PHOTO DOMINICK GRAVEL, THE PRESS
Police in downtown Ottawa, February 19
The Emergency Measures Act adopted Monday evening by the Canadian Parliament is an acknowledgment of the general failure of our authorities.
Posted at 5:00 a.m.
It is the demonstration that faced with a new situation, but nevertheless predictable, we got caught with our pants down. We had to smash in panic the glass of the box on which it was written “in case of emergency only” to rush to the fire extinguisher.
This requires significant thought.
True, this fire extinguisher is completely different from the water cannon used by Pierre Elliott Trudeau during the October crisis. With everything we hear these days, it is worth remembering that the army is not deployed in the streets. May the rights and freedoms of citizens continue to prevail. That we do not count hundreds of arbitrary arrests and detentions as in 1970. That any comparison with Russia and China is obviously grotesque.
The current law on the state of emergency, described as one of the most defined in the world by the expert Nomi Claire Lazar, of the University of Ottawa, provides many checks and balances and control mechanisms.
However, what we are currently witnessing is very far from ideal. When the Conservative Party, defender of law and order, joins its voice with that of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to denounce the strong method supported by the Liberals and the New Democrats, you know that the world is not not quite what it was.
This law, unfortunately, creates a new dividing line, a new subject of fiery debate. As if that’s what’s missing right now…
A week ago, the imposition of the Emergency Measures Act came to give an electric shock to the fight against the siege of Ottawa which was getting bogged down. It made it possible to freeze the financing of the demonstrators. To force reluctant towing companies to release trucks. To make the presence of children in demonstrations illegal.
It is indisputable that these decrees have proven to be valuable tools in resolving the crisis. Were they necessary? The investigations that will be carried out will perhaps end up saying so.
Six days later, in any case, it is ironic to see the Liberal Party and the NDP vote for a law that seems less necessary every day. On February 15, the proclamation of a state of emergency cited “continued blockages”, the “disruption of supply chains” and “adverse effects on the Canadian economy”. None of this is true today.
Justin Trudeau and New Democrat Leader Jagmeet Singh said the “threat” still looms, that trucks are still in the Ottawa area, that millions of dollars could once again flow into protesters’ coffers.
It’s true… but it might be for a very long time. And neither leader has been clear on the conditions that will lead to the lifting of the state of emergency.
In the short term, the committee responsible for supervising the application of this emergency law will have to be much more convincing to justify its extension.
In the long term, it is imperative to do an autopsy of this sad episode.
The anger of a minority of citizens unfortunately seems to be there for good.
Police forces will have to learn how to react better.
Our laws will have to be more solid to avoid that we have to reinforce them in urgency and improvisation. The past few weeks have shown how worrying foreign funding of groups with the avowed aim of overthrowing the government can be, for example. It was reassuring on Monday to hear Justin Trudeau talk about permanent legislation on this issue – even if it will have to be done with tact.
Politicians, for their part, would do well to realize that politicizing public anger is an extremely dangerous game.
The ultimate goal: to adapt our ways of doing things and our laws to a new reality in order to maintain a certain social peace. And that the fire extinguisher stays in its box.