Originally published during the Truckers’ Protest in Ottawa, Canada in 2022.

The popular charge against the Ottawa protestors is that they are seeking to undermine the democratic process. This accusation is based on the fact that organizers previously called for the Governor-General to dissolve parliament, and though they have since reneged on the demand, the damage has been done. The media has seized upon the gaffe with a predictable ferocity. This is an insurrection, they say. I do not deny that the organizers made a mistake when they called for the dissolution of parliament, but it was a mistake that is perhaps less egregious than popularly thought.

The first thing to note is that the protestors in Ottawa are not objecting to some general policy; they are objecting to mandates that target the basic rights and freedoms which are meant to underpin our society and protect the natural entitlements of its citizens. This is not the same as protesting an unnecessary tax or misguided government initiative. The kinds of rights secured in our charter are inviolable or nearly inviolable. Of course, our constitution does allow for rights violations, but even if you accept the legitimacy of such a clause, that still does not negate the fact that the rights and freedoms in our charter are not to be violated lightly. Justin Trudeau echoed this sentiment in 2017 when he said that “the charter protects the rights and freedoms that are essential to our identity as Canadians” and that Canadians “have no task greater than to stand on guard for one another’s liberties.”

This raises the question of what the appropriate response from citizens is when governments do unjustly infringe on rights. From Locke to Rawls, political philosophers have promulgated the idea that a government that violates its people’s rights is illegitimate. Eventually, the citizens of a country must resist the tyranny of their governments. Sometimes this takes the form of civil disobedience, sometimes revolution. It would be irresponsible to suggest that the latter is appropriate in the current circumstances. Still, the idea that the protestors are not without any kind of philosophical consistency is false. They are enacting an old and respected political tradition. 

This constitutes a response to those who accuse the protestors of being anti-democratic, an accusation that has a kernel of truth in it. The Canadian system is a constitutional democracy, and insofar as the constitution constrains what elected officials can do, it is undemocratic. Of course, this is a good thing. Legislation that infringed on the rights of homosexuals or women was in no way legitimized by its popularity, and those groups were justified in asserting their rights against the democratically elected governments of their times. 

The constitutional limits placed on government protect the people, both from the despot and the voter who wishes to rule through the despot. As our Prime Minister said in December of last year, the charter is a “bulwark against popular measures that attack the rights of … minorities.” Whenever you defend the Charter, you acknowledge the limits of majority rule. We are not just a democracy, we are a constitutional democracy, and that means that democracy bends its knee to the constitution.