Try as it might, no constitution can include a mechanism for its own suspension, since if that mechanism were invoked it would have been constitutional to do so. That’s just a matter of logic. By contrast it’s not strictly speaking a matter of logic that no government could tolerate its own overthrow. After all, it does happen. And so neither is it strictly speaking a matter of logic that no government could tolerate terrorism. It’s just that, well, governments tend not to.
But what about the ‘glorification’ of revolution or terrorism? Half the books in the social science section of every university, save those under totalitarian dictatorship, advocate revolution, if need be by force of arms. So no, advocating revolution is perfectly acceptable. But the glorification of terrorism, apparently, is another story.
Is there a government anywhere on the planet that didn’t come about as a result of terrorism? I can’t think of one. Certainly none of the governments that have currently criminalised the glorification of terrorism. Is this hypocrisy? No more so than it’s hypocrisy for a nation of once unlimited immigrants to want to control immigration. Besides, it makes perfect sense to criminalise the glorification of terrorising this jurisdiction while approving of it elsewhere, e.g. against the Taliban or the Kremlin.
I say all this because I’m about to say something that might seem like I’m advocating terrorism right here in River City. But I’m not. But – and this is where the ‘seeming’ comes in – neither am I disapproving of it. I’m not advocating it because it would be illegal to do so. And I’m not disapproving of it because the law, at least so far, does not compel me to.
Okay, I think I’ve now covered my ass. So I can proceed with my argument.
Now then, as it happens I’m not pro-Life. In fact I’m against all life. I’d prefer a world consisting of nothing but inanimate objects. But suppose I were pro-Life. Suppose I believed that abortion is murder, and that suffering an abortionist to live is indistinguishable from listening to the man in the apartment next door beating his wife to death and doing nothing because, after all, “A man’s home is his castle, right?”
Then, it seems to me, it would be wrong not to shoot as many abortionists as I could. But I wouldn’t have to. As long as I, and a few of my like-minded fellow travellers, managed to kill enough abortionists to put the fear of God into the remainder, there would no longer be any abortions. And that, in case you were unaware of it, is exactly and all that’s meant by terrorism.
Likewise in case you were unaware of it, there’s a war going on. A culture war, but a war nonetheless. And it’s a world war, rather than a local one, with consequences at least as dire as the war taking place in Ukraine. The lion’s share of the Russian part in that war is terrorism. The Ukrainians are just beginning to catch on that they’re going to have to respond in kind. But after Dresden and Hiroshima, we’re hardly in a position to disapprove, now are we? So …
So the other day a crazy walked into a feminism class at the University of Waterloo and stabbed two students and the instructor. I say a ‘crazy’ because even though one wouldn’t have to be crazy to oppose what was being taught in that classroom, I think we’re all of a mind that some kind of mental health problem was probably involved in this case. Why? Because mentally healthy people, notwithstanding their ideological commitments, don’t do that kind of thing.
And the like can be said of the pro-Lifer who goes around bombing abortion clinics. Funny thing is, though, we don’t say the same thing about the unconscripted Ukrainian soldier who puts himself in harm’s way to kill the Russian invader. So though we think one would have to be insane to act illegally on his pro-Life or anti-feminist commitments, we do allow one could conscionably act, legally or not, on motives of which we happen to approve.
But once we concede that, I think we’re well on the way to conceding that the craziness of at least some of these would-be heroes lies in what they surely must know is the futility of their criminal acts. That is, the miscreant in the Waterloo case surely knew his three stabbings were not going to put an end to what’s being taught in those feminism classes. But, isomorphic to the abortion clinic bombing body count, how many stabbings would? There has to be such a number, does there not? And if there is, what does its not having been reached, let alone approached, tell us about the urgency with which either side wants to win this war?
I’ve cited the war over feminism here only because that seems to have been the motive behind the Waterloo incident. But my point, if I’m succeeding in making it, is about the much wider war over wokeism, in which feminists, by the way, find themselves deeply split. In fact wokeism is a collection of positions, to which there is no one who subscribes tout court, just as there is no one who is tout court anti-woke. But there’s nothing unusual in this. Politics always makes strange bedfellows. As, likewise of course, does war.
