Canadian Senate Reins in Trudeau

Canada has a parliament modeled on the British one, though the upper house of that parliament is called the Senate rather than "the House of Lords." The Senate was described by Canada's first prime minister as the house of 'sober second thought.' In England this became true of the House of Lords because all real power passed over time to the House of Commons, but the House of Lords was entitled to delay the enforcement of laws passed by the 'lower' house for as much as two years. In Canada, the Senate has an actual veto power.

In advance of the Senate's vote on his Emergency Act decree, Justin Trudeau has withdrawn the decree. Plainly this is because he did not have the votes. He only got it through the lower house by a parliamentary maneuver that allowed him to declare it a 'confidence vote,' such that if he lost the vote his entire governing coalition would lose power and face a new election. His allies in the New Democratic Party expressed great reluctance about having to vote for this act, and about its wisdom, but they finally went along with it to avoid losing power. No similar tactic was available in the Senate.

It is worth noting, however, that the financial powers used under this act have been made permanent by the bureaucracy separate from the need to invoke the Emergencies Act. Banks are already moving to unfreeze accounts, but the power to make the banks freeze accounts in retribution for political disagreement will remain in place.

For now, at least. This is a significant defeat for the forces of evil -- I use the term unironically and advisedly -- that may perhaps lead to other defeats. They showed their faces, and now must wait the judgment of the Canadian voter's 'sober reflection.' 

Weak Bones

The Pentagon weighs in on that exercise question. 

All Our Leaders are Unworthy

A solid rebuke to the State Department on the Ukraine situation.

Addendum to XLI

Enchiridion XLI had some commentary on the question of whether 'excessive' exercise is good or bad. Here is an opinion from Socrates, as related not by Plato -- whom we usually read for discussion of Socrates -- but by Xenophon, a friend whose great fame comes from his work as a soldier, mercenary, and horseman. Indeed his work on horsemanship is the earliest treatise I know of on the topic; and his discussion of his mercenary work, the Anabasis, is one of the great works of Western literature. This comes from Xenophon's Memorabilia, Book 3. As in the prior example, the Olympics are cited. I have highlighted some particularly relevant parts.

"Just as much as the competitors entered for Olympia,” [Socrates] retorted. “Or do you count the life and death struggle with their enemies, upon which, it may be, the Athenians will enter, but a small thing?  Why, many, thanks to their bad condition, lose their life in the perils of war or save it disgracefully: many, just for this same cause, are taken prisoners, and then either pass the rest of their days, perhaps, in slavery of the hardest kind, or, after meeting with cruel sufferings and paying, sometimes, more than they have, live on, destitute and in misery. Many, again, by their bodily weakness earn infamy, being thought cowards. Or do you despise these, the rewards of bad condition, and think that you can easily endure such things? And yet I suppose that what has to be borne by anyone who takes care to keep his body in good condition is far lighter and far pleasanter than these things. Or is it that you think bad condition healthier and generally more serviceable than good, or do you despise the effects of good condition? And yet the results of physical fitness are the direct opposite of those that follow from unfitness. The fit are healthy and strong; and many, as a consequence, save themselves decorously on the battle-field and escape all the dangers of war; many help friends and do good to their country and for this cause earn gratitude; get great glory and gain very high honours, and for this cause live henceforth a pleasanter and better life, and leave to their children better means of winning a livelihood.  

“I tell you, because military training is not publicly recognised by the state, you must not make that an excuse for being a whit less careful in attending to it yourself. For you may rest assured that there is no kind of struggle, apart from war, and no undertaking in which you will be worse off by keeping your body in better fettle. For in everything that men do the body is useful; and in all uses of the body it is of great importance to be in as high a state of physical efficiency as possible. Why, even in the process of thinking, in which the use of the body seems to be reduced to a minimum, it is matter of common knowledge that grave mistakes may often be traced to bad health. And because the body is in a bad condition, loss of memory, depression, discontent, insanity often assail the mind so violently as to drive whatever knowledge it contains clean out of it. But a sound and healthy body is a strong protection to a man, and at least there is no danger then of such a calamity happening to him through physical weakness: on the contrary, it is likely that his sound condition will serve to produce effects the opposite of those that arise from bad condition. And surely a man of sense would submit to anything to obtain the effects that are the opposite of those mentioned in my list.

