities of high-profile activists have been monitored by government departments and that the RCMP has been doing online undercover work to engage with some activist groups, Canadians have a right to question their candidates about their commitment to civil society and a politically and socially active populace. This is one of the reasons why the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has launched a charter challenge to aspects of the recently passed Anti-Terrorism Act (Bill C-51). Simply put, activists should not be treated like potential terrorists. Further, the movements they foster should be recognized as valuable input to our society, not dangerous rebellion.
By global standards, Canada doesn’t have a “protest culture.” Nevertheless, there are many issues that we care deeply about, and in some cases we are more than willing to take to the streets, raise signs, banners and our voices to ensure we are heard. In recent years we have seen protests against pipelines and fracking, the Idle No More movement and the long-term protests of Occupy. Student protests in Quebec in 2012 became the subject of court injunctions and repression by police forces and municipalities. The massive protests that took place during the Toronto G20 Summit in June 2010 were met with mass arrests and serious violations of civil liberties. Holding police accountable for these events has been extraordinarily difficult, as evidenced by the small (but significant) victory that came this week — five years after the G20 protests — in the finding of Police Superintendent Mark Fenton guilty of discreditable conduct and unnecessary exercise of authority. Otherwise, political accountability for the G20 mess has been non-existent.
The right to protest is protected in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees not only freedom of expression, but also freedom of peaceful assembly and the freedom to associate. These are rights that we should covet and not take for granted. They should figure in our discussions with candidates, in the decision we make on Oct. 19, and, most of all, should be defended by our elected leaders well after the votes are tallied.