风萧萧_Frank
以文会友
Justin Trudeau Said He Admired China's Dictatorship. Canadians Should Have Believed Him
Feb 15, 2022 LEER EN ESPAÑOL
贾斯汀·特鲁多表示钦佩中国的独裁统治。 加拿大人应该相信他
2022 年 2 月 15 日 西班牙文阅读
贾斯汀·特鲁多 (Justin Trudeau) 2013 年发表的言论表达了他对中国独裁政权的“钦佩程度”，这对他如何看待权力来说是一个危险信号。
图片来源：弗兰克·施威滕伯格
乔恩·米尔蒂摩尔
2013 年，在多伦多举行的“女士之夜”筹款活动上，一位崭露头角的政治家被问到他最钦佩世界上哪个国家的政府。这位面容清新的自由党领袖身穿淡蓝色衬衫，面带微笑，回答了共产主义中国。
贾斯汀说：“我实际上对中国有一定程度的钦佩，因为他们的独裁统治使他们能够真正扭转经济，并说我们需要走向绿色，我们需要开始投资太阳能。” 特鲁多告诉这群妇女。 “我知道斯蒂芬·哈珀（Stephen Harper）总理一定梦想着一种灵活性：拥有一个你可以做任何你想做的事情的独裁政权，我觉得这很有趣。”
这些言论引起了批评，尤其是加拿大人，他们指出了中国的压迫性政权并记录了侵犯人权的行为。
“看来他消息不灵通，”一位圆桌会议成员告诉加拿大广播公司。
然而，事实证明，这些言论只不过是特鲁多政治崛起的一个减速带。 2015年11月，特鲁多接替哈珀宣誓就任加拿大第二十三任总理。
火上浇油
特鲁多的言论值得仔细审视，因为他现在发现自己处于全球的聚光灯下。
周一，特鲁多宣布，他将动用很少使用的紧急权力，以镇压“自由车队”，该运动最初是为了抗议穿越美国边境的卡车司机接种疫苗的规定而发起的，现已演变成一场更广泛的针对新冠病毒限制的抗议活动。
特鲁多在新闻发布会上表示：“封锁正在损害我们的经济并危及公共安全。” “我们不能也不会允许非法和危险的活动继续下去。”
通过援引加拿大《紧急状态法》（该法于 1988 年取代《战争措施法》），特鲁多可以利用联邦执法部门协助各省政府，并扩大搜查和扣押维持抗议运动的私人物品的范围。
“我们正在做出这些改变，因为我们知道这些（众筹）平台被用来支持非法封锁和非法活动，这些活动正在损害加拿大经济，”财政部长克里斯蒂亚·弗里兰（Chrystia Freeland）在评论中使用了“恐怖主义”一词。
特鲁多还表示，他打算利用联邦军队来支持省军队。
他说：“尽管他们尽了最大努力，但现在很明显，执法部门有效执法的能力面临着严重挑战。”
然而，总理的行为引起了民权组织的批评，他们指责政府从事不民主的行为。
加拿大公民自由协会表示：“联邦政府尚未达到援引《紧急状态法》所需的门槛。” “这项法律创建了一个高而明确的标准，这是有充分理由的：该法案允许政府绕过普通的民主程序。 这个标准还没有达到。”
据路透社报道，魁北克省、曼尼托巴省、阿尔伯塔省和萨斯喀彻温省的省长也站出来反对特鲁多的计划。
“我们真的不需要火上浇油，”魁北克省省长弗朗索瓦·莱戈特说。
力量的考验
特鲁多的做法确实很危险。 然而，正如美国历史所表明的那样，和平抗议与犯罪活动之间的界限并不总是清晰的。
波士顿倾茶事件被视为美国历史上的一次爱国行动，但我的一位大学教授认为这是一次“国内恐怖主义”行为，这种观点并不像许多人认为的那么罕见。 2020 年的事件还表明，和平抗议有时会很快演变成不和平的事件（或“大部分是和平的”，这是暴力的委婉说法）。
不幸的是，对许多人来说，抗议是否合法，更多地取决于所支持的事业，而不是所使用的方法。
我敢打赌，许多人（正确地）对特鲁多的行为感到震惊，他们支持共和党人要求特朗普总统在 2020 年部署美军的呼吁。相反，我想许多特鲁多目前的捍卫者也是对这个想法感到愤怒的人（正确地）之一 美国军队应该部署在美国领土上，镇压平民抗议、骚乱和暴力。
特鲁多升级危机的特别令人不安的是，加拿大的抗议活动一直是和平的。 现在，故意“扰乱”交通是否是一种合法的抗议形式是一个合理的问题，因为阻碍交通确实侵犯了他人的权利。 但认为它符合暴力的定义有些牵强，而且地方当局可以在不涉及暴力的情况下解决它。
宣布国家紧急状态。
加拿大发生的事件所代表的意义远大于卡车司机和加拿大经济。 正如马丁·路德·金所见，非暴力抗议是无权者用来抵抗有权者的不公正行为的少数工具之一。 以更大的力量回应和平抗议就完全忽视了金关于非暴力的重要教训。
但就特鲁多的情况而言，也许我们不应该感到惊讶。
1989年，中国政府面临着自己的“封锁”，北京学生领导的示威活动试图阻止中国军队进入天安门广场。 尽管示威活动是和平的，但中国共产党宣布戒严，并派出了配备步枪、自动武器和坦克的人民解放军。
没有人确切知道有多少人在天安门广场大屠杀中丧生。 中国政府称有 200 人。英国的消息人士估计有 10,000 人。 撇开死亡事件不谈，大多数人记得的是一个年轻人盯着一辆中国坦克的画面，而坦克的司机拒绝碾压他面前勇敢的抗议者。
然而，贾斯汀·特鲁多还记得另一件事。 对他来说，中国政权代表着一个梦想：“一个你可以为所欲为的独裁政权。”
当然，特鲁多 2013 年的言论并不意味着他会用坦克碾压平民。 但它们确实表明他没有通过权力的考验——对于政客来说，没有比这更大的考验了。
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.