“Besides, it is a disgrace to grow old through sheer carelessness before seeing what manner of man you may become by developing your bodily strength and beauty to their highest limit. But you cannot see that, if you are careless; for it will not come of its own accord.”

That all seems opposed to Epictetus' dictum, as recorded in a discussion among men who were famous for wartime courage and activity. Naturally, I endorse the Socratic and Xenophonic view.

Enchiridion XLIII

XLIII

Everything has two handles: one by which it may be borne, another by which it cannot. If your brother acts unjustly, do not lay hold on the affair by the handle of his injustice, for by that it cannot be borne, but rather by the opposite—that he is your brother, that he was brought up with you; and thus you will lay hold on it as it is to be borne.

Sometimes I find it very easy to bear that someone needs to be cut out of my life, whoever they were before. This is possible to do when it must be done, as everyone who has walked away from a once-beloved who proved to be incompatible with you has learned. Sometimes even a cousin who develops a drug problem (and consequently a theft problem) can be cut out without much trouble. Still, one might say in the case of a brother that normally there ought to be a duty of blood that overcomes that.  

More broadly considered, this is a general principle. If one were in a failing state like the Weimar Republic, one could bear it because one knew it would pass and worked as well as one could for something better. If the state then failed more completely, as Weimar did, one could bear it because one could do little to support the new state and only one's duty to family and friends. 

Yet there comes a point at which things are not to be borne. The Stoic here is advising you on how to survive and learn to live with horrible things. That is a breaking point between their philosophy and my own, which holds that death is preferable to dishonor. Somethings ought not to be borne; somethings, even 'semblances,' must be opposed by a decent internal soul. Even if it destroys us.

Poll: Democrats Support Suspending Rule of Law to Crush Truckers

Sixty-five percent of Democrats told the Trafalgar Group so, anyway. I am not sure Americans fully understand how grave a violation of what we would ordinarily consider to be the rule-of-law this Canadian move is. They just know that they hate the truckers, and wanted to see them crushed, and the government crushed them.

Well, for now it has, although if the truckers decide to fight they could easily blockade several parts of the Canadian economy that would compel the regime to surrender fairly quickly. Canada remains extremely vulnerable to this strategy, which is partly why the government is willing to throw out their whole legal tradition and basic Constitutional protections in order to oppose it. 

Yet it is important to grasp just how severe a violation of the rule-of-law this move really is. The Canadian government has ordered banks to freeze the bank accounts of people merely suspected, not proven, to have supported the truckers in any way -- without a court order or any due process, and barring you for suing for damages over it. Some bank accounts have been frozen for donations as small as $40. For the price of dinner out, the government is willing to see you lose your life savings and home if you can't pay  your mortgage. I can't think of any crime involving $40 that isn't a misdemeanor, not a felony.

Those small, deadly donations were not made to a terrorist organization, either, but to a perfectly legal registered nonprofit. So it is not just that the donors are being punished for a crime without due process: they are being punished for behaving in a perfectly legal way, and without due process.

Even for those who engaged in civil disobedience and therefore did break some law, the laws involved are minor violations:  literally they are honking too loud, or parking a motor vehicle in an unauthorized location, or refusing verbal police instructions. Civil disobedience does normally require that you accept the lawful punishment for your choice to express discontent in an extralegal manner, but these are '30 days if convicted at trial' offenses, not 'held-without-bail and then ten years in prison' offenses under the laws that actually existed at the time of the actions. Ex post facto laws have been created, and are being retroactively applied, which is a violation of ordinary Anglo-American principles of justice (it would be formally unconstitutional here).

So your life can be destroyed by ex post facto laws that targeted perfectly legal behavior, or what were minor violations of civil order at the time they were done, on suspicion alone and without due process. These powers are totalitarian in scope, in other words: they presume not only to govern according to the law, but to change the law after the fact to fit whatever they decide they wanted to govern. All aspects of life, including those currently strictly legal, fall under this scope.

Those are only the broad-brush strokes of the challenge. There are other worthy issues, for example, the fact that actually violent protests in Canada from left-wing actors are never punished in any similar way. In three weeks of trucker protests, they committed not one single assault or battery or violence of any kind; in that environmentalist protest, they set wildfires and destroyed construction equipment, then attacked responding security and Royal Canadian Mounted Police with axes. Equality under the law, then, is also being violated here.

