風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
Justin Trudeau Said He Admired China's Dictatorship. Canadians Should Have Believed Him
Feb 15, 2022 LEER EN ESPAÑOL
賈斯汀·特魯多表示欽佩中國的獨裁統治。 加拿大人應該相信他
2022 年 2 月 15 日 西班牙文閱讀
賈斯汀·特魯多 (Justin Trudeau) 2013 年發表的言論表達了他對中國獨裁政權的“欽佩程度”，這對他如何看待權力來說是一個危險信號。
圖片來源：弗蘭克·施威滕伯格
喬恩·米爾蒂摩爾
2013 年，在多倫多舉行的“女士之夜”籌款活動上，一位嶄露頭角的政治家被問到他最欽佩世界上哪個國家的政府。這位麵容清新的自由黨領袖身穿淡藍色襯衫，麵帶微笑，回答了共產主義中國。
賈斯汀說：“我實際上對中國有一定程度的欽佩，因為他們的獨裁統治使他們能夠真正扭轉經濟，並說我們需要走向綠色，我們需要開始投資太陽能。” 特魯多告訴這群婦女。 “我知道斯蒂芬·哈珀（Stephen Harper）總理一定夢想著一種靈活性：擁有一個你可以做任何你想做的事情的獨裁政權，我覺得這很有趣。”
這些言論引起了批評，尤其是加拿大人，他們指出了中國的壓迫性政權並記錄了侵犯人權的行為。
“看來他消息不靈通，”一位圓桌會議成員告訴加拿大廣播公司。
然而，事實證明，這些言論隻不過是特魯多政治崛起的一個減速帶。 2015年11月，特魯多接替哈珀宣誓就任加拿大第二十三任總理。
火上澆油
特魯多的言論值得仔細審視，因為他現在發現自己處於全球的聚光燈下。
周一，特魯多宣布，他將動用很少使用的緊急權力，以鎮壓“自由車隊”，該運動最初是為了抗議穿越美國邊境的卡車司機接種疫苗的規定而發起的，現已演變成一場更廣泛的針對新冠病毒限製的抗議活動。
特魯多在新聞發布會上表示：“封鎖正在損害我們的經濟並危及公共安全。” “我們不能也不會允許非法和危險的活動繼續下去。”
通過援引加拿大《緊急狀態法》（該法於 1988 年取代《戰爭措施法》），特魯多可以利用聯邦執法部門協助各省政府，並擴大搜查和扣押維持抗議運動的私人物品的範圍。
“我們正在做出這些改變，因為我們知道這些（眾籌）平台被用來支持非法封鎖和非法活動，這些活動正在損害加拿大經濟，”財政部長克裏斯蒂亞·弗裏蘭（Chrystia Freeland）在評論中使用了“恐怖主義”一詞。
特魯多還表示，他打算利用聯邦軍隊來支持省軍隊。
他說：“盡管他們盡了最大努力，但現在很明顯，執法部門有效執法的能力麵臨著嚴重挑戰。”
然而，總理的行為引起了民權組織的批評，他們指責政府從事不民主的行為。
加拿大公民自由協會表示：“聯邦政府尚未達到援引《緊急狀態法》所需的門檻。” “這項法律創建了一個高而明確的標準，這是有充分理由的：該法案允許政府繞過普通的民主程序。 這個標準還沒有達到。”
據路透社報道，魁北克省、曼尼托巴省、阿爾伯塔省和薩斯喀徹溫省的省長也站出來反對特魯多的計劃。
“我們真的不需要火上澆油，”魁北克省省長弗朗索瓦·萊戈特說。
力量的考驗
特魯多的做法確實很危險。 然而，正如美國曆史所表明的那樣，和平抗議與犯罪活動之間的界限並不總是清晰的。
波士頓傾茶事件被視為美國曆史上的一次愛國行動，但我的一位大學教授認為這是一次“國內恐怖主義”行為，這種觀點並不像許多人認為的那麽罕見。 2020 年的事件還表明，和平抗議有時會很快演變成不和平的事件（或“大部分是和平的”，這是暴力的委婉說法）。
不幸的是，對許多人來說，抗議是否合法，更多地取決於所支持的事業，而不是所使用的方法。
我敢打賭，許多人（正確地）對特魯多的行為感到震驚，他們支持共和黨人要求特朗普總統在 2020 年部署美軍的呼籲。相反，我想許多特魯多目前的捍衛者也是對這個想法感到憤怒的人（正確地）之一 美國軍隊應該部署在美國領土上，鎮壓平民抗議、騷亂和暴力。
特魯多升級危機的特別令人不安的是，加拿大的抗議活動一直是和平的。 現在，故意“擾亂”交通是否是一種合法的抗議形式是一個合理的問題，因為阻礙交通確實侵犯了他人的權利。 但認為它符合暴力的定義有些牽強，而且地方當局可以在不涉及暴力的情況下解決它。
宣布國家緊急狀態。
加拿大發生的事件所代表的意義遠大於卡車司機和加拿大經濟。 正如馬丁·路德·金所見，非暴力抗議是無權者用來抵抗有權者的不公正行為的少數工具之一。 以更大的力量回應和平抗議就完全忽視了金關於非暴力的重要教訓。
但就特魯多的情況而言，也許我們不應該感到驚訝。
1989年，中國政府麵臨著自己的“封鎖”，北京學生領導的示威活動試圖阻止中國軍隊進入天安門廣場。 盡管示威活動是和平的，但中國共產黨宣布戒嚴，並派出了配備步槍、自動武器和坦克的人民解放軍。
沒有人確切知道有多少人在天安門廣場大屠殺中喪生。 中國政府稱有 200 人。英國的消息人士估計有 10,000 人。 撇開死亡事件不談，大多數人記得的是一個年輕人盯著一輛中國坦克的畫麵，而坦克的司機拒絕碾壓他麵前勇敢的抗議者。
然而，賈斯汀·特魯多還記得另一件事。 對他來說，中國政權代表著一個夢想：“一個你可以為所欲為的獨裁政權。”
當然，特魯多 2013 年的言論並不意味著他會用坦克碾壓平民。 但它們確實表明他沒有通過權力的考驗——對於政客來說，沒有比這更大的考驗了。
Justin Trudeau Said He Admired China's Dictatorship. Canadians Should Have Believed Him
Feb 15, 2022 LEER EN ESPAÑOL
Justin Trudeau's 2013 comment expressing his "level of admiration" for China's dictatorial regime was a red flag on how he sees power.
