Voting for a federal leader and underlying freedoms
One of the hallmarks of Canadian life that immigrants with privilege, including me, find novel and refreshing is the ordinariness of politicians in public spaces, where they walk and talk among us, whether in transit, in malls or in restaurants.
In many of our native countries, top politicians and even ordinary self-important elected buffoons not on anyone’s hit list, travel in armoured convoys, shamelessly holding up traffic for hours.
Treating our politicians as equals here rather than as “VIP” underlines a societal progressiveness. That is why it was particularly jarring to see Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau campaigning on the weekend in Mississauga in a bulletproof vest surrounded by armed men in uniform.
That visual was a symbol that undermined the very concept of personal liberty, of freedom.
Clearly, any ideology that calls for the death of individuals is abhorrent and any party that boasts of such ideologues in its membership deserves no consideration on Monday.
As the vote for a federal leader is upon us, it’s worth exploring what freedom really means and how it underpins policy issues. I’m not here to tell people whom to vote for, but to reflect upon a value we all claim to cherish and consider voting in alignment with it.
In September 2001, mere days after the deadly terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington D.C., the U.S. president had one explanation for the attacks.
“They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other,” George W. Bush said in an address to the country on Sept. 20 that year.
Bush then proceeded to butcher not just freedom in other countries, but dignity and lives as well.
Bush’s words back then and since served as the contemporary clarion call to weaponize the concept of freedom and espouse the very opposite: restriction and exclusion.
Freedom is cited as a reason immigrants come to countries such as Canada.
“They come to Canada precisely because maybe they were a minority in the country they were persecuted,” Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer told me when he visited the Star in September. “And they know Canada is a place where they can come to and be safe. The reason why we’re a diverse country is because of our freedom. And that has to be preserved.”
That is true to some extent. Freedom and safety are closely linked.
I revel in being able to walk Toronto streets at night without undue fear of being attacked, something I cannot do in many countries. But it’s also true that immigrants come from countries that are impoverished and destabilized by European colonialism and western capitalist disruptions (think Canadian mining companies).
Of course, any freedoms we claim must co-exist with the fact of Canada being premised on the restriction and exclusion of Indigenous peoples. Of safety being based on the surveillance and incarceration of Black lives, both evidenced by disproportionate representation in disciplinary actions all the way from schools to the criminal justice system.
The logic around freedom can be inconsistent in other ways. “They” come here because they love our freedoms. “They” attack us because they hate our freedoms. That should make “them” — those that are here or want to come here — one of “us,” but it doesn’t.
When that pride in freedom creates an exclusionary national identity and starts to demand adherence, it snips away at the integrity of what freedom stands for.
Any party’s platform that alludes to Canadian values rather than universal values of peace, equal rights, human dignity etc. is antithetical to freedom.
There are a few other freedoms worth considering.
The freedom to breathe cleanly: Pretty much everything else, including GDP growth, has to be negotiable for Canada to achieve this. Any party that doesn’t have a clear pathway to cutting carbon emissions with identifiable targets isn’t serious about countering climate change.
Freedom of movement: Any platform that speaks of restricting people from seeking safety and looks with suspicion at those who commit the crime of being poor isn’t aligned with individual liberty.
A platform that promises to increase penalties or be “tough on crime” is simply promising to put more Black and brown bodies behind bars. Imprisonment is a Band-Aid on a deep wound. Platforms that promise to invest in housing, child care and education at least try to address root issues that could free people trapped in the margins.
Freedom of religion: Freedom to express religiosity so long as it’s not Islamic or one that is too visible by western norms of expression is not freedom. Any party that supports Quebec’s Bill 21 that bans people from wearing religious symbols in certain public sector jobs is out of touch with the idea of civil liberties.
Freedom of choice: Party leaders and platforms that are unable to wholeheartedly support women and transfolks’ bodily choices including but not limited to what to wear, whom to have sex with, whether or not to give birth or whether or not to change their sex, do not support freedom.
In the end, the question is: Do we vote for self-interest, or for the greater good? Voting for real freedom does both.