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?
The “Freedom Convoy” protests in February 2022 contradict John Stuart Mill’s principle of harm, despite the Canadian Government provoking their actions with unjust legislature. By enforcing truck drivers to be vaccinated, the Canadian Government passed a patriarchal law that bypassed the autonomy of the individual truck drivers it affected. Mill reflects on his disapproval of any such law in On Liberty, stating that it invades another’s liberty of thought and action. As a result, truck drivers were valid in protesting against the law, just not in a way that harmed others. However, by blocking city streets in Ottawa, they directly disrupted the social and economic lives of all bystanders affected by it. While he supports individual freedom and self-governance, Mill also clearly states that "The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people" (53). The truckers’ blockade hindered traffic flow throughout the city, causing people to be late and maybe even fired from their daily jobs or obligations. Although the scenario may have called for a protest, the truck drivers overstepped and infringed on other people’s liberty, removing any justification for their actions. Mill stresses the importance of preserving agency in society throughout the entirety of his essay, explaining that the only true crimes are those which inhibit others. In this case, both the government and the truckers acted unjustly by disrespecting the rights of their constituents. Because the “Freedom Convoy” violated the independence of uninvolved Canadians, Mill’s philosophy deems their protests illegitimate.
ReplyDeleteIn the essay, On Liberty, John Stuart Mill might agree that protesting in the streets is a legitimate form of protest, but either way, he would advocate for using societal forms of punishment rather than being punished by the law in this case. Throughout his essay, he emphasizes how people should have the freedom to express their opinions, live freely according to their values, and not be unfairly oppressed. However, the main point of contention in terms of the protest is how they might infringe on other people’s freedoms. When Mill explains the consequences of actions that have effects on other people, he mentions how when “any part of a person’s conduct affect prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it”, and that “the offender may then be justly punished by opinion, though not by law” (73). Although Mill often pushes against the tyranny of the majority, he explains that other societal forms of punishment should be used. Some examples, such as distancing or judging, aren’t too manipulative but can push back against negative behaviors that don’t affect someone enough to be judicially determined. By this logic, in the short run, Mill may suggest that this protest has no true harm on anyone, and if anyone dislikes it, they can use their liberty to express their opinions to voice their grievances. However, if the protest occurred for over a week, Mill may point to how these actions are infringing on the drivers’ freedom of movement and even hurting their families, having less access to food, and possibly harming other aspects of their lives. Therefore, he would say that it is alright until a point in which it inflicts a decent amount of harm onto others. Personally, I don’t think that it is a legitimate form of protest, because these types of protests don’t often reach the people they are aimed at. Protests are often aimed at governments or businesses instead. The only protest in which that wasn’t the case was the “Just Stop Oil” protests, and all they ended up accomplishing was letting people’s vehicles stall and use up more oil and gas than they would’ve if the protest didn’t happen. Instead of blocking streets for protest, we should instead focus on more effective methods such as protesting on sidewalks, in conferences, public meetings, or in public areas where others can see. That way, the actions wouldn’t hinder anyone else’s liberties while still getting their message across to their intended audience.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Mill's principles from On Liberty, Mill would support part of this event but disagree with truck drivers mostly. In Mill's principles, he will advocate for Canadian truck drivers in the “Freedom Convoy” protest to have the right as individuals to not get vaccinated, because vaccination falls into the right to make decisions for their bodies, which is something that the person himself “is the final judge” for himself (75). He believes that people should have the right to reject vaccination because they are not harming anyone by doing that. On the other hand, truck drivers protested by blocking the road in Ottawa, which violated traffic restrictions and had a negative impact on other residents of the city, causing traffic and potential road hazards, which is a form of violating other people's rights. Mill is a supporter of the principle of no harm to others; he specifies the responsibility of people who live in society should “not injure the interests of one another,” which is not what the truck drivers are doing for their protest (73). Moreover, the truck drivers who are involved in this protest are people who transport goods, including food and medical supplies, across nations during a pandemic; thus, these drivers not being vaccinated creates a greater chance for these goods to be contaminated with the virus and causes the goods on the truck to be unsafe. The drivers transporting goods that are likely contaminated by the virus across two countries and different cities will cause the pandemic to spread quickly, and more people could get infected; therefore, the drivers not getting vaccinated would be a harmful thing to the general public, which made it against Mill’s principle and would not be considered as a legitimate protest by Mill. I would agree with him that truck drivers have the right to not get vaccinated, but people might not want someone more likely to get COVID to transport food.
