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?
In 2022, the “freedom convoy” of COVID-19 protesters cost the Canadian government as much as 3.9 billion US dollars, halting traffic across the country for about a month. The immediate catalyst for these protests was a strict vaccine mandate for border-crossing truck drivers, but the protests represented a broader distaste for COVID regulations in the US and Canada. John Stuart Mill’s beliefs on liberty give several insights about the case. One, protests of this nature should be allowed to occur so long as they do not harm or infringe on the rights of others. As previously mentioned, the protests cost the state billions of dollars, so it would be fair to make the connection that these protests were a significant harm from an economic standpoint and therefore should not be allowed by Mill’s logic. However, Mill makes the clear distinction that an action should not occur if it harms people, but not the state. The state is a difinitive level above the individual, and thus should not merit the protection that individuals deserve. Had the protests physically or emotionally harmed the common citizen, Mill would certainly argue that they were not justified. Yet, the only harm on the individual level came from traffic delays and the rest of the impact was laid on the government, large corporations, and “the economy”.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, this argument makes complete sense. If we were to treat the economic implications of protest as personal harm, it would be impossible to justify numerous instances of retrospectively necessary political dissent throughout history. The Montgomery Bus Boycotts cost the state of Alabama millions of dollars; does that mean that the civil rights activists were wrong in protesting? Similarly, the recent extradition protests of Hong Kong led to billions of dollars of economic loss; does this mean they should not have protested?
Finally, it is important to mention that the political incorrectness of protesting COVID regulations should not infringe on these people’s right to protest. As Mill would argue, discourse among groups should require a diversity of opinions in order to support the development and understanding of truth.
When a ‘freedom convoy’ of truckers first started impeding traffic in Canada to protest mandated COVID-19 vaccines, my first reaction was to be appalled by what was happening. But, after some thought and looking through the lens of Mill’s harm principle, I think that it is important to really focus on what the truckers were doing before deciding if their protests were just or not.
ReplyDeleteWhen examining whether these protests were legitimate or not, I think it’s important to look at how this affected others. On the whole, it seems as though steps were taken to cause disruption while still remaining civil. Organizers claimed that they made first responders aware of where the convoy was going and what streets they would be using, and as a whole motorists followed the rules of the road while doing so. In an ideal world, this protest would be legitimate and follow Mill’s harm principle as congested traffic only costs people time with no direct harms being committed. Despite this, certain situations can lead to harm due to traffic congestion. A couple of Canadian paramedics spoke out, saying that although they support the truckers’ right to protest, the fact that some streets were completely clogged led to delayed hospital arrivals for severely injured patients including an infant with anaphylaxis and a patient who was bleeding profusely from an industrial accident. These are small incidents with people who eventually got the care they needed, but it still shows how these situations can be potentially dangerous.
There are some more small incidents including harassing a homeless shelter for meals for the truckers, but I would argue that the organizers did everything they were obligated to do to ensure safety, but big protests will always attract some people who will not follow the organizers’ intentions. Even if certain individuals violate the harm principle, I believe Mill would agree that these protests are just as they don’t cause direct harm to people.
Through evaluating the “freedom convoy” protests it is evident that they were a legitimate protest. The government creating vaccination mandates and companies forcing people to receive vaccines that they don’t want is a violation of freedom and individual liberty. Next, I found that the protest directly impacted individuals' liberties and freedom as the blockade forced people to sit in traffic. Although this isn’t a grand offense it still is worth noting. One reason in particular is if a person has a religious/personal belief regarding vaccination this inherently violates individual liberty. Although the convoy had the legitimacy to protest, they didn’t have the right to blockade streets and people in the city of Ottawa since they were affecting the community as well as the people within the community. Ultimately, although I found the protest to be fair, the form of how the protest was conducted, I don’t agree with it at all due to the chaos that was caused. After completing Liberty by Mill I believe that he would say that the truckers had the right to protest, however, they didn’t have the right to cause harm to the community and people in the community. This is evident through Mill’s harm to others principle as he believes that if liberty is being infringed on (which one could argue is through the mandate of vaccines) they have the right to protest. Additionally, Mills states “This liberty of each individual follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals and freedom” (Mill, 12). Ultimately, Mill would say that because the government mandates the vaccine it is an infringement of freedom and individual liberty thus justifying why they protested.
