One step forward, two steps back for freedom

Paul Bunner
October 11, 2017
When he wasn’t kayaking on or swimming in the North Saskatchewan River near his home in Edmonton, C2C Journal editor Paul Bunner spent some of his summer fighting two battles for little freedoms in his local community. He won one and lost one. Although he’s a veteran political activist at the federal and provincial level, Bunner contends that the lifeblood of democracy must be nurtured at the foundations of society if it is to flourish at the top.

One step forward, two steps back for freedom

Paul Bunner
October 11, 2017
When he wasn’t kayaking on or swimming in the North Saskatchewan River near his home in Edmonton, C2C Journal editor Paul Bunner spent some of his summer fighting two battles for little freedoms in his local community. He won one and lost one. Although he’s a veteran political activist at the federal and provincial level, Bunner contends that the lifeblood of democracy must be nurtured at the foundations of society if it is to flourish at the top.
Share on facebook
Share on Facebook
Share on twitter
Share on Twitter

On the North Saskatchewan River flats in downtown Edmonton where I live, an international consortium of engineering and construction firms are building a light rail transit tunnel, bridge, elevated trackway and station. This is all part of the 13-kilometre, $1.8 billion Valley Line from downtown to the southeast quadrant of the City. It’s a noisy, dusty, traffic-disrupting, and earth-shaking infrastructure megaproject, slashing through the heart of Edmonton’s bucolic downtown river valley parklands, and it’s going to take five years to build.

I almost went postal a couple of times this spring when crews were installing caisson piles and cofferdams for the giant concrete piers the bridge and trackway will sit on. The loud, unrelenting drilling and hammering impaired concentration and conversation, and the soft clay of the valley transmitted the vibrations to the china in our cupboards and the pictures on our walls.

One day in late spring I strolled down to the river bank for a closer look at the cacophonous mess and discovered, to my amazement, that a big, beautiful sand beach had appeared out of nowhere, immediately downstream from a massive stone jetty built partway into the river to support a huge construction crane.  I later learned that the jetty had created the beach by slowing the velocity of the current and allowing fine sand to drop out of the water below it.

For a river swimmer and beach bum like me, this was pretty significant compensation for the construction trauma. I thereafter spent many joyful hours on the beach with relatives, friends and neighbours, cooling off by swimming in the jetty-protected shallows on hot days, working out by paddling my kayak against the current in the narrowed channel, and building sand castles with kids.

The beach grew over the course of the summer, eventually stretching the length of five full city blocks. Its popularity grew too, especially after the Edmonton Journal published a front page story in mid-August quoting me and others as suggesting the City ought to consider how, or if, the “Accidental Beach” could be made permanent.

Within days the number of beachgoers grew into the hundreds. On a few hot days, thousands came. It was completely ad hoc and unregulated. Somebody tied a rope to a tree to help people rappel down the steep bank. Others created rock pathways across rivulets. The City scrambled to provide parking and traffic control, garbage barrels and portable washrooms.

Conventional and social media lit up with a lively debate between beach lovers and haters. The former seemed to greatly outnumber the latter, with the haters mainly comprised of three groups: local NIMBYists, public safety worrywarts, and green protectionists. Despite their shrill warnings about uncivilized behaviour on the beach, bacteria in the water, and downtown “wilderness” despoliation, the crowds kept coming. Amazingly diverse crowds, disproportionately comprised of new Canadians with young families, but lots of preening young adults too. One eyewitness claimed he saw a topless female sunbather not far from another young woman in a burkini.

The beach was also a hot topic at a local civic election debate this fall, and almost all the candidates expressed some support for making it permanent. In an age when development of almost any kind is suffocated by regulation, and when public safety trumps personal risk and responsibility at almost every turn, the apparent public and political support for the Accidental Beach was a small win for freedom – a spontaneous popular vote for liberty and against meddlesome killjoys.

Alas, freedom also suffered a minor setback this fall, at least in my little universe. Earlier in the year, the nanny statists who dominate Edmonton City Council voted to lower the speed limit around 425 parks and playgrounds to 30 kilometres per hour. As a result my tiny downtown river valley neighbourhood (pop. about 930), which is built around a huge park, was suddenly blighted with 16 shiny new road signs announcing the new, photo radar-enforced speed limit.

In the hundred-year history of my neighbourhood, there have never been speed signs. Nor, as far as anyone can recall, has there ever been a serious – certainly not fatal – vehicle-pedestrian accident. Moreover, the natural, safe speed limit on our narrow, leafy streets is about 40 kph, yet among the new signs there are three announcing that the speed limit beyond the park zone perimeter is 50kph.

So at the annual general meeting of my community league in September, I introduced a motion calling on the City to remove all or most of the signs. After a sadly one-sided debate where I was pilloried as a reckless idiot which ended with a community member saying he would prefer 16 speed signs to a single fatality sign, my motion was defeated by a 2-1 margin.