ReplyDeleteBEN"S COMMENT: The ‘paternalistic’ laws surrounding vaccination in Canada were directly affecting the truck drivers’ liberty. They had a right to choose what they did with their bodies, insofar as they weren’t harming anyone else. Some people might make the argument that they were directly harming other people by not getting a vaccine, but the only other people who might be affected by the virus from these truckers also chose not to get the vaccination. Anyone who had gotten the vaccine wouldn’t be exposed to the virus, and if they were they’d have the antibodies to fight it off. While Canada has often had a far more overreaching government than their neighbors to the south, in Mill’s perfect libertarian society, there never would have been a vaccine law proposed in the first place. Everyone has an ability and a right to act on their own suspicions and do their own ‘experiments of living’ so these truckers had the right to be anti-vaxxers, Mill might have had something else to say when it came to their protest. Of course, this protest never would’ve happened if they hadn’t passed the law in the first place, but I believe that Mill would’ve thoroughly agreed with their protest, although maybe not their opinion. The truckers’ opinions shouldn’t be silenced because if vaccines are, in fact, capable of stopping disease spread, then they should easily withstand the naysaying of the truckers. In the same manner, the opinions of the medical officials in Canada shouldn’t be imposed on the truckers of Canada.
ReplyDeleteBased on John Stuart Mill’s claims in On Liberty, the “freedom convoy” was an illegitimate form of protest even though it fought against an unjustified piece of legislation. Mill states “there is no room for entertaining any such question [regarding government interference or punishment] when a person’s conduct affects the interests of no person besides himself” (73). The new rule requiring truck drivers crossing the Canada-United States border to receive the Covid-19 vaccine contradicts Mill’s belief because the government created a legislation that limits individuals’ actions even though they are the only person directly affected by not becoming vaccinated. Mill believes the government does not justly hold this power because citizens should be permitted to act as they wish, as long as their actions do not harm another person as is explained in his “Harm to Others” principle. Thus, Mill believes that the legislation the truckers were protesting was unjust. Additionally, although the truckers were protesting a law Mill would declare an unjust demonstration of legal paternalism, the protesting truck drivers disrupted the flow of traffic throughout Ottawa, Canada for over a week. This demonstration, therefore, is illegitimate because it harms other citizens by creating difficult conditions in which they must travel through to navigate the city. Also, the traffic disruption may have resulted in people being late for work or unable to carry out necessary tasks before a certain deadline. Consequently, the truckers directly caused disturbances to citizens that had no prior involvement in this issue, making the protest as a whole illegitimate. For the most part, I agree with Mill that “in each person’s own concerns his individual spontaneity is entitled to free exercise” (75). The government can warn its citizens against potentially dangerous or risky activities or behaviors or encourage certain practices or medications (such as vaccines), but it is unjust for the government to use the law in a prohibiting manner in matters that only concern an individual’s actions impacting himself. Individuals who feel that such legal paternalism is violating their rights have a right to protest legitimately. Ultimately, I agree with Mill’s belief that the “freedom convoy” of truckers were opposing an unjust piece of legislation, however, they engaged in an illegitimate protest.
