In February, 2022 a "freedom convoy" of truckers, protesting a new rule requiring truck drivers crossing the Canadian/United States to be vaccinated against COVID-19, blocked city streets in and around the Parliament in Ottawa, Canada. The parked trucks and other makeshift structures effectively impeded traffic throughout the city and has lasted from over a week. Is this a form of legitimate protest? What would Mill say -- and do you agree?
Concerning the “freedom convoy”, Mill would argue against its legitimacy as a form of protest in order to uphold his principle of harm prevention. First, if Mill were to support such a protest, it would contradict his belief that freedom of thought ought to be restricted in cases of harm. In the first chapter, Mill claims that there are three areas of life that should remain unrestricted: freedom of thought, freedom to act on said thought, and freedom to share thoughts with others. However, in concluding this argument, Mill sets a major stipulation that makes these three freedoms acceptable “so long as [they] do not harm [others]” (Mill 12). Furthermore, Mill argues that it is the duty of the government to prevent actions that cause harm to others (Mill 13). In the case of the “freedom convoy,” the blockage of major streets throughout the city would classify as harm in Mill’s opinion insofar as it causes a substantial disruption to life and livelihood. The blockage of major streets in the city can act as a nuisance for first responders trying to quickly navigate city streets in cases of emergency, essential deliveries to businesses such as restaurants that serve the vital purpose of feeding people as well as acting as a source of income for many, and any other examples that may act to thwart everyday life and significantly disrupt livelihood. One stipulation that could sway Mill is whether or not this protest was abrupt or planned. If it was planned, the harm would be substantially mitigated because those who take the occupied roads would be alerted and can adapt, however, there is still a question on whether or not the convoy would damage business on the streets it cut off. Overall, I think that there is enough reason to believe that harm will be caused for Mill to deem it illegitimate, although he would support the right to believe what the convoy believes, as well as, in principle, spread their beliefs. I would likely agree with Mill insofar as protest is it is of the utmost importance to assume fallibility regarding societal needs. Sometimes, protest can be used as a reactionary tool against recent changes, so I would agree with Mill’s principle of assuming fallibility. I would deem it necessary to consider all opinions and arguments before resorting to protest, however, in our political landscape that is likely impossible due to our divisive echo chambers that prevent legitimate discourse. Since this exact example took place during an especially divisive time, on an especially divisive topic, I believe that the harm caused by the freedom convoy is detrimental to society given that anti-vax echo chambers likely never meaningfully interacted with pro-vaxxers. If a protest group were to become as close to infallible as possible, my stance would change given that it must then be assumed that harm caused by the protest is meant to counteract the legitimate harm caused by the government with the hopes of creating a better society.
ReplyDeleteI believe that John Stuart Mill would argue that while the “freedom convoy” has legitimate ideas to protest, its execution actually harms others and therefore could be prevented justly. Throughout his book, Mill makes it very clear that ideas that are controversial cannot be suppressed. He claims, “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind” (18). If we were to look at the freedom convoy using this logic, it would seem that Mill would argue for its protection. The people in the freedom convoy have legitimate opinions and deserve the right to express them regardless of how controversial. However, Mill’s ideas of freedom of opinion comes with an asterisk regarding expression of said opinion. Mill explains, “Acts, of whatever kind, which, without justifiable cause, do harm to others, may be, and in the more important cases absolutely require to be, controlled by the unfavourable sentiments, and, when needful, by the active interference of mankind” (52). Here, Mill explains that any act that unnecessarily harms another can be justifiably suppressed. Understanding this and looking at the freedom convoy once more it becomes obvious that Mill would argue that it could have reasonably been suppressed. The convoy did more than just share ideas. It blocked roads and halted traffic which forced some local businesses to close. Additionally it was a huge nuisance to local residents. These are examples of the freedom convoy’s unnecessary harm, and from John Stuart Mill’s perspective are the reasons why the convoy could have been suppressed and arguably should have been suppressed.
ReplyDeleteIn the opinion of J.S. Mill, the “freedom convoy” protest was not a legitimate form of protest because it caused harm to others. Mill’s general thesis in On Liberty regarding individual freedoms and harm is that one does not have the right to said freedom if the freedom causes harm to general society. While in Chapter 5, Mill explains that the aforementioned, original, premise could be reversed if the action itself causes harm in the short term but much more good in the long term, such as economic competition; regardless, the original premise holds true in this example. The “freedom convoy” blocked streets around the Parliament building in Ottawa which impeded traffic throughout the city, to Mill this would be seen as a short-term harm to society since it doesn’t allow people throughout the city to get to their destination, may impede emergency services (for example: if a person calls an ambulance because their dad is having a heart attack, but the ambulance can’t get to the caller’s location because of blocked roads), and the blocked roads could prevent members of the Canadian government from arriving to work at the Parliament building thus interrupting government functionality. All in all, the “freedom convoy” protest created clear short-term harms to society. Looking in the large term, Mill would not grant this case an exception because the long-term benefits of the protest are not sufficiently warranted. In this case, what are the long-term societal benefits of the protest? Maybe if a substantial amount of truck drivers were unvaccinated for religious or health reasons that the new rule would prevent the majority of trade between the Canada/US border then the protest’s result of abolishing the rule could produce more societal good…That feels too unlikely and relies on too many “ifs” -- IF the majority of truck drivers could not be vaccinated, IF the protests resulted in the revocation of the rule, etc. All in all, the benefits are largely speculative. Thus, Mill would not say the “freedom convoy” protest was not just because it produced more societal harm than benefit. In this scenario, I agree with Mill, but I find his idea of calculating harms and benefits a bit problematic. While I don’t know a better way to measure the general good of a certain protest, I find it very difficult to hash out each benefit and each harm in order to compare them; thus, in my opinion, Mill’s technique is too speculative and leaves too much room for error.
ReplyDeleteWhether an action is right ultimately isn’t dependent on the government’s ability to regulate it. Insofar as legitimate means “conforming to the law or rules” this strike’s legitimacy would be determined by the law of the place it took place and thus have different outcomes based on location and repercussions. In Canada, where the actual strike occurred, under the Emergency Act the government is justified in breaking up the strike. However (as far as I know) there can be no legal repercussions for the truckers. This strike ultimately has a lot of issues up for debate: first off, whether the government can require those crossing the border to be vaccinated; second, whether the truckers had a right to assemble in protest and further whether the protest had the right to infringe on others’ ability to get around; finally, the government’s legal power to break up the strike and whether the strikers ought to face consequences.
ReplyDeleteMill argues that this kind of protest should be legitimate, stating that when a person pursues a goal, they will often “necessarily and legitimately cause pain or loss to others” (Mill 93) as occurred with the Canadian public being prevented from getting places. He believes that competition is inevitable and as this situation pits the interests of the truckers against the interests of the general public, the outcome should be allowed to resolve itself because “whoever is preferred in a contest…reaps benefits from the loss of others” (Mill 94) but should not be legally or morally be held accountable for the benefits they reap, except in the cases of treachery or fraud.
I believe that while it is in the better interest of the majority both for truck drivers to be vaccinated that they don’t block the streets. I’m not sure whether the government is right in forcing their will on the truck drivers, but it would surely be overstepping to charge the truckers. Essentially, the strike itself is legitimate, but not just. As Mills says, many of these “oppositions of interest arise from bad social institutions, but are unavoidable while those institutions last” (Mill 93). As such it’s impossible to prevent situations like the strike from occurring. The most that can be done is to mitigate the damage as much as possible, on behalf of the truck drivers and those whose lives were upset by their protest.