I maintain the streets of our community will be more dangerous, not less, as a result of these signs. But what troubles me even more is that my friends and neighbours, the vast majority of whom are rational, reasonable, civilized people, were so easily persuaded to vote against freedom and personal responsibility.

These local stories may seem trivial to some readers who expect C2C Journal writers to tackle big national and international stories and enduring cultural and philosophical questions. Sure it’s a matter of greater import and urgency whether U.S. President Donald Trump is going to make good on his cryptic threats to drop the big one on Pyongyang. And sure Canada’s economic future is increasingly imperilled by regressive progressive assaults on resource development and our competitiveness as a nation.

But freedom, the essence of healthy democracy which constrains the excesses of government left or right, lives or dies at the foundations of society. If we don’t champion it at the bottom, it will not prevail at the top. Which is a very roundabout way of urging readers who care about freedom and democracy to get involved in local politics, as advised by Edmund Burke:

“To be attached to the subdivision, to love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections. It is the first link in the series by which we proceed towards a love to our country and to mankind.”

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

It's time for an open, rational debate on immigration policy in Canada.

Can Canada Handle a Rational, Polite and Fact-Based Debate About Immigration?

It seems as if a new taboo is foisted upon Canadians by the week. Immigration is already among our established taboos – while the limits on its remaining areas of policy discussion grow ever-tighter. Canadians as a whole want less of it, while our elites are convinced that only good can come from more of it – and that increasing our diversity of origin is so important that it shall require uniformity of thought. Academic economist and former Parliamentarian Herbert Grubel says nuts to that, offering his take on key elements of immigration policy, plus the facts to support it. Part I of a two-part analysis.

It's a gross example of government overreach for there to be policies directing the diet and exercise of the population.

The Right To Be Fat: Pushing Back Against Government Overreach

Would beloved comic actor John Candy have lived longer if government forced him to eat less? What about Orson Welles? Or Luciano Pavarotti? Perhaps. Would they have been happier or more successful? We’ll never know the answer to the first, and as to the second, almost certainly not. Candy built his career around a lovable portliness, Welles often played menacing fat men and Pavarotti’s girth helped him belt out arias. A few extra pounds, in other words, offers both advantages and disadvantages − and it should be up to the individual to decide how to balance the scales. As governments ramp up policies designed to put their citizenry on a diet, Matthew Lau sallies forth in defence of eating what you want, and exercising only when you feel the need.

Pictured is Gulliver tied down by the Lilliputians. Illustrating the plight of civil servants under increasing regulation.

Slow Death by Regulation, the Great Public-Sector Disease

When do the words “transparency” and “accountability” mean the opposite of what an untutored citizen might think? Why, when they’re passing the lips of a Canadian civil servant. The federal bureaucracy also seems the one place where the digital revolution made everyone less productive. And while this sounds amusing (if pathetic), the federal bureaucracy’s power and intrusiveness just grow and grow while the freedoms of individuals and voluntary associations shrink and shrink. Former citizenship judge Joe Woodard takes a wry look at these trends and with good humour tracks the deadly serious slide of Canada from a free society in which everything that isn’t specifically forbidden is allowed, into something sadder, darker and more constrained.

More from this author

Good News From C2C Journal

C2C Journal is pleased to announce that thanks to the loyal and generous support of our readers, contributors and donors, the Journal is immediately increasing volume and frequency of original stories and essays, expanding staff, unveiling a redesigned website, and launching a sustained social media marketing push on multi-media platforms. Editor Paul Bunner has the details.

The Last Front Page

The rapidly shrinking newspaper business raises all kinds of questions. What will we wrap fish guts in? How will we light backyard fires? And where will we get reasonably accurate and important stories about what’s going on in our community, our country, and the world? The internet? Where global editor-bots decide what’s news? Where politicians can lie with impunity? Where fake news outsells real news? The short answer is yes. The longer and more encouraging answer is in the Spring edition of C2C Journal, which launches today with editor Paul Bunner’s lead editorial and career newspaperman Paul Stanway’s lament for the ink-stained wretches of yesterday’s news.

Situational sexism: Lock her up vs a punch in the face

At an anti-carbon tax rally at the Alberta Legislature in November, the crowd briefly mocked NDP Premier Rachel Notley with the “lock her up” chant that erupted at an Donald Trump campaign rallies whenever he attacked Hillary Clinton. It became a huge story, hailed as evidence that Trumpian sexism was spilling across the border. Last weekend, a young male demonstrator at anti-Trump “Women’s March” rally at the same location punched a female reporter for the right-wing Rebel Media in the face. The media response? Crickets at first, then skepticism. C2C editor Paul Bunner ponders the double standard.

Share This Story

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print

Donate

Subscribe to the C2C Weekly
It's Free!

* indicates required
Interests
By providing your email you consent to receive news and updates from C2C Journal. You may unsubscribe at any time.