Giorgio Agemben wrote about the emergence of the "state of exception" whereby governments temporarily assume or appropriate more power on the declaration of an emergency.
The thinking, so it goes, is to temporarily invoke state power under the guise of protecting national security. Except, what really happens is a new baseline is created establishing a more permanent state of emergency. It becomes a permanent exception.
Think Quebec rolling over its 'state of emergency for two consecutive years' every 10 days.
This creates a doom loop of constant emergencies driven by fear and falling prey to propagandized science.
You're always at war with Eastasia.
Currently, humanity is under a duo onslaught of Covid-19 and 'climate change' perpetual emergencies. The crafters of emergency narratives use the clever ploy of having people they manipulate always look into the future. It's where you hear the need to eat bugs, go full electric and digital ID.
We need to be in a constant state of 'preparedness' (read: paranoia) against future pandemics. Bill Gates - felon turned "philanthropist" - is a big fan of 'preparedness'.
The Trojan Horse to more power.
Climate change, with its origins in specious Malthusian science carving up a cottage industry in its infant stages, has evolved into a dogmatic religious movement completely detached from reality.
The Science (TM) in both cases doesn't adjust to real-world reality.
The state of exception needs both existential threats to sustain itself.
It has nothing to do with science, data, reality, and ultimately, truth.
In fact, we now have a situation where pandemics and climate change are being mischievously linked together into a vicious chimera of what's called 'safetyism' directed by the caring arms of the government.
In our current state, dialogue's rhetoric is being driven by the need to be 'safe'. The best way to ensure safety is through a series of 'preventative' measures which coincide with the application (often misapplication) of the precautionary principle.
In essence, we've witnessed troubling developments that threaten to weaken - possibly permanently - democracy as we've come to understand it in Canada. We've added the idea that obedience and safety are to be treated as values.
As Amegben observed, as others have in history, "....a society that lives in a constant state of emergency cannot be free."
Indeed, that's why the strategy by the powers that be is to attack the concept of freedom as being a threat to the common good.
Stated otherwise, never give up freedom for security. Libertarians warned of the dangers of this thinking in the aftermath of 9/11 when the United States introduced the Patriot Act and with it the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Leviathan grew bigger, badder....but not necessarily stronger. American freedoms were significantly curtailed (it gave birth to TSA) which continues to this day. Worse, what was to defend against terrorist activity has merged with the 'war on pathogens'.
A government that can step in and order and coerce its citizens into a medical procedure is a menacing one and can only exist in a constant state of fear and paranoia.
In Canada, the Prime Minister often asserts it's his job to keep Canadians 'safe'. Except that is not the job of any politician.
This is the nanny-state writ large. It is the height of hubris to assume such a role which can only result in authoritarian policies. The role of the government and law enforcement is to protect the freedoms of Canadians as prescribed in the Charter. To the extent, the Charter has any relevance anymore.
Trudeau's job is to protect the rule of law. Here, we've seen he has failed in spectacular fashion. His government, in its shameless pursuit of ideological ideals, has forsaken the rule of law. It has acted outside it conditioning Canadians - already flippant and weakened after three years of Covid policy tyranny - to accept their masters indulging in hypocrisy and corruption. The complete lack of accountability and transparency has eroded public trust and confidence in the institutions of democracy here. What we have is a "Demockery."
Truckers didn't do this anymore Covid didn't ruin the economy or lead to civil disorder. Our decisions and subsequent policies in reaction to those events did.
Instead, what we have is a government that shamelessly exploits loopholes in the wishy-washy language of the Charter 'reinterpreting' the law in its favor. as it sees fit It's one thing to do it through the normal process of Parliamentary politics, but quite another when it's done in secret behind Cabinet and refusing to disclose their decisions by hiding behind Cabinet privilege Omertà.
This is precisely how authoritarian governments operate.
A politician's ultimate calculus is to maintain power. If that power is threatened, they will seek ways to preserve it. In this case, the Canadian government is cynically preying on the fears of Canadians (largely created by the state and corporate media that relies on state subsidies and corporate sponsorship including the pharmaceutical industry) to preserve its power claiming it's for their safety. As soon as safety doesn't provide the power it needs, it will abandon it. Machiavelli explains all this very well.
Where the United States Constitution is written in absolute and strong terms, the Canadian Charter is a watered-down version of it. Where Americans - ostensibly - have a commitment to the ideals of freedom, Canadians have shown to be fair-weather bystanders too apathetic to defend the tenets in the Charter.
For example. the Notwithstanding Clause, promoted by its supporters as a quintessential example of Canadian cooperation, can be perceived as a cop-out. In the state of exception, we're seeing how a jurisdiction (in this case Quebec to whom this ill-advised clause was designed) can use it. The Legault government has on more than one occasion threatened to invoke it on matters that shouldn't qualify. Like language and immigration.
A state of exception can lead to erosion and eventually fall of pluralistic democracies.
We're in a race to the bottom now and left in irresponsible hands, we can easily find ourselves in a constitutional crisis.
Ultimately, in short, in the U.S., the people have the final say. In Canada, the Charter was written in a way that ensures the government has the final say.
Brian Peckford, the last remaining author of the Charter, may disagree but to me, where the framers failed was to trust future governments to behave in the spirit in which they wrote it. In other words, they didn't account for the messiness of human nature which the Founding Fathers in the U.S. did. The foundational principle for them was that the natural default position of humanity is tyranny and as such a political system should be designed to protect its constant gaze. From there, it takes the 'eternal vigilance' of a free people to protect it and 'nourish the tree of liberty'.
It takes work to be free.
Perhaps down the road, Canada will be forced to revisit the Charter and strengthened its language in defence of free peoples. Indeed, by all accounts, when measured and compared to other constitutions, the Canadian version appears to be shallowest and weakest. But such an endeavour will have to come from the people. At the moment, Canadians seem all too willing to allow the state to take care of and protect them.
They're not ready to nourish the tree of liberty.
And so it is.
Anything qualifies as an emergency now.
During the public hearings into the Emergencies Act, a spin on the 'state of exception' or perhaps an inevitable product of it, we heard how the political classes will handle whatever emergency they claim to be faced with.
Whether from Lametti, or Freehand or Trudeau, we often heard them say 'we had to act quickly'. The laws in place were not adequate to allow them to step in and swiftly save the day. Therefore, they had to rewrite the laws on the fly behind closed doors.
Recently, Freeland reiterated this troubling mindset only this time applying it to climate change.
Action is required immediately to keep up with the United States.
The problem with this thinking is that it claims current laws are too slow to keep up with their narratives.
So they bypass and amend the law without proper Parliamentary oversight or debate on the fly. A good example is how the definition of a vaccine was changed at the CDC after the long-established traditional definition was seen as 'problematic' according to leaked emails or the definition of what qualified as a pandemic changed in 2009 by the W.H.O., this government is eroding public trust in the justice and the law.
Just like banana republics do.
This is the precedent that has been set by this government and it needs to be reversed.
State of exception, in short, means the complete capitulation of liberty.
