December 1957 — Vol. 38, No. 12 — Preserving Our
Freedom
Download
PDF version
IT IS TIME to reassert the principles
of our freedom. We need to stop thinking of it as a political
condition achieved once, and for ever ours. Freedom can be
kept only by vigilance, use and practice.
The long history of the struggle for our freedom, from the
freedom of debate in Ottawa's parliament back to the chivalrous
impulses of King Canute, is one of fine thoughts translated
into deeds by courage and energy. That freedom has been defended
through disappointment and reverse by people who were alert
to the danger of losing all that had been gained.
Democratic freedom has failed in some countries because
their people slept. It is commonplace for people who were
fighting against us in recent wars to excuse themselves on
two grounds: they didn't realize what was happening to their
government, and there was nothing they could do but obey orders.
Tyranny degrades both those who exercise it and those who
allow it.
Perhaps we have already lost some of our freedom. We may
have taken it for granted, thus turning it into a negative
thing; we may have been silent in the face of some injustice,
thus denying our free men's responsibility; we may have fallen
in love with security, which is the opposite of freedom.
These are the beginnings of the loss of freedom, and they
come upon a nation secretly. The danger of their coming gives
point to the maxim that eternal vigilance is the price of
liberty. We must restate our belief in every generation if
freedom is not to rust away or be stealthily stolen from us
or bombed into wreckage.
To say that it can't happen in North America is to talk
in a fool's paradise. All we need do is look around the world
to see nations that fought for their freedom even more vehemently
than we did who have lost it by decay, theft or violence.
What is freedom?
The question: "What is freedom?" is an awkward question
because it compels us to think about something we accept so
casually that we have no clear conception of it. The issues
were clear to those who were fighting for them at risk of
life and property. Liberty was not an abstract thing, but
something substantial, vital and mind—filling.
"Freedom" is by itself an incomplete term. The questions
to ask are: "What are we free from? what are we free to do?"
Are we free from persecution and regimentation? Can we apply
ourselves in peace and with satisfaction to work so as to
gain a decent standard of living according to our ability?
Are we free to share equally with others the responsibilities
of the human community? Are we free to worship in whatever
manner we desire? Have we liberty to think, speak and act
as we see fit, within the laws we ourselves have made to preserve
human health, safety and justice?
And if we have these liberties, are we developing them?
Do we treasure them as things just as essential to us as breathing?
It is not enough to make speeches and write articles praising
freedom as something good, great and noble. Freedom is more
than a poetic word: it is vital to our life as human beings.
We are free together
We need to have a lively sense of the co—operative
nature of freedom. It is not enough for any of us to say "I
am"; we must also be able to say "I am part of."
Men are easily deceived by a counterfeit sort of liberty,
and mistake something for their private inheritance which
is only their right as working members of society. Our civilization
is so complex that it can exist only if there is a continual
compromise between the liberty of the individual and the liberty
of society. The beauty of our sort of freedom is that we remain
ourselves even when we join with our neighbours to attain
something that is good for ail of us.
We have set up a certain balance in democratic countries.
Our political liberty is of the kind that curtails certain
personal freedoms with our consent so that the wider freedom
available to us as members of society may be protected.
We are truly free if we live in an independent state in
which we have the right and means to choose, criticize and
change our government; in a society where the laws are equal
for all people, and the restrictions on our personal freedom
are at a minimum; in an economic system which gives us the
opportunity to secure a livelihood according to our ability,
desire and energy; and in an environment where we are free
to display our merit and to express ourselves.
Government is needed
That sort of state cannot be built on anarchy. It needs
government, and democratic government is the hardest sort
of government. It is not merely majority rule. In addition,
it must recognize the right of every group to be heard, to
present its case, and to receive thoughtful attention. The
duty to listen is an important ingredient in out system of
freedom.
But having set up a democratic government does not mean
that we can shuffle off further responsibility. The government
is nothing more than a group of persons elected to manage
the country's affairs. Like shareholders in any business,
we need to exercise control over those to whom we delegate
management jobs.
What we have in democracy today is government of the people
by themselves, through which they try to settle everything
for the greatest good of the greatest number by the common
sense of the majority after the consultation of ail.
Government by the majority may be unpleasant, oppressive
and frustrating, but it can never be unendurable so long as
every member of a minority has the free opportunity to convert
the majority by changing their views.
Responsible government in a democracy lives always in the
shadow of coming defeat, and this makes it eager to satisfy
those it serves and in whose hands its destiny lies. Here,
once again, we find the demand for active use of personal
freedom: those who refuse to take part in the government,
directly or through the franchise, may be punished by living
under a government of worse men than themselves.
What tyranny offers
Let us set over against this notion of free government just
what it is that a tyrannical government offers. We acquire
only dim ideas about totalitarianism, fascism, communism,
statism and all the other opposed sorts of government, if
we banish them from our minds because they are unpleasant
to think about.
Knowledge of what tyranny stands for and what its effects
are on the lives and spirits of people should put some honest
detestation into a free man's fight against it.
