You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Fairness’ tag.
Herbert Marcuse’s 1965 essay *Repressive Tolerance* argues that tolerance in liberal societies isn’t neutral—it props up power while smothering real dissent. He saw it as a rigged game: the system tolerates ideas that fit its frame and represses those that don’t. Marcuse’s fix? “Liberating tolerance”—coddling radical change, even lawbreaking, if it’s “progressive,” while crushing “regressive” resistance. Fast-forward to today: police and courts often give left-leaning lawbreakers a pass when their cause aligns with elite vibes, but hammer right-leaning groups like Canada’s Trucker Convoy. Let’s break this down with real cases through Marcuse’s eyes.
Marcuse’s Core Idea
Marcuse claimed tolerance in capitalist democracies—like free speech or legal fairness—shields the status quo. It’s not about justice; it’s about control. He pushed for intolerance toward oppressive ideas (think war or exploitation) and leniency for acts challenging them, even if illegal. The hitch: who picks the winners? Today’s justice system seems to—favoring leftist breaches while pummeling right-wing ones. Two real examples show it plain.
The Left’s Light Touch
Look at the 2020 Portland protests after George Floyd’s death. Night after night, activists clashed with police, torched a federal courthouse, and smashed storefronts. Over 1,000 arrests happened across months, per Portland Police data, but Multnomah County DA Mike Schmidt dropped charges for most non-violent cases—hundreds walked free. Rioting and property damage? Illegal, sure. But Schmidt called it “proportional” to focus on “serious” crimes, nodding to the protests’ racial justice aim.
Marcuse might nod too. He’d see this as “liberating”—lawbreaking to dismantle systemic racism, a cause he’d back. The state’s leniency fits his playbook: tolerate disruption if it’s “just.” But context matters. Media framed it as moral outrage, and cultural elites cheered. Tolerance here wasn’t blind—it leaned on a narrative Portland’s leaders could stomach.
The Trucker Convoy: Heavy Hand
Now flip to Canada’s 2022 Trucker Convoy. Truckers rolled into Ottawa, protesting vaccine mandates. They parked rigs, honked horns, and gridlocked downtown—illegal blockades, no question. No firebombs, though; it was loud, not violent. Ottawa’s response? A state of emergency. Police arrested 191 people, per the Ottawa Police Service, and the feds invoked the Emergencies Act—first time since 1988. Bank accounts got frozen, crowdfunding cash was seized, and leaders like Tamara Lich faced charges carrying up to 10 years. Courts still grind on some as of 2025.
Marcuse might call this “regressive”—truckers resisting public health for personal freedom, not his revolutionary vibe. His theory would greenlight repression here. But step back: these were blue-collar workers, not suits, pushing against centralized control. The state didn’t just enforce law—it flexed hard, with banks and media tagging them “extremists.” Tolerance? Out the window when the script flipped.
Side by Side
Portland versus Ottawa lays it bare. In Portland, sustained lawbreaking—arson, vandalism—drew arrests, but prosecutors waved off most penalties. The cause? Racial justice, a darling of progressive elites. The truckers broke laws too—blockades, noise—but got hit with emergency powers, asset freezes, and jail time. Their cause? Individual liberty, a sore spot for the same elites. Both disrupted public order. One got a shrug; the other got shackles.
Marcuse’s lens tracks this. He’d argue Portland’s activists deserved slack—their fight aligned with his anti-oppression stance. The truckers? Too “backward” to tolerate. Yet the truckers’ working-class roots and anti-mandate gripes echo his underdog ideal more than Portland’s curated chaos. The difference? Cultural clout. Left-leaning causes get a halo; right-leaning ones get a boot.
Steel-Manning the Divide
To be fair, the state’s not a monolith. Portland’s leniency could reflect local politics—progressive DAs like Schmidt prioritize “equity” over punishment. Ottawa’s crackdown? Public safety after weeks of gridlock, not just ideology. Law’s messy, not a conspiracy. Still, the gap’s real. A 2021 DOJ report showed 93% of Portland riot cases got dismissed or deferred; contrast that with the Convoy’s 70+ convictions by 2023, per Canadian court records. Police logged 1,000+ hours on Portland protests with kid gloves; Ottawa saw 2,000+ officers deployed in days, batons out. Numbers don’t lie—tolerance tilts.
