You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Rule of Law?’ tag.
The rule of law, a cornerstone of Western civilization, ensures justice and stability through impartiality, accountability, and restraint on power. Marxism, by contrast, subordinates legality to revolutionary goals and class-based conflict, undermining the very structures that support social cohesion. To preserve civilization, we must uphold the rule of law.
1. The Rule of Law: Civilization’s Bedrock
In 1215, the barons at Runnymede compelled King John to sign the Magna Carta, declaring that even monarchs must be subject to law. This revolutionary idea—the rule of law—would become a cornerstone of Western civilization, evolving through England’s Glorious Revolution (1688) and culminating in modern constitutionalism.
The U.S. Constitution (1789) and France’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) enshrined this principle globally. By 2020, 90% of democracies had incorporated judicial independence into their constitutional systems.¹ The rule of law, as theorized by thinkers like A.V. Dicey and later F.A. Hayek, restrains power through legal predictability and universality.²
The practical results are clear. Nations scoring above 0.8 on the World Bank’s Rule of Law Index—such as Denmark, Finland, and Canada—also consistently rank high on human development, prosperity, and civic trust.³ The rule of law provides a common legal language for diverse societies, replacing tribal favoritism with equality before the law. Even where the system has historically failed—colonial abuses, slavery, or gender inequality—it has proven self-correcting through reform.⁴
Some critics claim that the rule of law merely entrenches elite power structures. But this critique misrepresents its essence. Far from preserving privilege, impartial law constrains it. It creates a standard by which even the powerful may be held to account. The abolition of slavery, universal suffrage, civil rights protections—all emerged not in spite of legal order, but through it. Civilization thrives when justice prevails.
2. The Shadow Rises: Marxism’s Assault on Legal Order
The rule of law’s strength lies in its impartiality—its power to unify pluralistic societies under shared norms. Yet Marxism offers a fundamentally different vision: one that subordinates legal stability to revolutionary transformation and class struggle.
In The Communist Manifesto (1848), Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels dismissed law as a mere instrument of the bourgeoisie.⁵ Their goal was not reform but abolition—of private property, class, and the legal structures that supported both. This revolutionary posture bore grim fruit: under Stalin’s Great Terror, over 1 million people were executed in the 1930s as law was repurposed into a tool of terror.⁶ Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution (1966–76) abandoned legal process entirely, leading to the persecution and death of millions in the name of ideological purification.⁷
Contemporary neo-Marxist frameworks, like Critical Legal Theory, question whether law can ever be neutral. While these critiques raise valid concerns about systemic bias, they often collapse into legal nihilism. “Equity” is increasingly invoked not as a means of fair access to justice but as a demand for redistributive outcomes that override due process.⁸
Seattle’s 2020 “defund the police” policy experiment, influenced by such theories, reduced legal enforcement capacity. According to FBI Uniform Crime Reporting, homicides in the city rose 61% that year.⁹ While correlation does not imply causation, many observers linked the spike to policing reductions and the erosion of legal authority. A Rasmussen survey in 2023 found that 68% of Americans believed defunding policies increased crime.¹⁰
Even more moderate Marxist thinkers, like Antonio Gramsci, viewed legal neutrality as a fiction. His theory of “cultural hegemony” suggested that dominant ideologies—including legal norms—function to maintain ruling class power.¹¹ While Gramsci promoted gradual reform over violent revolution, his intellectual legacy has often been absorbed into radical critiques that pit “justice” against legality.
When the law is treated not as a safeguard of liberty but as an obstacle to progress, impartiality is lost. The result is not liberation but fragmentation. Societies governed by fluctuating ideological mandates rather than stable legal norms revert to “might makes right.” History provides ample warning.
3. The Stakes and a Call to Action
When law bends to ideology, chaos follows. The Soviet gulags and Seattle’s crime spikes are not identical in scale, but they both reflect what happens when legal norms are abandoned in the pursuit of revolutionary or moral goals.
Data again reinforces the case for the rule of law. Nations with Rule of Law Index scores above 0.8 also top global rankings in democracy, trust in institutions, and social resilience.³ Law is not merely procedural; it is a moral and civilizational foundation.