Ultimately this a much more serious challenge to the Western tradition of liberty just because it's being done in a once-secure Western state. If bedrock principles like the rule-of-law, no ex post facto laws, and equality under the law can be simply set aside in Canada, it can happen anywhere.

There is also a pragmatic danger. Venezuela did this kind of thing once Chavez took power, and declined from being one of the richest and happiest nations on earth to an impoverished tyranny. Canada could follow a similar route, even with all its wealth -- Venezuela also had wealth, and still sits atop massive oil reserves. Not only would that be terrible for Canadians, Americans must consider that we could end up with failed or failing states on both of our long land borders. Although taking on qualified truck-driver refugees would actually benefit our economy, the costs of Canada falling into a Venezuelan-style death spiral will be bad for us as well as them. 

So reflect carefully, everyone, on just how serious this action by Trudeau really is. It is not just winning a political fight: it threatens the death of some of the most basic principles of our whole political tradition.

Enchiridion XLII

 XLII

When any person does ill by you, or speaks ill of you, remember that he acts or speaks from an impression that it is right for him to do so. Now it is not possible that he should follow what appears right to you, but only what appears so to himself. Therefore, if he judges from false appearances, he is the person hurt, since he, too, is the person deceived. For if anyone takes a true proposition to be false, the proposition is not hurt, but only the man is deceived. Setting out, then, from these principles, you will meekly bear with a person who reviles you, for you will say upon every occasion, “It seemed so to him.”

This reminds me strongly of the Quakers, as explained in the excellent 1947 John Wayne movie "Angel and the Badman."

Quirt: That on the wall [indicating an inscribed plaque]. "Each human being has an integrity that can be hurt only by the act of that same human being and not by the act of another human being." Is that Quaker stuff? [Penny silently affirms the question.] You mean, nobody can hurt you but yourself? 

Penny: That's a Friends' belief.

Quirt: Well, supposin' somebody whacks you over the head with a branding iron? Would that hurt?

Penny: Physically, of course. But in reality it would injure only the
person doing the act of force or violence. Only the doer can be hurt by a
mean or evil act.

Quirt: Are there very many of you Quakers? 

Penny: Very few. 

Quirt: I sort of figured that.

 There aren't a lot today, either.

Why can't a woman be more like a man?

 This is getting very Meta.  Facebook removed the following Bee post for "hate speech."

Enchiridion XLI

XLI

It is a mark of want of intellect to spend much time in things relating to the body, as to be immoderate in exercises, in eating and drinking, and in the discharge of other animal functions. These things should be done incidentally and our main strength be applied to our reason.

Calls to moderation are a regular feature of Greek philosophy, and all philosophies strongly informed by them. It is interesting that 'exercise' is included, here, though; remember in XXIX striving to win the Olympic Games was offered as an analogy to philosophy. Here we seem to be counseled against Olympic ambitions, but to seek philosophy with our real strength.

There is a counterpoint in Aristotle, where he offers an account of the soul that also summons us to philosophy as the main and most proper human pursuit. Yet we should strive to master our lesser faculties, just because it makes it easier to be good at philosophy. A healthy body will think clearer thoughts, and not being distracted with illness and medications and treatments of various sorts, the pursuit of health is wise just because it improves our ability to philosophize. 

A Teachable Moment

I don't know if these are the sort of people who learn lessons, but they have at least been presented with an opportunity.

According to Antifa protesters who took over the presser, identified by the Post Millennial as “Hailley Nolan and Dustin Ferreira,” the previous night their comrades had gone to confront members of the notorious Portland area biker gang [motorcycle club], the Gypsy Jokers. Police say at least one of the Antifa militants was armed (which they usually are).

That went exactly as well as you'd expect.  

The Asheville Celtic Festival

Glorious, two years on from the last occasion. Albannach was there, and they performed the best live show I’ve ever attended. 

Thousands came, mead flowed and beer, Highland games and swordplay, a great time for all. 

To Hell With the Washington Post

Not to put too fine a point on it.

The primarily White supporters of the Freedom Convoy argue that pandemic mandates infringe upon their constitutional rights to freedom. The notion of “freedom” was historically and remains intertwined with Whiteness, as historian Tyler Stovall has argued. The belief that one’s entitlement to freedom is a key component of White supremacy. This explains why the Freedom Convoy members see themselves as entitled to freedom, no matter the public health consequences to those around them.