How many Wokesters would have to be prepared to put their lives on the line to put an end to anti-wokeism? Too many. How many Wokesters would have to be prepared to put anti-Wokester lives on the line to put an end to anti-wokeism? Too many. How many anti-Wokesters would have to be prepared to put their lives on the line to put an end to wokeism? Too many. But how many anti-Wokesters would have to be prepared to put Wokester lives on the line to put an end to wokeism? Hardly any. And it’s that asymmetry that, mutatis mutandis, might – I say just might – account for how the current war will eventually be won, and by whom.
It’s not just that the anti-Wokesters are more likely to be gun-toters, though they are. It’s not just that they’re more prone to violence, though they are. It’s that they’re angrier. Much angrier. And it’s only very angry people who go postal.
If this be doubted, check out Thomas Hobbes’ Fifth and Eighth Laws of Nature, which he calls ‘complaisance’ and ‘contumely’ respectively, and the Sixth Power of the Sovereign, namely to “judge of what doctrines are fit to be taught”, derived from them. What Hobbes failed to recognise – and Wokesters are making the same mistake – is that censorship is as likely to provoke anger as prevent it.
I could be wrong – I won’t say I hope I am, because I’m not required to – that very soon now somebody’s going to go postal. And then someone else. And then a few more. And that‘s how this war is going to come to an end. It’s not going to be the victory of the unwoke over the woke, any more than it was the victory of the Roundheads over the Cavaliers. It’s going to be a decision by the woke and unwoke to live and let live, as it was between the Catholics and the Protestants in the wake of their civil war. John Lennon thought we should give peace a chance. This might be the way to do that.
Categories: Everything You Wanted to Know About What's Going On in the World But Were Afraid to Ask, Humour, Social and Political Philosophy
Paulosophical Vimplications 
I trip over the double-barreled implication that all existing governments have used terrorism in order to come about, including those who criminalize the glorification of terrorism today.
First, is it illegal in Canada to “glorify” terrorism? It is illegal to “advocate or promote” terrorism but no charges have ever been laid under this section. If you glorified terrorism in a video game or a lurid graphic novel but didn’t encourage specific real-life acts or targets, would that be illegal? Dunno.
https://albertalawreview.com/index.php/ALR/article/download/2590/2551/2803
which includes citations of relevant Criminal Code sections.
Second, is it true that all governments have come into existence through terrorism? The easy one is the United States where acts of rebellion which could have been condemned by King George as terrorism, had the word been in use then, evolved into revolution, victory, and a new government. In the Canadian definition, attacks directed entirely at military installations (even if mobs had not attacked homes and businesses of Loyalists) could still be terrorism. In practice, terrorists usually strike civilians in order to mitigate their own casualties, the military being willing and able to shoot back, but they would not escape charges of terrorism (and hanging for sedition in colonial America) merely by scrupulously avoiding civilians.
But what about governments who establish themselves through an initial Right of Conquest, then evolve and devolve to produce, say, modern Canada? If the established state (as opposed to a rebellious group that is not a state actor) uses violence or threat of violence (as all do) to exert its lawful authority, is this really terrorism? If it is, then you’re stuck saying there’s no difference between Canada’s use of state force to put down the Riel Rebellions and, say, the Twin Towers bombings of 11 Sept 2001. Maybe there in fact isn’t but I think the argument has to be developed, not just stated as your being unable to think of a government that didn’t come about through terrorism.
Finally, part of terrorism’s method is its seeming capriciousness. The public never knows when or which pub or gathering place is going to get blown up, or which random public official or community spokesman is going to get gunned down. The state could act this way but it usually wants to create a climate of cowed docility, not fretful nervous apprehension, so it usually doesn’t.
I grant that you would excuse this seeming hypocrisy but I remain to be convinced that it is hypocrisy, being myself not readily disposed to suffer hypocrites.
LikeLike