That does not mean we defend unjust systems blindly. We must remain vigilant, pushing for principled reforms: transparent policing (such as California’s 2018 body-camera law, AB 748¹²), judicial independence, and accountability for misconduct. But we must reject efforts to replace law with ideological fiat.
Support for organizations promoting constitutional order—like the Federalist Society—can help anchor legal education in foundational principles. Likewise, defending due process in public discourse reaffirms our shared commitment to equal justice.
Marxism’s critiques of inequality are not without merit. But where they abandon legal impartiality in favor of ideological justice, they endanger the very fabric of civilization. To preserve liberty, we must defend the law—not as an artifact of oppression, but as a guarantor of peace.
References
-
Constitute Project. World Constitutions Database (2020). https://www.constituteproject.org
-
Hayek, F. A. (1960). The Constitution of Liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
-
World Bank. Rule of Law Index (2022). https://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi
-
UK Parliament. Slavery Abolition Act (1833); U.S. Congress. 19th Amendment (1920). https://www.parliament.uk | https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27
-
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848). The Communist Manifesto. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/
-
Conquest, R. (1990). The Great Terror. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Chang, J., & Halliday, J. (2005). Mao: The Unknown Story. New York: Knopf.
-
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2017). Critical Race Theory: An Introduction (3rd ed.). New York: NYU Press.
-
FBI. Uniform Crime Reporting Program (2021). https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2021
-
Rasmussen Reports. Crime Concerns and Defund Police (2023). https://www.rasmussenreports.com
-
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York: International Publishers.
-
California State Legislature. AB 748: Body-Worn Camera Footage Disclosure (2018). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB748
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.
In recent years, Toronto, Canada, has witnessed a disturbing trend where adherents of the Islamic faith have organized large, unauthorized gatherings—such as the Eid al-Adha prayers in July 2023 near Nathan Phillips Square—that spill onto public streets, shutting them down without permits or regard for the broader community. These events, where hundreds gather and block traffic for hours, are often cloaked as religious expression, but they flout the basic expectation that all Canadians, regardless of faith, must adhere to the same rules governing public spaces. This isn’t just a minor inconvenience; it’s a direct challenge to the Canadian value of order and fairness, where no group gets a free pass to disrupt the lives of others under the guise of cultural practice.
The glaring absence of robust policing and arrests during these incidents is nothing short of a betrayal of Canada’s commitment to the rule of law. Toronto police, present at events like the 2023 Eid gathering, have chosen to stand by and redirect traffic rather than enforce bylaws that would see any other unpermitted group—be it protesters or revelers—swiftly fined or dispersed. This cowardice in the face of religious optics sends a dangerous message: that some communities can act with impunity, while others are held to account. Canadian values demand equality before the law, not selective enforcement that bends to avoid offending specific groups. When police fail to act decisively, they undermine the very principles of justice and accountability that have long defined this nation.
This growing pattern of leniency threatens to unravel the fabric of Canadian society, where respect for shared rules has been a cornerstone of our strength. If authorities continue to prioritize appeasement over impartial governance, they invite chaos—emboldening any group, religious or otherwise, to trample on public order without consequence. Canada’s pride in multiculturalism cannot come at the cost of surrendering our streets to lawlessness. The rule of law isn’t negotiable; it’s the bedrock of our freedom and security. Toronto must reclaim its resolve, enforce its regulations without hesitation, and send a clear signal that Canadian values—order, equality, and accountability—will not be compromised, no matter who tests them. Anything less is a surrender of what makes this country worth defending.
It certainly seems like the religious, libertarian hard right fringe has made its way from the US to Canada. The illegal occupation of Ottawa and border crossings are prime examples of the profoundly undemocratic/reactionary roots of this ‘movement’.
The police are reacting with a glacial slowness that is exacerbating the situation. Much more needs to be done to protect our civil society, public health, and democratic institutions.
Much of the talk about the rule of law, at least in international politics seems to be but a mere convenience to be followed when international law happens to be in favour of a countries policies. When it becomes inconvenient to the national policy or doctrine, then the rule of law becomes an obsolete antiquated legal fixture, or international meddling in a sovereign countries affairs.
The US is rather notorious for this dubious commitment to the international rule of law.
“The United States contempt for international law is neither new nor an aberration but a long standing tradition between both democrats and republicans in the United States.