Image Credit: Frank Schwichtenberg
Wearing a pale blue shirt and a smile, the fresh-faced Liberal Party leader answered Communist China.
“There is a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime and say we need to go green, we need to start, you know, investing in solar,” Justin Trudeau told the group of women. “There is a flexibility that I know [Prime Minister] Stephen Harper must dream about: having a dictatorship where you can do whatever you wanted, that I find quite interesting.”
The comments drew fire, particularly from Canadians who noted China’s oppressive regime and documented human rights abuses.
“It seems to be that he’s not well-informed,” a member of a round-table told the CBC.
Nevertheless, the comments proved to be little more than a speed bump in Trudeau’s political ascent. In November 2015, Trudeau was sworn in as Canada’s twenty-third prime minister, succeeding Harper.
Throwing ‘Oil on the Fire’
Trudeau’s comments deserve scrutiny since he now finds himself in the global spotlight.
On Monday, Trudeau announced he was activating rarely used emergency powers in an effort to suppress the Freedom Convoy, a movement originally created to protest vaccination mandates for truckers crossing the US border that has morphed into a broader protest against COVID restrictions.
“The blockades are harming our economy and endangering public safety,” Trudeau said in a news conference. “We cannot and will not allow illegal and dangerous activities to continue.”
By invoking Canada’s Emergencies Act—which in 1988 replaced the War Measures Act—Trudeau can use federal law enforcement to assist provincial governments and expand its search and seizure of private goods that sustain the protest movement.
“We are making these changes because we know that these (crowdfunding) platforms are being used to support illegal blockades and illegal activity which is damaging the Canadian economy,” said Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, who used the word “terrorism” in her comments.
Trudeau also said he intends to use federal forces to support provincial forces.
“Despite their best efforts, it is now clear that there are serious challenges to law enforcement’s ability to effectively enforce the law,” he said.
The prime minister’s actions, however, drew criticism from civil rights groups, who accused the administration of engaging in undemocratic actions.
“The federal government has not met the threshold necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act,” the Canadian Civil Liberties Association said. “This law creates a high and clear standard for good reason: the Act allows government to bypass ordinary democratic processes. This standard has not been met.”
According to Reuters, premiers in Quebec, Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan also came out against Trudeau’s plan.
“We really don’t need to throw oil on the fire,” said Quebec’s Premier François Legault.
The Test of Power
Trudeau’s actions are indeed dangerous. Yet as American history shows, the line between a peaceful protest and criminal activity is not always clear.
The Boston Tea Party is fondly remembered as a patriotic action in US history, but I had a professor in college who suggested it was an act of “domestic terrorism,” a view not as uncommon as many would believe. The events of 2020 also showed how peaceful protests can sometimes spiral into something unpeaceful very quickly (or “mostly peaceful,” a euphemism for violent).
For many, unfortunately, whether a protest is legitimate depends less on which methods are being used and more on which cause is being championed.
I’m willing to bet that many people (rightly) appalled at Trudeau’s actions supported calls from Republicans for President Trump to deploy the US military in 2020. Conversely, I imagine many of Trudeau’s current defenders were among those (rightly) outraged at the idea the US military should be deployed on American soil to put down civilian protests, unrest, and violence.
What’s particularly troubling about Trudeau’s escalation of the crisis is that the protests in Canada have been peaceful. Now, whether intentionally “snarling” traffic is a legitimate form of protest is a fair question, since impeding traffic does infringe on the rights of others. But it’s a stretch to suggest it meets the definition of violence, and it can be resolved by local authorities without declaring a national emergency.
The events in Canada represent something much bigger than the truckers and Canada’s economy. As Martin Luther King Jr. saw, non-violent protest is one of the few tools people without power have to resist the injustices of those who have it. To respond to peaceful protests with more power is to completely miss King’s important lessons on non-violence.
But in Trudeau’s case, perhaps it should not surprise us.
In 1989, the Chinese government faced its own “blockade” as student-led demonstrations in Beijing attempted to impede the Chinese military’s advance into Tiananmen Square. Even though the demonstrations were peaceful, the Chinese Communist Party declared martial law and sent in the People’s Liberation Army—equipped with rifles, automatic weapons, and tanks.
Nobody knows for sure how many died in the Tiananmen Square Massacre. The Chinese government said 200. A source for the United Kingdom estimated 10,000. Fatalities aside, what most people remember is the image of a young man staring down a Chinese tank, whose driver refused to crush the brave protester before him.
Justin Trudeau, however, remembers something else. For him, China’s regime represented a dream: “a dictatorship where you can do whatever you wanted.”
Trudeau’s 2013 remarks do not mean he will crush civilians with tanks, of course. But they do indicate he has failed the test of power—and for politicians, there’s no bigger test.