Marcuse didn’t see this coming. He figured the repressed were leftists battling a right-wing Goliath. Now? Power’s cultural, not just economic, and it leans left—media, tech, academia. The truckers, not the rioters, look more like his outcasts. Yet “repressive tolerance” still flows his way—toward causes that sound noble, not ones that clash with the zeitgeist.
The Takeaway
Marcuse’s *Repressive Tolerance* nails today’s double standard. Portland’s rioters broke laws and walked; Ottawa’s truckers did the same and sank. It’s not random—tolerance tracks power’s favorites. Marcuse wanted it for revolution, but it’s become a perk for the loudest voices. Scroll X, pick a protest, and test it: who gets the pass? The answer’s in the outcomes, not the excuses.”
Credit to Grok AI, for the legwork with regards to statistics and editing for clarity.
Policing in Canada has historically been grounded in the principle of equality under the law, where all individuals, regardless of identity, are subject to the same legal standards and enforcement practices. However, recent shifts in policy, training, and public discourse suggest that Canadian policing is increasingly adopting a model that applies different standards based on identity categories such as race, ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status. This evolution is driven by a combination of social justice movements, government directives, and institutional reforms aimed at addressing systemic inequalities. While intended to rectify historical disparities, this approach raises questions about consistency and impartiality in law enforcement.
One clear indicator of this shift is the implementation of race-based data collection by police services across Canada. Initiated in response to allegations of racial profiling, agencies like the Toronto Police Service and the Ontario Provincial Police began collecting and analyzing data on the race of individuals stopped, questioned, or arrested, starting with pilot projects around 2019 and expanding since then. The stated goal is to identify and address “disproportionate” enforcement patterns, particularly against Black, Indigenous, and other racialized groups. While this data has confirmed higher rates of police interaction for certain communities—such as a 2020 Toronto report showing Black individuals were 2.2 times more likely to be involved in use-of-force incidents—it has also led to tailored policing strategies that adjust scrutiny or leniency based on racial identity rather than uniform application of the law.
Training and policy changes further illustrate this trend toward differential standards. Following high-profile incidents like the 2020 death of Regis Korchinski-Paquet and subsequent Black Lives Matter protests, Canadian police forces have overhauled training to emphasize “de-escalation” and “cultural competency,” often with specific focus on interactions with Indigenous and racialized populations. For instance, the RCMP introduced mandatory “bias-free policing” modules by 2022, which instruct officers to consider historical trauma and systemic factors when engaging with certain groups. While these measures aim to reduce harm, they implicitly encourage officers to alter their approach—sometimes reducing enforcement rigor—based on an individual’s perceived identity, diverging from a strictly neutral standard.
Legal and governmental frameworks also support this shift. In 2023, Bill C-92, an Act respecting First Nations, Inuit, and Métis children, youth, and families, effectively granted Indigenous communities greater autonomy over child welfare, including policing-related interventions, creating a parallel system distinct from mainstream enforcement. Similarly, hate crime laws and sentencing guidelines increasingly factor in identity-based considerations, with offenders targeting “vulnerable” groups facing harsher penalties, while enforcement in marginalized communities is often softened to avoid perceptions of over-policing. This dual-track approach—tougher on some, lighter on others—reflects a deliberate move away from universal standards toward identity-specific policing practices.
Finally, public and institutional pressure continues to reinforce this trajectory. Advocacy groups, such as the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers and Indigenous rights organizations, have successfully lobbied for policies that treat identity as a mitigating factor in policing. Reports like the 2021 Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Inquiry explicitly called for reduced police intervention in Indigenous communities, alongside increased accountability for officers dealing with these populations. Meanwhile, urban police forces face scrutiny for “over-policing” racialized neighborhoods, prompting initiatives like Toronto’s 2024 “Community Crisis Support Service,” which diverts mental health calls involving racialized individuals away from police entirely. These developments signal a broader trend: policing in Canada is increasingly calibrated to identity, balancing equity goals against the traditional ethos of equal enforcement. Whether this enhances justice or undermines fairness remains a point of contention.