In another stunning example of human rights abuse by the United States is the case of Khaled El-Masri. Who happened to have the misfortune of having the same name as a terror suspect. He was subsequently kidnapped, flown to Afghanistan and was tortured and sodomosied.(4)
“Masri’s treatment at Skopje airport at the hands of the CIA rendition team — being severely beaten, sodomised, shackled and hooded, and subjected to total sensory deprivation — had been carried out in the presence of state officials of [Macedonia] and within its jurisdiction,” the European Court of Human Rights ruled. (Idid.)
When the International Court of Justice ruled against the United States in 1986 in favour of Nicaragua and found the United States was guilty of many international laws and human rights violations it simply upped and walked away from the court. (5)
The US benches were empty when the court announced its decision. Among the Nicaraguan delegates was the Foreign Minister, Father Miguel d’Escoto, who said he hoped that the verdict would help the Americans to re-evaluate their position and stop defying the law and the court.
Dutch legal experts argue that the decision is legally binding on the US, despite the American refusal to recognise the court’s jurisdiction. One said: ‘The USA has always recognised the ICJ. It should have changed its position earlier if it wanted to duck the court in this case.
‘It is a well-known principle of international law that, if a country submits to the jurisdiction of a court, it cannot sidestep the court after the judges have started their work,’ a professor of international law at Amsterdam University said. (Ibid.)”
I’d like to live in a world where concepts such as the rule of law actually exist in a state where they applied equally to all parties involved. The state of the world precludes this fair application of the rules at the moment and it should be taken into account when appeals to the ‘rule of law’ are made.
[Source:Counterpunch]
Harper and his mercurial band of autocrats are merrily stomping on the neck of democracy. Sadly, this isn’t news, but rather par for the course as dissent, reality based or not (I’m looking at you prison bloat omni-bus bill) will be passed hell or high water. What makes the Wheat Board debacle such a gut-rolling spleen bursting festival of shitacular brazenness is that our government intends to ignore what the courts have to say on the matter as well. Canada, in theory, still regards the rule of law as important as long as it follows the will of the governing party… Rule of law be damned. A spirited opposition has risen to the task of fighting Harper’s autocrats:
“The Harper government has reneged on its promise and is now breaking the law, and we intend to hold them to it and ensure that farmers’ democratic rights are respected,” board chairman Allan Oberg said Wednesday.
The board will file an application with the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, asking it to rule Bill C-18 invalid. The bill is currently before the Senate and could become law within weeks, so the board is also asking the court for an injunction to suspend the bill until the case is heard.
The government has already suffered one legal setback over Bill C-18. A Federal Court judge ruled last week that the bill violates the Canadian Wheat Board Act, which says the government must consult farmers via a plebiscite before making major changes.
Justice Douglas Campbell made it clear, however, that his ruling was simply a statement on the government’s actions. He did not order the government to halt the bill and said he was not interfering in the legislative process.”
However, once the wheels of injustice are greased, there is little to be done to stop the nefarious deeds –
“Five government-appointed directors now in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board decided Friday morning in Winnipeg to drop the board’s bid to block legislation ending its marketing monopoly for Prairie wheat and barley.
Legislation to end the wheat board’s single-desk became law Thursday night, when Gov. Gen. David Johnston gave royal assent to Bill C-18.
With its passage, the eight farmer-elected directors of the board are gone.”
So it is done. Of course in klassy Conservative style:
“Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz was jubilant Friday morning, telling farmers gathered in Balgonie, Sask., that it’s a great day.
“This feels damn good. It’s been a long time coming,” Ritz said. “Finally you have marketing freedom.”
Farmers in the room with Ritz cheered.”
Woo, now we can enjoy the bountiful harvest of the ‘free’ market! Soon to be followed with “all hail our new corporate agricultural overlords!!”. Now it is just a matter of time as the real work of divide and conquer can begin. Without the protection of the wheat board we can look forward to even more corporate agriculture and all of the ill effects associated with strict monoculture farming practices.
When the small farmers are all gone, we’ll look back and note the passage of the legislation that marked their end. We’ll also note the cheering, for the sake of irony and the inevitable “I told you so” that is forthcoming.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…