Please Everyone Take Note: Teachers are PRO Democracy
Since dictatorship, tyranny, oligarchy, monarchy, fascism, communism, anarchy, etc. have been dragged through the mud in the last couple centuries or so, contemporary public opinion in Ontario is very much in favour of democracy (and deservedly so!). Because everyone finds the concept of democracy so agreeable, if you can define your side as the pro-democracy side of an argument then your opponent must be anti-democratic and you win.
Hence the various public sector teachers unions in Ontario using this sign in the latest round of their endless P.R. battle/collective bargaining struggle with the provincial government:
The teachers are actually protesting Bill 155 which legislates wage freezes for them but they are trying to brand themselves as fighting for democracy, not for more money. I find their attempt to reframe the argument rather ridiculous.
Fundamental Freedoms
When the teachers claim that their democratic rights are being interfered with, I think what they are really trying to say (and I hate to put words in their mouth) is that their fundamental freedoms enumerated in section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are being affected. You see, the Canadian constitution says "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:"
The authors of the Charter labelled those rights "fundamental freedoms" because they are critical for freedom generally, not just for democratic freedom. Democratic rights and freedoms are separate but related concepts. Indeed, the following section of the Charter is titled "Democratic Rights" and it contains much more specific rights like the right to vote and the 5-year limit between elections.
HOWEVER, even though the four fundamental freedoms listed above are very important for those who wish to participate in the democratic process, that doesn't mean every use of those freedoms is for democratic purposes. For example, if you associated with others for the purpose of committing a coup then fundamental freedom (d) which protects association wouldn't protect you from a treason conviction because there are limits even to the fundamental freedoms. Those limits are found in part by considering whether the exercise of the right or freedom in question fits with the reason we have them, i.e. by interpreting the freedom in light of its purpose of promoting democratic participation and other good things. A coup overthrowing a democratic government, as in my example, clearly wouldn't meet that standard.
Traditionally, judges have used the freedom of association principle to thwart an employer's anti-union activity, so from a constitutional law perspective a bill that strikes at unions can certainly be tied back to the freedom of association that the teachers want to label a "democratic right." But that's a tenuous connection. The fundamental freedom of association was not enshrined in the Charter to strengthen the bargaining position of public sector unions and it is not labelled a democratic right.
When teachers unions claim that a bill that circumscribes their opportunity to bargain collectively is an attack on their democratic rights it's not really accurate even though the freedom to associate is important for democracy and teachers ultimately rely on that same freedom to collectively bargain. Their complaint is akin to a tobacco company claiming that legislation circumscribing cigarette ads is an attack on democracy because it limits freedom of expression, which happens to be fundamental freedom (a). We don't say that legislation outlawing cigarette ads is an a threat to democratic rights because such a law has nothing to do with democracy. Instead, we accept such limits in a free and democratic society in large part because the intention behind the tobacco company's use of the freedom in question is so far removed from its proper application as a force field guarding the marketplace of ideas' special brand of commerce.
What IS Democracy?
Here's what wikipedia says it is and I'd say good ole wikipedia has a handle on it:
Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows eligible citizens to participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws.Since Bill 155 was passed by the people's representatives in Queen's Park, it must be the most democratic part of this whole boondoggle, based on that definition. Unless our MPPs weren't actually elected to represent us in a properly democratic fashion, then it follows that the legislation they enact through the formal and customary procedures of the institution they are members of must be properly democratic as well.
If, hypothetically, a special interest group like the teachers' union managed to exert an outsized influence on the content of a law that would otherwise be passed then the teachers' union would be the entity attacking democracy, not the government. How democratic is it if democratically elected representatives kowtow to unions because of the political pressure?
The grousing slogan "Democratic rights are for everyone" (found on the placards outside the Liberal Party convention last weekend) implies that teachers are somehow being denied rights that most other Ontarians enjoy, but it's the other way around. Most Ontarians aren't members of unions that are powerful enough to lobby provincial politicians. Most Ontarians can't conduct collective job actions that force their employer to decide between the education of children and fiscal soundness. Most Ontarians can't strike without any worries that their employer will go out of business or move. Most Ontarians can't extract generous pensions from their employers because some other political party will be stuck holding the bag.
So yes, it is true that democratic rights really are for everyone. But the luxury of public sector collective bargaining is not.
No comments:
Post a Comment