The right to dissent is a fundamental freedom in Canada. In our own way, we hold it even more dear than do the Americans, who too often view critics of the government as verging on treasonous, especially in times of stress. Meanwhile, we have the tradition of the Loyal Opposition; our MPs may flay the government while remaining clearly in the service of the country.
Vigorous opposition serves us well. Governments must be held to account, and sooner is invariably better than later. And public policy tempered by debate is always stronger in the end.
Of course, debate is not always polite. And it doesn't occur only in our legislatures.
People who feel shut out of government have always been able to take to the street to try to make their voices heard. Sometimes they're successful, as when seniors went to Parliament Hill to protest a proposal by the government of Brian Mulroney to limit their pension benefits.
As with any right, there's a limit to the right to dissent, however. Protesters who don masks and go looking for windows to smash clearly exceed that limit, and can and must be restrained. If they commit crimes, they must face the consequences set out in law.
Still, what's curious is why people who have a serious point to make in an otherwise peaceful protest defend the violent agenda of a few in their midst.
The World Trade Organization has been a flashpoint for dissent for several years now. Self-styled activists have used the internet to mobilize demonstrations whenever trade ministers have met and the Ministerial Meeting in Montreal this week was no exception.
There is obviously room for debate over international trade, even though, in our view, the benefits of free and fair trade are inarguable.
In Montreal, ministers from about 25 of the 146 member nations of the WTO have been wrangling over agricultural subsidies, which are having a devastating affect on attempts to create a fair trading platform for farm commodities. Canada's Trade Minister, Pierre Pettigrew, has been calling on the United States and the European Union to eliminate about $300 million in subsidies that have the effect of lowering prices, which in turn hurts farmers in countries that cannot afford such subsidies.
Some of those countries have threatened to pull out of trade talks because of what they see as the unfettered self-interest of more powerful countries.
This is a real problem that must be resolved if the benefits of trade are to be realized. But what, then is the response of the protesters who claim to be concerned with the plight of the developing world?
"WTO's in town, shut it down!" implores the headline of a press release on one organizing site.
But free speech is only useful if there's a chance it can be heard. Those who set out to win arguments by shouting down their opponents abuse the notion of democracy and condoning violence guarantees their message will not be heard.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. NoNonsense English offers this material non-commercially for research and educational purposes. I believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, i.e. the media service or newspaper which first published the article online and which is indicated at the top of the article unless otherwise specified.