Power and Emergency: Critical Perspectives on “The Convoy” and The Emergencies Act
In January of 2022, a movement deeply intertwined with the Canadian far-right descended upon Ottawa with the aim of replacing the government of Canada with “Citizen Councils” (Andy Blatchford, 2022; Canadian Anti-Hate Network, 2023; Shaikh, 2023). While the Supreme Court of Canada has recently ruled that the invocation of the Emergencies Act was unconstitutional (van Dyke, 2024), it is necessary to analyze the roles that legal institutions played in enabling a far-right movements (Canadian Anti-Hate Network, 2022a; Zeinab, 2022) to occupy many of the streets in downtown Ottawa. Greater scrutiny is needed in understanding the intersecting roles of power in enabling the ‘freedom convoy’, such as collaboration with police (Fraser, 2022), and the ways in which far-right movements were emboldened by legal decisions following the end of the ‘freedom convoy’ (Canadian Anti-Hate Network, 2022b). In order to analyze the intersecting nexuses of power, this paper will present a brief description of the emergencies act, followed by a discussion on the context of the ‘freedom convoy’ through the lens of critical theory, concluding with a discussion on the ways in which legal failed to prevent an insurrectionist movement from occupying a residential area of downtown ottawa.
The Emergencies Act is defined briefly as “An Act to Authorize the taking of special temporary measures to ensure the safety and security during national emergencies and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof” (Emergencies Act, 1988, sec. Preamble). Under this act, the Canadian government is authorized to temporarily limit the rights of Canadians in the event that “a national emergency” (Emergencies Act, 1988) threatens the fundamental obligations of the Canadian government. There are a number of forms of emergencies outlined in the Emergencies Act, however the most relevant form of emergency outlined in the act is a Public Order Emergency. A public order emergency is defined in the act as “an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency” (Emergencies Act, 1988, sec. 16), with the most relevant form of threats to the security of Canada defined in section 2(22 c-d) of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act as “activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state, and (d) activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada.” (Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, 1985). The declaration of a Public Emergency within the Emergencies Act enables the regulation of public assembly that can be expected to breach peace, as well as the “assumption of the control, and the restoration and maintenance, of public utilities and services” (Emergencies Act, 1988, sec. 19(1)(c)), until the declaration expires after 30 days (Emergencies Act, 1988).
Within the letter of the law, then, the invocation of the emergencies act to adequately address a movement that had the stated aim of overthrowing the government of Canada (Canadian Anti-Hate Network, 2023) and was receiving both assistance and collaboration from police (Fraser, 2022) would have been justified. However, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the invocation of the emergencies act was unconstitutional (Tunney, 2024). As a means to understand this sequence of events, it is necessary to understand ruling relationships and relationships of power through the lens of the critical theory developed by Shantz and Williams (2013). In their framework, they argue that structures of domination, in which they include institutions of government and governance, act as a structure of hierarchy, which in turn manufacture relationships of domination, which produce patterns of inequality (Shantz & Williams, 2013). While they note that these structures of domination intersect and interact (Shantz & Williams, 2013), it is also important to recognize that structures of hierarchy can also come into conflict with one and other based upon differing motivations. For example, one could consider Parliament a structure of hierarchy that produces relationships of domination, however within Parliament there are political parties with differing motivations. Within the framework presented by Shantz & Williams (2013), this means that the motivations of each of those parties, or rather the relationships of domination that those institutions manufacture, are at odds with one and other. This can be shown directly in the case of the “freedom convoy”, with the elected Liberal coalition government being a target of the freedom convoy (Canadian Anti-Hate Network, 2023; Zeinab, 2022) while the leader of the conservative party was supportive of the movement (Taylor, 2022). It should be noted that while the leader of the opposition was and is supportive of the movement in general, as is evident by his numerous photos with members of the movement, it is unclear whether he supports the end goals of the movement laid bare in the Memorandum of Understanding.
The interaction between the differing motivations of institutions of government reinforce the underlying ontology of the work of Shantz & Williams (2013) work, namely that relationships of power, hierarchy, and domination play a greater role in determining the actions of institutions compared to the actual letter of legal codes. It is clear that the Emergencies Act is itself a form of domination when conceptualized within the framework of Shantz & Williams (2013), however when also considering the evidence of other institutions collaborating with the convoy (Canadian Anti-Hate Network, 2023; Fraser, 2022; Taylor, 2022), an analysis of the invocation of the act gives the impression that the invocation of the act was necessary to maintain the overarching structure of Canadian governance. An analysis of the reality of the events of the convoy gives the distinct impression that the invocation of the emergencies act was not done as a means to protect the lives of residents of Ottawa, who were experiencing multiple forms of violence from members of the convoy (Canadian Anti-Hate Network, 2022a), but rather as a means to uphold the legitimacy of the structures of hierarchy in spite of their collaboration with the convoy. Using Shantz & Williams (2013) framework, the processes to end the convoy occupation of Ottawa are interpreted not as a means to protect public safety, but to regain the legitimacy of government institutions in the wake of public collaboration between those institutions and a movement which sought to overthrow the government of Canada.
Bibliography
Andy Blatchford. (2022, February 15). Canada defends emergency action as way to stop ‘overthrow’—POLITICO. Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/15/canada-emergency-action-freedom-convoy-00009242
Canadian Anti-Hate Network. (2022a, January 31). “Freedom Convoy” Descends On Ottawa, Throwing City Streets Into Chaos. Antihate.Ca. https://www.antihate.ca/freedom_convoy_ottawa
Canadian Anti-Hate Network. (2022b, December 29). ‘Freedom Convoy’ Rebrands, Plans for Winnipeg in February. Antihate.Ca. https://www.antihate.ca/_freedom_convoy_rebrands_plans_for_winnipeg_in_february
Canadian Anti-Hate Network. (2023, February 23). Syncretism Is What Ties Movements Like The “Freedom Convoy” Together. Antihate.Ca. https://www.antihate.ca/syncretism_ties_movements_freedom_convoy_together
Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-25 (1985).
Emergencies Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 22 (4th Supp.) (1988). https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-4.5/index.html
Fraser, D. (2022, April 2). Texts, emails show what Ottawa police told convoy organizers ahead of protest. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/police-convoy-protesters-communication-1.6405434
Shaikh, M. (2023). Radicalization Convoy: Concerns Of Domestic Extremism In Canada. The Journal of Intelligence, Conflict, and Warfare, 6(1), 49–52. https://doi.org/10.21810/jicw.v6i1.5404
Shantz, J., & Williams, D. M. (2013). An Anarchist View of Stratification, Inequality, and Domination. In Anarchy and Society: Reflections on Anarchist Sociology. BRILL. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004252998
Taylor, S. (2022, November 9). Poilievre stands by Freedom Convoy support. CTV News. https://calgary.citynews.ca/2022/11/09/poilievre-freedom-convoy-emergencies-act/
Tunney, C. (2024, January 23). Ottawa’s use of Emergencies Act against convoy protests was unreasonable, violated Charter, court rules. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-federal-court-1.7091891
van Dyke. (2024, January 23). Emergencies Act: Federal court rules use was “not justified” | CTV News. CTV News. https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/federal-court-rules-emergencies-act-invocation-not-justified-1.6738624Zeinab, F. (2022). Making Freedom Great Again: Conspiracy Theories, Affective Nostalgia and Alignment, and the right-wing base grammars of the #Freedomconvoy. Global Media Journal, 14(1), 67–92.