ReplyDeleteMill argues in On Liberty that personal liberty and freedom is a right that should be protected. Free speech as well as ideas of personal exercise of liberty are essential for a functioning society. Mills would agree in this scenario that these truckers do have the right to protest, and protest is a necessary part of free will and liberty. He would also say that this modality of debate about vaccination and peoples rights is good because these types of scenarios are needed for the inevitable truth to come out. The distinction that Mill would make which I also agree with is in the case that someone is harmed. Impericaly COVID was extremely harmful, and the vaccination was very effective in stopping the contraction and spread of COVID. While it is within the free will of someone to not take a vaccination, Mill would say that forcing them to in a scenario where they are a trucker and interact with people is morally justified. He states ,“That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant”(Mill13). If people are truckers and do not vaccinate then they are directly exposing people to more harm. This is a very fair use of power exertion because these truckers have been allowed to make this cross country trip, and it is not a bare necessity for them. These truckers do not want the vaccine but like Mills says, it would be moral to make them get it if they can harm others. I think the key distinction here is that their profession could lend themselves to harming others, forcing everyone to get the vaccine isn't right, but since these truckers not having it could harm people,it's just to make them get it. Additionally Mill and I would both agree this would not be a legitimate protest because it causes unjust instigation. Mills states “. On the contrary, even opinions lose their immunity when the circumstances in which they are expressed are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act. An opinion that corn-dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn dealer,”( Mill 52). Protesting vaccination for truckers is fine, yet this example is not. They are protesting right outside the parliament and causing a blockade. This type of protest is instigating a problem by interfering with others lives. Protests are justified unless they harm or severely intrude with other people and since this is an example where a blockade does so, it is an unjustifiable protest.
ReplyDeleteWhile Mill would agree with the cause and the message of the protest since the truckers are protesting for their individual rights and freedom not to get vaccinated, he would not agree with their methods. Mill held the strong and unwavering belief that freedoms should not be restricted unless those freedoms are harmful to others. In parking their trucks to block traffic intentionally, these truckers go against the fundamental belief that Mill holds on liberty. While blocking traffic may not seem that bad on the surface, the harm can reach far. For example, if anyone needs to be somewhere at a particular time and these truckers prevent that, surgeons may have to delay surgeries, people with high-demanding jobs may be fired, and, of course, emergency services may have to take longer routes. What these truckers did could have killed, and just to protest a vaccine? This has happened many times for different protests; there are videos of protesters using their bodies to block traffic, and they are both on the same level of harm. On another note, who are they trying to hurt? Since they didn’t completely block the Parliament, people will develop new routes over time, but after a while, this only hurts people who don’t take the routes often, like emergency services. This is not a legitimate form of protest; they are harming the public to serve their moral quota. At most, they can block one lane of traffic, which makes a scene and does not impede traffic much.
ReplyDeleteJohn Stuart Mill, in his work On Liberty, would argue that individuals should be able to act free and behave as they wish but the only requirement to that is that their actions shouldn’t harm other people. This principle is known as the “harm principle”. According to Mill a protest would be able to be considered real if it was a peaceful way of expressing an issue and it doesn’t bother or change the rights of other people and it isn’t able to cause harm or disruption.
ReplyDeleteBut in the case of the “freedom Convoy” in Ottawa, the truckers that were protesting the vaccine mandate. Mill would likely argue that their right to protest is real in his principle because it shows their freedom of expression and desire to challenge the government policy. But Mill also expresses that the manner of the protest also would matter. Because if the protest disrupts the public order and impedes the rights of other people then it could bring harm and this making it a violation of the principles. Because the trucker protest in Ottawa led to an larger disruption, that included street blocking and stopping access for people to conveniently get around the city, but Mill might argue that while the protesters have the right to voice their concerns, because their actions would most likely cause harm to other people, which makes the protest less justifiable under his principle. Whether or not I agree depends on my point of view. Mill's logic would imply that the protest was not entirely lawful if we give priority to maintaining public order and the rights of those who were directly impacted by the blockade. However, the protest might be viewed as a valid form of expression if we highlight the right to dissent and oppose laws that are thought to be unfair. It strikes a balance between people's freedom and the common good.