Statism ( the form of government that makes the state supreme
and the person only a tool ( rarely presents itself to the
people of a country as a policy they may choose from among
others. It is a growth that attaches itself to the political
body by encroachment. A demagogue or a party leader appears
on the hustings with promises to cure all ills. He appeals
to fear, greed or hate. He pledges easy security along whatever
line the crowd wants at the moment. He moves from stage to
stage with subtlety, until the people find that they are denied
the right of criticism, freedom of action, freedom of thought,
and the right of appeal either through the franchise or through
independent courts of law. Legislative and judicial power
are in the hands of the dictator.
The choice then is between conformity and martyrdom: no
room is left for freedom. As the German law of July 14, 1933,
told the story in fifteen words: "The only political party
in Germany is to be the National Socialist German Workers'
Party."
Lenin set forth the communist view: "Why should freedom
of speech and freedom of the press be allowed? Why should
a government which is doing what it believes to be right allow
itself to be criticized?"
There are people who declare that if many things would be
worse in Canada under an intelligent dictator, some things
would be managed better. As was said of the people who were
refused liberty by a Greek tyrant: though their chains weighed
heavier, yet they were now smoother and better polished than
formerly.
Dictators have round it expedient in most countries they
command today to keep or to set up some democratic forms,
but the result is nothing better than a caricature of democracy.
Lip allegiance is given to principles, but there is no heart
or honesty in their horribly wrong and cruel and mind—destroying
form of government.
What has all this to do with Canadians? Not to frighten
them with ghosts but to warn them that even here, at the other
side of the world and with seven hundred and fifty years of
Magna Carta as a bulwark, they must be on guard.
It is not an easy business to protect the freedom of the
individual in a society that demands for preservation of its
very life the existence within its government of large measures
of power, organization, and authority.
People in public office can come to think that they serve
the interests of the people they represent if, behind the
traditional forms and pageantry they quietly manage the substance
of the country's business. Governments have a way of demanding
from their legislative bodies all the powers that they think
they can get conceded to them.
The only safeguard of the substance of freedom is an informed,
educated, sound and vigilant public opinion. Freedom will
not be kept if we elect officials to represent us and then
become politically dormant. Direct concern of voters with
the good of the country expressed in positive words and actions
will confine government to its only justifiable role: that
of protector of the rights and freedom of the individual.
The more of our personal burden we encourage our government
to assume, the closer we bring the day when the rulers will
be stronger than the ruled, and self—government will
disappear.
Charters of freedom
This freedom of ours began humbly, grew slowly and was fostered
with patience, endurance and courage. It is surely worth effort
on out part to understand it, to preserve it and to improve
it.
One lesson we learn from expressions of freedom through
the centuries is this: it isn't good enough to be against
something because we don't like it: we need to uphold positive
values because we believe in them.
This is evident in the law of King Canute, which, though
not a charter, was one of the first expressions of freedom
under impartial law. In 1027 he commanded his counsellors
"that henceforth they neither commit themselves, nor suffer
to prevail, any sort of injustice either from fear of me or
from favour to any powerful person." He ordered his magistrates
to administer the law equally to all persons whether high
or low, rich or poor.
A hundred years later there came the first effort to limit
the power of kings by legal statute openly arrived at and
openly proclaimed, and we are indebted for it to a woman.
She was the English Princess Edytha, daughter of King Malcolm
of Scotland, whose name was changed to Matilda in honour of
the King's mother, and who came to be called by her people
"Good Queen Mold". Before she consented to marry Henry I,
she compelled him to sign a charter guaranteeing the rights
of individuals and a return to constitutional rule. This was
distributed, with copies of the laws of Alfred the Great and
Edward the Confessor, to a hundred places of safe keeping.
These three, the charters of Alfred, Edward and Henry, were
the source material of Magna Carta, the Great Charter of Liberties,
under which, in the words of Lord Macaulay, "commences the
history of the English nation." A new national feeling had
asserted itself as Saxons and Normans intermingled after the
conquest. The climax came in the reign of John, whose reckless
taxation brought about an uprising led by the barons with
the Archbishop of Canterbury at their head.
The Great Charter which John was forced to sign at Runnymede
contained few provisions that were new, but it brought together
the most important rights that had been enjoyed by English
free men, and it guaranteed them. It is not its details that
give the Great Charter lasting importance, but its underlying
principle is important for ail rime: that government should
be conducted according to the law.
The list of civil liberties was extended by the Petition
of Rights, forced upon Charles I by parliament in 1628. A
third great instrument in the history of civil liberties grew
out of the revolution sixty years later which resulted in
the deposition of King James and the calling to the throne
of William and Mary. It was embodied in the Bill of Rights
of 1689, by which, although the monarch remained formally
head of the state, the controlling authority was vested in
parliament.
Freedom crosses the Atlantic
Love of freedom and recognition of individual human value
were two of the outstanding qualifies which the Englishman
took with him to the new world. England was the only great
colonizing power that had representative government at home.
It was taken for granted that when English people settled
in a colony they would establish representative government.
The earliest example was in Virginia, where in July 1619 there
met at Jamestown the first assembly in any English colony.