ReplyDeleteAfter my assessment of the “freedom convoy” in February of 2022, which took place in Canada, I firmly believe this is not an example of legitimate protest from the truckers. These truckers had protested and asked for a new rule to be put into place in which all truck drivers crossing through both Canada and the United States had to have the vaccination medicine for the COVD-19 pandemic. To prove their point, hundreds of truckers and others created blockades throughout main roads, in an attempt to both halt traffic and successfully get their message out to the public. This caused traffic to stop almost entirely if not completely which cost billions of dollars. This happened numerous times, and due to the frequency of these protests, an uncomfortable “vibe” across the city and country most likely spread between the truckers and the people who did not feel comfortable getting the vaccine. There were many reasons to both receive and not receive the vaccine for COVID-19. As someone who is vaccinated, I have heard many reasons for this, the most common motives being religious and political rationales. This was completely inappropriate and unacceptable from the truckers to try to force and “bully” all truckers into this protest when possibly not all truckers wanted to necessarily get vaccinated. The only thing in the truckers favor throughout this story is that no harm or violence was used as a tactic to help better get their views and ideas across. Similarly, one of J.S. Mill’s main points from his book, “On Liberty” surrounded how violence and harm was never acceptable and he would always favor any violence used. Because of that, I think that Mill would not have a massive problem with the truckers and their protest simply because of that point. On the other hand, Mill’s also doesn’t agree with protests that violate others’ rights. Millions of people were stopped in traffic against their will, so that also connects back to Mill and his complex ideology on the matter. On this particular story, J.S. Mill would have a very difficult time deciding where exactly he stood, but I think he would overall be okay with the situation.
ReplyDeleteIn Ottawa, Canada in February 2022 truckers with concerns over COVID-19 policies began what they termed the “freedom convoy.” Their primary strategy of a demonstration against vaccination mandates was blocking streets. Through the lens of J.S. Mill’s principles and ideas on liberty, it’s clear that these protests were justified but poorly carried out, because they negatively impacted innocent people who had no say in what they were protesting.
ReplyDeleteMill’s principle of liberty, as articulated in “On Liberty,” argues that individuals should be free to act however they wish, provided they do not harm others. Mill's “harm principle” is paramount here, which states that “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (Mill 13).
In order to determine whether or not the “freedom convoy” was legitimate, it’s crucial to understand what constitutes a “legitimate” protest. Generally, a protest is considered legitimate if it is peaceful, properly aimed at raising awareness about a particular issue, and, as an extension of J.S. Mill’s harm principle, seeks to influence public policy or opinion without causing harm to others who have no say in the issue they are protesting against. The “freedom convoy,” was indeed non-violent, but presented harm to innocent individuals by disrupting daily activities, impeding emergency services, and hurting local businesses. Therefore, it is not necessarily a legitimate protest.
However, Mill would likely also disagree with the policy that these protestors were demonstrating against. Mill primarily champions the autonomy of individuals, and argues against undue interference in personal choices, provided these choices do not harm others. The mandatory vaccination policy for truck drivers, which was the catalyst for the protests, could be argued as a form of such interference.
Beyond that, grom Mill's utilitarian perspective, the key question would be whether the protest maximized happiness or minimized suffering. If the disruption caused by the protest created more significant societal issues than the issue being protested (the vaccine mandate), Mill would probably that the protest was not justified. But, to ensure that disruption was less than the concern they were protesting, Mill would probably recommend alternative forms of protest that do not harm others like petitions, peaceful assemblies, or lobbying government officials, which could achieve the desired ends without the negative means.
I agree with Mill and argue that while the truckers’ cause might be valid, the method of protest they chose was not ideal. The freedom to protest should be preserved as an essential democratic right, but it should be exercised in a manner that respects the rights and well-being of all community members. Disruptive protests like the freedom convoy risk undermining public support and can lead to greater social and political polarization.
In 2022 a group of Canadian truckers who wanted to protest vaccine mandates created a “freedom convoy” that blocked roads and impeded traffic. This caused economic damage to the government and inconvenience to people who drove in the areas that were being impeded. According to many this was not a legitimate protest and should have been stopped. According to John Stuart Mill’s principles this was a legitimate protest. Mill’s main criteria for whether the government should intervene in anything is the harm to others principle. This principle can be summed up as if someone or some group is causing harm to others then the government can take action to prevent that harm from happening. The truckers did harm to the government, but Mill believes that the government is not the same as an individual and thus does not deserve the same protections. The truckers did cause a nuisance for individuals who were trying to live their normal lives. Mill states that “he must not make himself a nuisance to other people.” On the surface this should mean that Mill would not agree with the protests since blocking roads that people use is objectively a nuisance. While this is correct anything can be a nuisance. The bigger question is whether that nuisance is significant enough to justify government intervention. This is where people will disagree, but I believe that Mill and I would agree that it is not enough of a nuisance to justify intervention. The protest took over a few blocks which is not that large of an area. People who drive through space could take a few minutes detour to avoid it, and people who worked in the area could park and walk a few blocks to their job. When looking at the case one must remember that the convoy was a protest instead of something else like a party. Mill firmly believes that ideas should not be silenced and that nonviolent protests are justifiable. If the authorities were to shut down the protest they would be silencing the speech of those protesting which would need a significant enough justification which I don’t believe they would have.
ReplyDelete