Canada is a construct, primarily a legal one, defined as a specific geographic territory, with a government that has a monopoly of power over a specific group of people. It is recognized as such by other states, which themselves comply with this same concept of statehood. This means that it is a de facto “legal being,” but it cannot think or act, it cannot make choices or a decision, and, therefore, it is amoral.
The government however is a collection of “beings” who can think, act, and make those choices and decisions, which means they can be bound by a sense of morality, concepts of right and wrong. This is important to understand, as Canada is also a collection of ideals, which we have communally accepted as forming the values and culture of our society. It forms part of our national, along with individual, identity, allowing us to be a cohesive group.
Human rights are one such set of values that Canadians have acknowledged as forming their values, their sense of national “self.” Canadians have signed on to the ideals of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948), the Social, Political and Economic Covenants (1966), and it is has led in Gender issues since 1981, along with issues relating to war and the protection of non-combatants. These are values consistently espoused by our governments and citizens for nearly 70 years.
And yet, throughout this timeframe, the Canadian government has continually transgressed these values in the name of profit and trade. They justify such lapses as a form of economic pragmatism, citing that others will do it, or they are looking out for our interests, hiding behind such expediencies. Our governments have been complicit in the support of dictators and human rights offences. The recent trade deal with Saudi Arabia is just another example of this occurrence.
These words are not written from a position of naivety, but rather highlight the paradox of Canadian mythology: if human rights are not really a Canadian value, why does the government not have the “testicular fortitude”, the integrity, to state this? Would it not be in our interests to be forthright with others and ourselves? Or does such a myth help make us acquiescent, self-righteously smug?
People are fallible: we make mistakes and we are hypocritical more often than not. But should we sell out our values to make a dollar, for what example are we setting; what message are we sending? If human rights are truly part of our value system, our identity, then surely we should have the courage to stand by these beliefs, regardless of the economic consequences (which are not as great as people are led to believe). For if we do not stand up and demand a compliance with these values for others, how can we expect our government to protect our human rights, if it is not pragmatic to do so?
John Kennair is an international consultant and doctor of laws who lives in St. Albert.
