Power Trip
By: Ian McKerracher, FBB Speaker
In 1887, there was a fellow whose name was John Dalberg-Acton (1834-1902). Better known as Lord Acton, he was an English Catholic historian, politician, and writer. As a Catholic, he was busy doing his best to live and serve as a Christian in the world in which he found himself. He actively participated in the debates his church was engaged in, particularly the ideas surrounding the infallibility of the pope, which Lord Acton strongly opposed. His Christian worldview was such that, however great or wonderful the person or however high and holy the office, trusting in a human being without accountability, was a bad idea. He argued that when the pope was considered infallible, he could make up his own moral rules based on his own moral standards. In a letter to an Anglican Archbishop, Mandell Creighton, Lord Acton penned the immortal words, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The letter was part of a continuing correspondence between the two men on the subject, in which the Anglican Archbishop attempted to defend the actions of historical Catholic popes and the Catholic lord filled his letters arguing against moral relativism and in favour of universal moral standards as directed by the guiding influence of God. Anchored in his Christian worldview, Lord Acton’s thinking on this issue was not a small sidebar but was woven into the fabric of his life. The particular letter which contains the quote can be read here. You can read more about this debate in an article that can be found here.
What does the scribing of a letter 150 years ago have to do with us in Canada in 2022? Here and now, we are coming to (hopefully) a tailing-off of what has been called a pandemic. I want to set aside any arguments about whether the handling of the pandemic by the powers-that-be was handled well. The central point that I want to make in this article is about the exercise of power and how a Christian worldview informs how we should think about the essential elements of power.
These questions were forced onto my consciousness by the recent calling of the Emergency Measures Act by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. As you know, the nation was locked down and the economy stalled by political edict, as the narrative was presented to us, in order to prevent a widespread rise in the death rate from a virus called Covid 19. The imposition of these Covid measures was to be for a short time so that the health services of the provinces would not be overwhelmed.
I was, at first, cautious towards the Covid 19 virus, believing that it was as deadly as the World Health Organization was saying. I gave the government the benefit of the doubt and followed all their recommendations to the letter, especially in light of having a wife who is immune-compromised. I even had friends who passed away, ostensibly from Covid, though they had comorbidities. Therefore, I do not put aside the fact that Covid is deadly. Yet there was troubling information, published by knowledgeable people in the appropriate field, that countered the assertions the government used to justify their lockdowns. I expected that the government, probably sooner than later, would provide the extraordinary justifications that are required to support the extraordinary surrender of our freedoms in a free-and-open democracy. I needed more than the government saying that we are to just, “trust them” and their view of “the science.” So, I waited.
After almost two years, the justifications were no closer to being released than at the start. The question was raised time and again asking the government to respond to the flurry of stated science that countered the government’s assertions. One was The Great Barrington Declaration, started by three scientists from prestigious universities in the States. See here for the background. When the Prime Minister invoked the Emergency Measures Act, it was his confession that the justifications were not going to be provided. The invocation of the Emergency Measures Act was to quash the popular uprising that started with truckers who resisted forced vaccinations. They were joined by a significant number of Canadians who stood against extending the timeframe of this and other Covid measures. This sentiment was carried on the backs of trucks, both large and small, and delivered to the political center of Canada, all the way to the capital city of Ottawa. There, trucks filled the streets with peaceful protesters who were having a party and annoying the people of the city just by their presence.
Setting aside the fact that the government-backed down just two days after invoking the Act when they vigorously defended it in a Parliamentary vote, what does the invocation of the Emergency Measures Act say about the structure of power in the country of Canada? Was it warranted? There are many who say yes and many who say no. The deciding factor which built the social wall between these two camps is the very same one that Lord Acton argued against. One camp believes all the missives and media that has emanated from the State. The other camp no longer trusts that the State has their best interest in mind. It matters little if the relationship between power and authority is ecclesiastic or political. The same pressures apply. The same question is raised in both jurisdictions: Do those in power need a justification to act or can the person in power be trusted without any justification?
Remembering Lord Acton’s insight, the sacred trust of the powerful needs legislation to ensure that corruption doesn’t happen. In Canada, that legislation is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In a statement, the Prime Minister said that “We’re not using the Emergencies Act to call in the military. We’re not suspending fundamental rights or overriding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are not limiting people’s freedom of speech. We are not limiting freedom of peaceful assembly. We are not preventing people from exercising their right to protest legally,” he told reporters. This was said as the Emergencies Act did the opposite. Police squashed protesters’ right to share their beliefs. Freedom of Speech seemed limited only to people who agreed with the government which unilaterally declared that the trucker’s protest was illegal. Trudeau even labelled them an extremist minority and refused to meet with the protest leaders.
In their imposition of the Emergency measures towards the protesters, the government revealed their real attitude towards anyone who may think differently from them. Whatever your stand on the vaccines and Covid restrictions, this should concern all Canadians. The almost casual way the government set aside the rights of dissenters is an egregious action, not only against the trucker protesters but against all the people of Canada. They didn’t even wait for the Emergencies Act legislation to be confirmed by the Senate before they acted. This would have provided more accountability for their decision. This was a serious breach of the relationship between the government and the governed.
In a democracy, the authority to exercise power is part and parcel of the social structures that uphold the continuance of peace and safety. Those with power require an investiture of authority for the purpose of providing an essential service to the people. In a democracy, it is the people, the governed, who give that authority to the government to provide a guiding hand in the furtherance of the nation. We allow for a small bit of our God-given freedom to be used so that the friction between countervailing rights can be lubricated. Certainly, the truckers’ protest was disruptive to those living in downtown Ottawa. However, many levels of government had legislative tools already in place to deal with the need to balance the truckers’ freedom of speech with the Ottawa citizens’ right to live in a peaceful community. Imposing the Emergencies Act, which has never been used before and is supposed to be used for real emergencies such as war, means the government is willing to remove the fundamental rights of Canadians when those Canadians hold views contrary to the government. This is a dangerous precedent.
Freedom is a gift from God to humanity, and it is He who legitimizes the authority through which the power is exercised. The freedoms under which the people of Canada live are not something that is bestowed upon us by a benevolent government. They are ours regardless of who is in power. The government’s power is supposed to protect these rights as a sacred trust, not administer these rights as they see fit.
The Liberals in power in Ottawa, right now, have engaged in an exercise that presents an illegitimate use of power. Instead of engaging in a dialogue with the dissenters of their program, they used a sledgehammer Act to quash the voices opposed to them. This is not the way the system is supposed to work. It bodes ill the next time there are people who disagree with them. If the government is allowed to set aside the rights of a few, we can anticipate in time that others will lose their rights. The Charter is supposed to prevent that.
Christians must act to protect these fundamental rights and Lord Acton’s insights should inform our thinking right now. Start with writing a letter, Lord Acton-like, to the Prime Minister’s Office, telling him about the need to protect fundamental rights. Write other letters to the Governor-General and to your Member of Parliament. Make your voice be heard so that the foundations of freedom can be assured for our children. If we let this slide, the government will find other circumstances to exercise themselves against Canadians and other uses of heavy-hitting legislation setting aside our rights and freedoms. That, Lord Acton and I can promise.