A Second Year Philosophy Seminar Question

A Second Year Philosophy Seminar Question: “Is it reasonable - for political, moral, and economic causes to murder a “legitimate” leader in our time?”

In the past – four hundred years ago or so – the question was much asked, the subject much debated. It was a time of more rudimentary development of laws to protect the population from the depredations of power.

The question arises in British Columbia for philosophical debate, now, because of the increasingly apparent violation of trust engaged in by B.C. premier Gordon Campbell and his Liberal cabinet – in order to pauperize British Columbians, to alienate their public wealth secretly, to flatter and enrich cabinet friends with public money, to practice every kind of deception, to victimize the weakest members of the population, and to debase democratic processes so as to make them inoperative.

The answer to the seminar question – to lay governmental minds at rest, at least temporarily – is that No, it is not reasonable.  First, the human community (in theory) has advanced to the condition where immoral and illegal actions by political leaders in ‘democratic’ societies are checked by modern laws and constitutions, and so drastic measures are not necessary. 

Secondly, in Canada capital punishment has been outlawed.  If a person, a group of people, or a majority of the population decided to murder Gordon Campbell (for instance), the reason adduced would doubtless be that it is an action undertaken ‘for the people’. 

But since we live in a country which has outlawed capital punishment, for anyone to engage in what is called “tyrannicide” would be contrary to law – and the murderers would be said to be working against the interests of the people.  The condition of possessing a law against capital punishment educates and restrains those who would undertake political assassination.

In countries like the United States assassination of leaders has been frequently engaged in – sometimes by mentally deranged people … but not always.  In a country in which capital punishment has not been outlawed (the USA) the likelihood of people “taking the law into their own hands” is considerable.  Because - if the state murders, it is argued, why shouldn’t the citizen as well?  

In the past - four hundred years ago or so - the question was much asked, the subject much debated.  The argument was straightforward: “Every ruler, however legitimate, belongs to this category [the category of tyrant] if the main principle of his government is selfishness, and if he habitually sacrifices the interests of his people to his lusts or to his pride.  Such rulers are the worst of evils, the enemies of the human race.” [W.E.H. Lecky, (reporting in) History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe, 1865, p. 166, Vol.Two].

Arguing from natural justice and not from the spinnings and weavings of law-makers, one writer (1599) held that, “If some ferocious beast had been let loose upon the land, and was devastating all around him, who would hesitate to applaud the man who at the risk of his life had ventured to slay it?”

The author concludes that it is “a salutary thought for princes to dwell upon, that if they oppress their people and make themselves intolerable by their vices, to slay them is not only without guilt but is an act of highest merit”.

The author [of four hundred years ago] was troubled about methods, though, and spends a chapter on the matter.  He concludes that to slay a tyrant with a dagger is meritorious, but to mingle poison with his food is another matter.  Logic, he decides, supports both methods, but he concludes that poison “is prohibited by that common sentiment of mankind which is the voice of nature and the test of right.” [p. 171].  [That is, it somehow offends the general sense of decency.] We now reject capital punishment in Canada for the same reason, because “it is prohibited by that common sentiment of mankind which is the voice of nature and the test of right”.

Times change; the ‘common sentiment of mankind’ changes; but the evil of politicians, apparently, does not change.

If we, now, seem far from the behaviour of the population four hundred years ago – perhaps that isn’t so.  In a thoughtful column written for Opinion 250 on November 29, Peter Ewart argues that the present inept political structure in B.C. “gives the Premier huge power … approaching that of a monarch”.  And Ewart goes on to refer to “the tyrannical behaviour of modern political leaders”.

They operate tyrannically under “The New Lawlessness” which has erased the rule of law, and has brought into threat the financial security of whole nations.  In collaboration with “princes”, financial criminals have decimated the confidence of populations, have drained public treasuries, have assured the growing poverty of ordinary people – while those same financial criminals and their government supporters have grown increasingly rich.  Natural justice cries out against such a gigantic wrong.

But since parliaments are ‘bought’, courts subverted, and police forces turned into “palace armies” – the population has nowhere to turn.  Such a condition can only point to economic disaster and growing social unrest.

Take note.  The person who warns that public violence will occur if (a) government doesn’t reform, and (b) if routes to remedy for wrongs done to the public are closed IS NOT advocating violence.  The contrary.  He or she is flashing warning signs to prevent violence.

It is not at all surprising, alas, that in the last few days “British Columbia’s Chief Electoral Officer … received threats of violence “ [Globe and Mail, Nov 30, S3] for being perceived as faking his rejection of an anti-HST recall application, and being seen as a corrupt lackey by many, serving the ends of a corrupt B.C. cabinet … frustrating the rule of law.

There is little question in B.C. today that the rule of law is seriously fractured.  The so-called modern advances in human compassion are asked of the larger population – but not of leaders who have chosen the role of “tyrant”.