In 1620, Bermuda set up its legislature, and in that same
year there occurred one of the dramatic episodes in the history
of free government. A handful of Puritan refugees, seeking
a place on unknown shores where they could live according
to their beliefs, free and unmolested, drew up an agreement
rightly regarded as one of the most remarkable documents of
modern history. Those people on the Mayflower started
their Compact: "In the name of God," and continued: "We ...
solemnly and mutually ... covenant and combine ourselves
together into a civil body politic."
Echoes of Magna Carta may be heard in the early constitutions
of Virginia and Massachusetts and in the United States Bill
of Rights.
More recently, the same echo is picked up in the North Atlantic
Treaty, signed by nations "determined to safeguard the freedom,
common heritage and civilization of their peoples, founded
on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the
rule of law."
Freedom in Canada
We enjoy many freedoms in Canada, some won in olden rimes
and others established within memory of persons still living.
We have freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of
religion, freedom of the press, freedom of association in
trade unions, professional societies, and so forth, all subject
to the law of the land, and we have ail the personal freedoms
based upon Magna Carta.
Nor have we liberty only as a nation, but in the larger
area of world affairs. The Commonwealth does not stand for
standardization or denationalization, but for the fuller,
richer and more various life of all the nations comprised
in it.
A committee at the Imperial Conference of 1926 described
Commonwealth nations as "autonomous communities, equal in
status ... united by a common allegiance to the Crown."
It went on to say that free institutions are the Commonwealth's
life—blood and free co—operation its instrument,
with peace, security and progress among its objects. The Statute
of Westminister, five years later, set all this forth in a
legislative way.
Freedom here and now
We are compelled in the present state of the world to look
upon our freedoms in a hard—headed way. We must stop
gazing backward with a sort of home—sickness at the dim
past. It is futile to indulge in speculation about a back—to—nature
movement, a return to a state of innocence such as existed
before the apple incident in the Garden of Eden. But neither
are we selling choice lots in the suburbs of Utopia, to be
occupied in some future time.
For those who dearly desire a Utopia, Voltaire summed up
the needed action in the final injunction of Candide: "Let's
cultivate our garden." We don't need to wait until millions
of people have deliberated upon our idea of freedom and legislated
it. We have our freedom here and now, to use effectively and
wisely, and to cherish and protect.
Let us not mince words: the descent is easy from any height
to which men have attained. Once started on the road that
leads to an authoritarian form of government the course of
events can be read in history. The living spark of democracy,
the freedom of the individual human soul, is stamped out.
As Sir William Wallace said so well "No country is wretched
until, by a dastardly acquiescence, it consents to its own
slavery."
One way to guard our freedom and to extend freedom is by
education for freedom. The dictators teach tyranny. They impose
beliefs and they demand obedience to a creed which rouses
the baser nature of men. They make robots of their people
whereas democracy offers open—eyed responsibility. It
is the difference between the slave mind and the free mind.
There are Cassandras in every democratic state, prophets
of calamity, who tell us that the crisis is upon us and there
is nothing to do but crawl under the bed and await the outcome.
But human existence and the continuance of freedom depend
upon, first, seeking peace, and then, if that fails, self—defense.
As Pericles told the Athenians at a time when morale was low:
"Remember that prosperity can only be for the free; that freedom
is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage
to defend it."
No safeguard is automatic. To maintain freedom requires
a hardness and stamina that presuppose a strong desire and
determination. Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote of "freedom leaning
on her spear." It is well to let the underworld know that
freedom has a spear.
We may be tempted, in the enjoyment of life as we live it
under democracy, to say to ourselves: "We can win, if not
in the short run, then in the long run." But when the opposing
forces are so strong as they are now, and can be so suddenly
launched, there will be no long run for those who are unprepared.
Stronger than we think
Our position as democracies is stronger than we think, not
because of our high standard of living or our scientific progress,
but because freedom is so deeply rooted in our spirits and
our minds. If we bear witness unceasingly to our delight in
living as we do, to our enjoyment of religious liberty, political
liberty and the civil liberties ( personal freedom, freedom
of communication, and freedom of assembly ( then we shall
not be caught unawares by the deceitful penetration of tyranny.
Freedom is an ever—broadening thing. It is not yet
perfect, but by giving thought to it we can work at making
it come closer to our ideals. And we can dream, which is one
of the privileges of freedom, about what will be.
Most of us know James Hilton's book Lost Horizon,
or the moving picture made from it. There are romantics among
us, people who wish that Conway, the hero of the story, had
stayed in Shangri—La as successor to the High Lama. Then
there would be a shadowy kingdom of freedom in the Valley
of the Blue Moon, a place of peace and culture. It might be
unattainable, but it would be there, beyond the mountains,
to reach toward and to be sure about.
The sort of freedom that we in the democratic countries
hope for, spread all over the world, embracing every person,
may seem far away, but it is the only possible beacon upon
the uncharted seas of the future. That freedom, in which our
national and personal freedoms are bound up, is a precious
thing, worth striving toward.
[ Return to RBC Letter
home page ]
|