Historian Tyler Stovall can jump in the lake too. How about an alternative perspective, less in favor now than once in Washington and elsewhere:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Emphasis added, because emphasis is needed. 

Enchiridion XL

XL

Women from fourteen years old are flattered by men with the title of mistresses. Therefore, perceiving that they are regarded only as qualified to give men pleasure, they begin to adorn themselves, and in that to place all their hopes. It is worth while, therefore, to try that they may perceive themselves honored only so far as they appear beautiful in their demeanor and modestly virtuous.

It is unusual to hear ancient philosophers speak about women; Aristotle was famously incurious about them, at least in his writing. Socrates apparently said something like, "By all means marry; for if you get a good wife you shall become happy, and if you get a bad one you shall become a philosopher."

Epictetus has said little enough about women, but it is kind and decent: understand why they might seem vain, for society puts little value on anything except their attractiveness, on which everything for them may depend; but honor them rightly, for virtue and character. 

Meanwhile, Back at the Ranch

Don Surber brings up the other Canadian protests that apparently GoFundMe is okay supporting and Trudeau isn't using emergency powers against. From the Vancouver Sun:

Very early Thursday, just after midnight, Coastal GasLink security called RCMP for help, reporting it was under attack by about 20 people, some wielding axes.

RCMP Chief Supt. Warren Brown, commander for the north district, called the attack a “calculated and organized violent attack that left its victims shaken and a multi-million dollar path of destruction.”

Coastal GasLink said in a statement the attackers surrounded some of its workers in a “highly planned” and “unprovoked” assault near the Morice River drill pad site off the forest service road.

“In one of the most concerning acts, an attempt was made to set a vehicle on fire while workers were inside,” said the company in a statement. “The attackers also wielded axes, swinging them at vehicles and through a truck’s window. Flare guns were also fired at workers.”

 

"No"

Nunchuk, a bitcoin outfit, responded politely to the Canadian government's request that it freeze the bitcoin assets of its customers:

Then it added:

EdgeWallet also sent back a polite response, saying its considered response to this important request was "No."

Enchiridion XXXIX

XXXIX

The body is to everyone the proper measure of its possessions, as the foot is of the shoe. If, therefore, you stop at this, you will keep the measure; but if you move beyond it, you must necessarily be carried forward, as down a precipice; as in the case of a shoe, if you go beyond its fitness to the foot, it comes first to be gilded, then purple, and then studded with jewels. For to that which once exceeds the fit measure there is no bound.

Fascism in the North

 

Illicit Profit

The Department of Justice goes Communist. 

Inflation is treason, comrade. 

Enchiridion XXXVIII

XXXVIII

As in walking you take care not to tread upon a nail, or turn your foot, so likewise take care not to hurt the ruling faculty of your mind. And if we were to guard against this in every action, we should enter upon action more safely. 

Enchiridion XXXVII

XXXVII

If you have assumed any character beyond your strength, you have both demeaned yourself ill in that and quitted one which you might have supported.

What is a character beyond your strength? It is a character that professes that it can determine events in the world outside the mind. This is a great human desire; even Aristotle falls prone to it in the later parts of the Nicomachean Ethics, in which he describes the virtue of courage as the virtue that wins wars. In the earlier parts he is more careful: virtues are to be judged by probability of outcome, and courage is said to be a virtue even though it is sometimes the very thing that destroys you. On average, however, courage works out with reasonable reliability. In the later books, he offers what philosophers sometimes describe as a 'thicker' version: courage wins wars, and thus wars are in a way a competition of virtue. The most virtuous in this particular way will be the winner.  

That is not true. The bravest does not always prevail. To assume a character that asserts that it is so courageous as to be undefeatable is to lie to one's self, and to those who believe you. Many a man has promised his wife and children to return from the war victorious, and then never returned at all. It was not because they were not brave men.

Epictetus suggests that lying to yourself is demeaning; and asserting a greater power than you have is a lie. A better man would not lie to himself, but would be honest about his limits as well as his powers. 

If you abandon that honest character in order to assert more boldly than you can really defend, then you are exactly as he describes in this chapter. You quit the honest character you could have defended, and demeaned yourself by lying. This is not virtue, neither courage nor any other.