By Michael K. Smith
Guest Writer
Michael K. Smith is a London student currently between colleges.
If Marc Emery didn't appear so serious about his beliefs, he'd be a very funny guy. Emery wrote in the Jan. 20 Speaker's Corner that "breaking the law on principle, through non-violent civil disobedience, is the only way to get rid of bad laws any more." He went on to draw an analogy between Sunday shopping laws and the past year's events in China and Eastern Europe. Apart from some minor points, there is no sensible comparison of these things.
Granted, he means (I think) that he would go to jail for a cause, that he wants to be a role model, and the revolution he seems to be calling for looks like a non-violent one. What is the point? Would it change anything?
And, what form of non-democratic government would preside in Emery's version of Utopia? He cites a litany of heroes in his column, not the least of whom have any relevance to Sunday shopping, if that is indeed his issue.
Among others, he notes that Lech Walesa "broke bad laws impinging on individual freedom." True, but remember, Walesa went to jail because he spoke out repeatedly against a repressive military regime. Walesa and the Polish Solidarity movement demanded free speech and freedom of assembly. They wanted a role in the operation of government, and they demanded free elections.
That sounds suspiciously like they were seeking democracy (a thing Emery calls a "tyranny"). Incredible as it seems, they wanted a democratic form of government.
Walesa went to jail for this, not because Poles were running from democracy, but rushing toward it, and certainly not because he wanted Gdansk shipyard workers shopping on Sunday.
Emery asserts that democracy can be implicated for electing Adolf Hitler. This idea is not only faulty in its logic, but ultimately inaccurate.
While Hitler was elected to the German parliament initially, his rise to dictator had nothing to do with democracy. With the help of his SS troops, he employed intimidating terror tactics to drill fear into the average person, and to the rest of the German population - still reeling in the 1930s from the disastrous effects of the Great Depression and the unreasonable reparation price demanded in the Versailles treaty - Hitler appeared as a veritable savior.
Nevertheless, it is clear Hitler took power - seized it - by suspending the democratic process.
Let's take a reality break and put this thing in its proper perspective. The Sunday shopping issue is important to many people on either side of it, but rather than proposing rational solutions, Emery demands revolution.
Hmmm, I don't know. Perhaps the only way to settle it (since the province has left it to municipalities to decide) is democratically. Put it on a municipal referendum, like those zany people do all the time in California, and let the people decide.
Sunday shopping is not quite in the same league with the ideals that Rev. Martin Luther King, Gandhi and Nelson Mandela fought for. Open stores (or fighting about it) will not feed Ethiopians, house the homeless or save Brazilian rain forests. Going to jail for opening one's store on Sunday is simply not as important nor as noble an act as one person blocking an army tank with his body in Tiananmen Square.
Emery writes: "governments in democracies can get as perverted and reprehensible as dictatorships. At least in a dictatorship, most people know who their enemy is."
Democracy is not perfect, but neither are the people who run democracies, so why should this so disappoint Emery?
What alternative is there to the imperfect democracy? What - in practice, not in theory - works better than democracy?
Benevolent, wise kings such as Solomon are a rare commodity, so we must do the best we can with what we have. A democratic government is the best humanity has been able to devise and, although the process can be painfully slow, at least democracies allow for change. It was because of democracy that Americans were able to peacefully rid themselves of the Nixon regime, "perverted and reprehensible" though it was.
It is rare that the visible enemy known as the dictator is removed from office by anything other than several well-placed bullets. There is considerably less bloodshed when Canadians mark an X on the ballot.
So where does that leave us?
The heart of Emery's argument seems to be he wants to operate his business on Sunday, but he uses that platform to launch on an ambling tirade against the very form of government that allows him to say what he wants to say.
He shares tidbits of intriguing ideas (bizarre, but intriguing), and hints there may exist somewhere a blueprint of the Emery Utopian Society.
If so, let us have a look at it. Until then, persons may accomplish more if they exercise a bit more patience with our imperfect democracy, and if they use their minds rather than hearts to argue their positions.
Recall, Mr. Emery, the Chinese proverb, "be careful of what you wish for, you may get it."
That's something to think about the next time you are on your way to vote.
Page
last updated on April 28, 2002