The Protest in Liberation Square

I have been invited by a musician friend to join a protest “against injustice, fossil fuels and the billionaires that fund them.”

“We refuse to stand by while the government and Canada’s richest corporations hoard wealth, gut our public services, fuel climate collapse, attack migrants, exploit Indigenous lands, and prop up a genocide in Palestine.”

“Climate justice, migrant justice, economic justice, Indigenous rights, and anti-war movements are uniting to prove them wrong.”

Their list of demands follows: “fund our families and communities.” “Refuse ongoing colonialism. Uphold indigenous sovereignty.” “Stop blaming migrants. Demand full immigration status for all now.” “End the war machine.” “End the era of fossil fuels. Protect Mother Earth.”

It seems an oddly random set of concerns, and vague demands, with a lack of specifics. Which makes me think the main impetus here is tribalism: “virtue signalling.” Or rather, an abdication of responsibility for the problems of the world. It is all the fault of governments and big corporations, and it is up to the governments and the rich corporations, not me, to fix it.

I do not believe the government of Canada is hoarding wealth. Quite the reverse: they are running an annual deficit, and there is a large public debt. 

If a corporation is hoarding wealth rather than reinvesting or distributing it to shareholders, I think this is bad, but it is a matter for their shareholders to deal with. I don’t think they need me to step in and protect their interests. 

Presumably it is the government, and not rich corporations, that are gutting our public services. But money does not come from nowhere; that is a childish thought. If money is being taken out of some public service, is it going to some better use elsewhere? One needs to consider both ides of that equation.

I do not see either the government or rich corporations attacking migrants. The government is inviting them into the country in unprecedented numbers, and the corporations are accused of exploiting this for cheap labour.

I do not see either the government or rich corporations exploiting indigenous lands; although perhaps this hinges on what you consider to be indigenous lands. If you hold that all Canada is indigenous land, then of course any land use in Canada is “exploiting indigenous lands.” But economic development, exploitation of resources, is a good thing, if you are on the side of humanity.

Legally, and morally, “indigenous land” means land the title of which is held by some indigenous person, or on behalf of some tribe or band—the reserves. Are there examples of exploitation here without permission or compensation? If so, I am opposed. But I would need to hear specifics.

As to “propping up genocide in Palestine”—there are several issues here. To begin with, is there a genocide in Palestine? Is the IDF trying to wipe out the Gazan Arabs? Or is this a war against Hamas, or a suppression of a terrorist group? If it is a genocide, the obvious immediate solution would be to open the Egyptian border to Gazan refugees. If that is not the proposed solution, I must suspect some ulterior motive. And that the Gazan Arabs are considered expendable.

The next question is whether Canada is propping up the Israelis. We send no foreign aid. We sell them weapons; which actually means they are funding us. The Canadian government announced in March 2024 an embargo on arms shipments to Israel; although this seems not to have been honoured.

“Fund our families and communities”? But government funds come from our families and communities. The solution is to leave the funds with them in the first place. Again, there seems a childish assumption that money just comes from nowhere.

“Refuse ongoing colonialism. Uphold indigenous sovereignty.” It is an interesting idea: this would mean each reserve declaring independence, and running their own affairs. But if it was racist in South Africa with their bantustans, if it was racist in the US South with segregation, surely it is racist in Canada now. And I doubt any of these tiny countries would be economically viable without outside subsidy.

“Demand full immigration status for all now.” But this is an obvious injustice: why should this particular group of people be allowed free entry into Canada, above others who might want to come? 

Or is the proposal just to open the borders and let anyone in? This is incompatible with having a social safety net. The incentive to immigrate will be far greater for those wanting or needing public assistance. Other countries might outsource all their problems, all their antisocial or indigent residents, to Canada. And other countries might even try to take us over by simple force of demographics, as the US took Texas from Mexico, or Morocco seized the former Spanish Sahara.

“End the war machine.” Canada is conspicuous for how little it spends on defence; we are in trouble in our alliances because of it. And when was the last time Canada started a war? The military industrial complex is probably the least of our worries.

“End the era of fossil fuels. Protect Mother Earth.” Here I must recoil. “Mother Earth” is obvious idolatry. Nor does Earth need protecting from us. We could not destroy it if we wanted to. The worst we could do is destroy ourselves.

There is an argument that there is something wrong with fossil fuels, other than that they will run out. The idea is that burning anything produces carbon dioxide; carbon dioxide causes global warming; global warming is a bad thing on balance. This seems to me a slender thread; there are more pressing things to worry about. And what is your solution? Even if fossil fuels cause global warming, and global warming is bad, there is nothing any one government or rich corporation can do about it. If Canada were to ban the burning of fossil fuels altogether, manufacturing would simply move to China, or India, or whatever country allowed it. If any corporation stopped using them, they would just lose their competitiveness and go out of business to some rival. The only solution is improved technology that makes some other energy source more economical. 

I have perhaps gone into too much detail; I feel these things are obvious. But obviously not to everyone.