Rising selfishness meets constant, growing danger

Opinion

Why do we have a police force?

This is not meant to disparage the Brandon Police Service, or any other police force in particular, but rather an attempt at thought provocation — why does society need to have police? What is the underlying need?

The simple answer is that police exist to enforce the laws of the country, and to provide safety and security to law-abiding citizens. But this answer has itself an innate question, one that pits individual rights and freedoms against the collective good of society.

For example, why are individual citizens not free to burn down their neighbour’s house or steal their property? Again, the simple answer is that society has collectively agreed that stealing is an offence against the public good, even though arresting a perpetrator is arguably a necessary violation of their individual freedoms.

In a perfectly free society, we would be able to do anything we want without legal consequence, but that would be a society without laws — one that would arguably be unjust and unhealthy. As such, over the course of human history, we have placed limits on human freedoms for the good of our community because legal limits are there to protect all of us.

But discussion regarding the body of laws that maintain “peace, order and good government” in Canada continues even today. Law and order advocates often use examples of dangerous reoffenders to call for bail reform, harsher sentences, and the curtailment of judicial oversight and the adoption of mandatory minimum sentences for a variety of crimes.

Proponents of these views fairly argue that the public has a right to be safe from dangerous people who do not follow societal norms. On the other side of this equation are those who stated that democracies like Canada must still balance the need to protect society from criminals with the rights of those accused of crimes.

But questions of collective good and individual rights are hardly limited to concerns over crime and punishment in our society.

We witnessed this same dynamic during the recent COVID-19 pandemic over vaccination and mask mandates that were enacted by government in the belief that individual freedom of movement and choice needed to be temporarily suspended to stop the spread of the disease.

Issues of property rights versus government overreach pop up when we consider how taxes are used to fund public services such as health care, education and infrastructure.

Tensions between proponents of individual liberty and collective good have been rising in recent years, and particularly since the aforementioned pandemic brought into sharp relief what it means to live through a government lockdown.

But the need to balance the good of society with the rights of individuals is as old as human civilization.

The Ancient Greek philosopher Plato — a foundational thinker of Athens — was debating these very questions more than 2,500 years ago. It was Plato’s contention that the needs of the society as a whole were rightfully prioritized over individual freedoms, and that an enlightened “philosopher king” would be best suited to determine what is best for the entire society.

To be fair, Plato’s outdated view of human society was not able to take into account modern democratic norms — and in the Canadian context, those freedoms enshrined in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Plato’s critics — and they are legion — argue that his emphasis on the collective good came at the unnecessary sacrifice of individual happiness and freedom.

Over the centuries, there have been many examples of situations in which individual rights or those of a minority should outweigh the needs of the majority. The right to due process and fair treatment through established rules and principles in our court system is an excellent example of this.

But the rising selfishness of modern society is coming into conflict with the growing dangers of our time. Take the recent decision by the province of Nova Scotia to temporarily ban all hiking, fishing and the use of vehicles like ATVs in wooded areas as it tries to lower the risk of wildfires in what have been extremely dry conditions this summer. The ban includes a $25,000 fine for rule breakers, and a tip line has been created to report violations.

As of Aug. 13, approximately 12 people had been fined thus far for violating the ban.

“It’s certainly my hope that every single one of those is fully prosecuted and collected,” Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston said. “It’s just too serious of a situation by now.”

In response, the Canadian Constitution Foundation — a non-profit group with the self-appointed goal of defending constitutionally protected rights and freedoms of Canadians — called the ban a “dangerous example of ‘safetyism’ and creeping authoritarianism.”

Just yesterday, The Brandon Sun received an email from the CCF announcing that it was suing Nova Scotia over what they termed an “unjustified” travel ban. In addition to the announcement, the organization was asking for donations to its legal fund.

“Governments have fallen in love with the idea of safety above all, and too many Canadians were complacent during the pandemic,” CCF litigation director Christine Van Geyn wrote in her email. “While we don’t oppose reasonable restrictions like bans on campfires, we can’t let them get away with trying to bring back these arbitrary, draconian policies. This fight is worth it, but it is going to be expensive.”

In Manitoba, fire bans often include restrictions on ATVs and other off-road vehicles because of the increased fire risk. And when municipalities deem necessary, such bans can also include all motorized backcountry travel. Few Manitobans would argue that these bans are “draconian,” as many of us in rural Manitoba have seen the damage that an out-of-control grassfire can do.

In considering the Nova Scotia ban, at what point do we say that the push for individual freedoms has gone too far? Is the need for a stroll in the woods greater than the collective need to prevent the spark of a wildfire in a region that is tinderbox dry?

Freedom warriors have a place and time, but when there is a threat of real danger, crusades against understandable government precautions feel quixotic and ill-timed.

I wonder what Plato might have said.

» Matt Goerzen, editor