We know, moreover, the assassination of leaders unpopular with imperial powers is quite “modern”, has been very common in the last hundred years and in our own day.  A major activity of such powers is to erase the rule of law. The advance of human kind has NOT been seen in their behaviour.  Murder of leaders (who are not tyrants) is a popular activity with them – especially the U.S., outside its own borders. In 1961, just for instance, the first democratically elected leader of the Congo, Patrice Lumumba was murdered with the assistance of the U.S. CIA – introducing a brutal (U.S.-supported) despot who began the long, long hell of the Congo world.

The freely elected Salvadore Allende of Chile was overthrown and died (some say by suicide) in a U.S. sponsored coup in 1973 – spiralling Chile into a murderous dictatorship (supported by the U.S.) of 17 years, and a “pretend” democratic government since.

Closer to home, we know that Jean-Aristide Bertrand, first democratically elected president of Haiti, was deposed, kidnapped, and flown to the Central African Republic in 2004 by the cooperation of the U.S., Canada, and France.  And we know the de facto power in Haiti since that time has been a UN force, assuring the wishes of those three powers and repressing the people of Haiti. Haitians, we are given to understand, consider the UN force in Haiti an “occupying force”.

Almost unknown to Canadians in this latest disaster of an election in Haiti two days ago, the political party of Jean-Aristide Bertrand was refused the right to run, and Aristide was refused the right to return to Haiti! “Well,” you say, “he’s lucky. They could have murdered him, too”.

At home, the new novel by Louis Hamelin on the War Measures Act and the 1970 FLQ Crisis argues [as Hamelin does in interview] that the famous Pierre Laporte murder by the FLQ was – at the very least – ‘permitted’ by the Canadian government which could have stopped it.  But … how better to get Canadians on the side of the federal government than to have a Quebec cabinet minister murdered in cold blood by the wicked FLQ?  Pierre Laporte suffered assassination, but at whose hands precisely, Hamelin cannot say.

In British Columbia – to return to the opening of this piece – the attempt to begin the lawful Recall process of targetted MLAs (as a continuation of the resistance to the deceitfully imposed HST) was refused, many insist, in a rape of democratic process in support of the corrupt Gordon Campbell Liberal government.  The rule of law and decent convention, it would seem, are jokes to the present cabinet in B.C.

The whole trial of the three accused in the BC Rail Scandal criminal case, in addition, was … a farce. The Special Prosecutor was appointed - in a violation of the legislation governing the appointment process - by long-time former partners and colleagues (who one might also assume were friends). Attorney General Geoff Plant and Deputy AG Allan Seckel (the latter now the Gordon Campbell-appointed top civil servant in B.C.) 

That meant the wrongly appointed Special Prosecutor could not legitimately  lay the charges, conduct the case in court, or make the final “deal” (or “bribe”) to end the trial.  Allegations that he was a lackey of the Gordon Campbell cabinet gained significant force in the wake of the messily `aborted trial and the “buy off” of the accused.

The Attorney General, the top court judges … and all others appealed to on the matter of the wrongful appointment either flubbed their replies or refused to reply. 

They stated – by refusing to face the issue - in effect, that there is no machinery in British Columbia to right the real wrongs committed by the cabinet of the Gordon Campbell Liberals. 

That is an explosive admission that cannot (unchecked) lead to anything but public unrest.

As with the BC Hydro secret destruction, the BC Ferries fiasco, the fraudulent sell-out of river energy, and the many huge, highly suspect government (development) contracts, the RCMP refuses to fulfill its mandate and investigate the corrupt transfer of BC Rail to the CNR, partly – it is alleged – because the RCMP, itself, cannot face the evidence that would be brought forth.

People in British Columbia are in a strange situation.  They cannot act physically against Gordon Campbell and members of his cabinet.  But they are unable to act lawfully against them either – because all the forces constitutionally constructed to protect the reasonable interests of the population have been subverted, suborned, bought, overthrown.

One reason – stated at the beginning of this piece - why Gordon Campbell, for instance, could not be legitimately murdered by a member or members of the British Columbia population is because “the human community (in theory) has advanced to the condition where immoral and illegal actions by political leaders in “democratic” societies are checked by modern laws and constitutions….”

With “The New Lawlessness”, however, that is not true.  It is certainly not true in British Columbia.

That situation has to accelerate the growth of seething discontent in the province. Finding a way to restore the rule of law is and will be a major challenge. 

Perhaps a peaceable, democratic, just, modern-day change of government is the solution for British Columbians.  But that will not be easy, since tyrants twist the rule of law out of recognition to avoid a just change of government.  

British Columbia’s Chief Electoral Officer Craig James has (to many observers) proved that to be true … and demonstrated it to be true.