A great place to start, I think. :)
1.Economic Freedom for Every Canadian
Imagine a Canada where your hard-earned money stays in your pocket, not drained by endless taxes. We propose bold tax cuts and the permanent end to the carbon tax, lifting financial burdens and sparking economic growth. A Canadian version of DOGE could take this further, injecting innovation into our economy while empowering individuals and businesses to thrive. This is about more than savings—it’s about giving you the freedom to prosper.
2. A Nation Rooted in Culture and Fairness
Canada’s strength lies in its people, but mass migration without limits risks stretching our resources thin and diluting our identity. We stand for controlled immigration that honors our values, paired with a renewed focus on promoting strong families and celebrating Canadian culture. Add to that a commitment to women’s sex-based rights, and we’re building a society that’s fair, united, and proud—free from the clutter of woke nonsense that’s crept into government.
3. Security and Sovereignty Above All
A strong Canada demands safety and independence. We’ll get hard on crime, ensuring justice and security for every citizen, while bolstering our military to protect the north and secure our borders. By stripping out divisive gender ideologies from governance, we refocus on what matters: a nation that’s tough, fair, and fiercely sovereign. This is a Canada worth fighting for—one that puts its people first.
Identities do not win sports titles – physical bodies do. Sadly, once again we have to fight for the basic rights of females in our society and reaffirm the material reality we all share.
We have to dispel the notion that the US, UK, and Canada are on always on the side of justice and that we can do no wrong. If this was the case, we would happily welcome the scrutiny of the ICC in our wars and international affairs, as we would (in theory) have nothing to hide. Vijay Prashad writing for Counterpunch disagrees.
Clearly, this is not the case.
“The United States is not a party to the International Criminal Court (ICC). It had helped establish the Court, but then reversed course and refused to allow itself to be under the ICC’s jurisdiction. In 2002, the U.S. Congress passed the American Service-Members’ Protection Act, which allows the U.S. government to “use all means” to protect its troops from the ICC prosecutors. Article 98 of the Rome Statute does not require states to turn over wanted personnel from a third party if these states had signed an immunity agreement with the third party; the U.S. government has therefore encouraged states to sign these “article 98 agreements” to give its troops immunity from prosecution.
The enormity of evidence of war crimes by U.S. troops and U.S.-affiliated troops in Afghanistan and Iraq weighed on the credibility of the ICC. In 2016, after a decade of investigation, the ICC released a report that offered hope to the Afghan people. The ICC said that there is “a reasonable basis” to pursue further investigation of war crimes by various forces inside Afghanistan—such as the Taliban, the Haqqani network, and the United States military forces alongside the Central Intelligence Agency. The next year, the ICC went forward with more detailed acknowledgment of the possibility of war crimes. Pressure on the ICC’s prosecutor mounted.
Pressure on the Court
This is where everything seemed to end. The Trump administration, via John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, made it clear to the ICC that if they pursued a case against the U.S., then the Trump administration would go after the ICC prosecutor and judges personally. An application for a U.S. visa by Fatou Bensouda, the ICC prosecutor, was denied; she had intended to come to the U.S. to appear before the United Nations. This was a shot across the bow of the Court. The U.S. was not going to play nice. Not long thereafter, in April 2019, the ICC said that it would not go ahead with a war crimes case against the United States, or indeed against any of the belligerents in Afghanistan. The Court said it would “not serve the interests of justice” to pursue this investigation.
Trump responded to this decision by calling the ICC “illegitimate” and—at the same time—that the ICC’s judgment was “a victory, not only for these patriots, but for the rule of law.”
Staff at the ICC were dismayed by the ICC’s decision. They were eager to challenge it, fearing that if they let the U.S. mafia tactics prevent their own procedures then the ICC would lose whatever shred of legitimacy remains. As it is, the ICC is seen as being deployed mainly against the enemies of the United States; there have been no serious investigations of any power that is closely aligned with the United States.”
We have one set of rules for the rest of the world and another version that we apply to ourselves. The exceptionalism that is portrayed in our media and repeated by our political classes needs to be dispelled. We should not be above the ICC’s reach, nor should we be impeding the investigations that it undertakes. Yet it is the reality we inhabit.
Most nations will act with a certain level of impunity when it comes to their interests at home and abroad. We in the West need to acknowledge that through our actions, are no better or worse then the countries we seek to censure through the ICC and the war crimes it prosecutes.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…