Giving Due Process its Due

Click “Listen Now” to hear the audio version of Insights.

HERE'S MY TAKE

How much do we really believe in the dignity of every person? The limit of that belief is the extent to which we are prepared to sacrifice ourselves to protect due process for those with whom we disagree. Case in point: the process by which the United States is deporting alleged illegal immigrants. Of course, there are other less high-profile examples as well.

A helpful social media post by my friend Ed Bosveld sparked my reflections on what is at stake in these discussions. Here is what Ed wrote:

“Yet another pillar of liberal Western civilization is being hacked away by wokesters on both the left and the right…

A very straightforward way to think of due process is this: when you're facing government action which could significantly impact your life, freedom, or property, you have a right to know the case and to defend yourself in front of an impartial judge or adjudicator.

This isn't exactly a new concept in the West—the Magna Carta (AD 1215!) provided that no free man would be seized, have his property taken, or be harmed except by 'the law of the land,' a phrase which evolved in the next century to 'due process of law.'

But, like many other fundamentals of liberal democracy—individual human rights, limits on state power, equality before the law, freedom of speech/press/religion—due process is given short shrift by the populist-nationalist woke right and the DEI-cultural Marxist woke left, both of which are fundamentally illiberal movements.

Now, to all my progressive friends nodding their heads approvingly at my comments on deportations and due process...where were you when the illegal implementation of the Emergencies Act froze people's bank accounts without due process, in some cases preventing them from buying groceries? Or when the (very important) Me Too movement declared "We believe survivors," which was often—especially in post-secondary institutions—taken to mean that the alleged perpetrator was always guilty without a defence or trial?

And for those of you who were (rightly) outraged at the lack of due process in the Emergencies Act—are you equally outraged when immigrants or migrants don't get due process?

The problem here, I think, arises out of the dehumanizing nature of both right-woke and left-woke. Both share the unfortunate practice of identifying people in groups instead of as individuals. And when you've blurred the individuals into an identity group, it's much easier to mistreat them. You're not an individual, you're part of the protest blocking streets. You're not an individual, you're a migrant committing crimes. You're not an individual, you're part of an oppressor group or oppressed group.

Of course, there's lots of support for due process—for my tribe and my side and the people I care about. But that misses the point. If you are only willing to offer due process to your friends, and not your enemies, there will come a time when you will not be afforded due process by the other side either. Even if you don't care about the fundamental principles of liberal democracy as you should (Eurocentric! Colonial! Elitist! Outdated!) you may wish to consider supporting due process simply out of self-interest.

One of the first things totalitarian regimes do away with is due process. (No, I'm not comparing either Canada or the U.S. to totalitarian regimes, and I think such comparisons are nonsense.) Whether Nazi Germany, communist China, Soviet Union, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, or regimes like North Korea and Iran today, there was never a need for a fair trial. The accusation is the verdict— and the verdict is often based on your group identity.

Do we really want our politics to determine what is right and what is wrong or who is entitled to a fundamental right like due process?”

A commitment to due process is an expression of a belief in the dignity of the human person. For those of us committed to that principle because of our theology—the belief that human beings are created as image-bearers of God—this is especially weighty. A willingness to set aside due process for reasons of efficiency and political expediency undermines our witness and erodes our credibility when appealing to that core principle in other issues.

That is not to say that due process is an inflexible principle that applies identically in every case; context matters. I want police officers to use due process in every circumstance. Still, that process is understandably different in a circumstance in which a suspect is wielding a weapon or threatening someone imminently than in a less intense situation of arrest where there is less potential for physical harm. On the issue of illegal immigration, the same principle is at work. When a border officer effectively catches someone in the process of unlawful entry and sends them back across the border, there’s likely a simple process at work. But the process is understandably different (or should be) when the government is alleging the individual to have been in the country illegally for years under an implicit amnesty.

Of course, due process should never be seen as a “get out of jail free” card, preventing us from making collective decisions regarding the unacceptability of specific practices. Appeals to human dignity are not an excuse for ignoring the consequences of actions or endlessly delaying those consequences, nor is it an automatic amnesty for those who break immigration laws, protest disruptively, or try to avoid accountability for any of their socially problematic actions. While due process can be inconvenient in slowing down desired outcomes, the due process that matters for individual rights also applies to collective democratic rights. Within the guardrails of constitutional democracy, it is appropriate for politicians to make promises (for example, to reverse long-standing inaction against illegal immigration) and to follow through on those promises by taking steps to deport people. The point is not what the government is doing, but rather how it is doing it. When the how is carried out without regard to due process, the what becomes invalid and unjust.

Bosveld does well to assert that the extent to which we believe in due process is proven by how we are prepared to fight for it when it applies neither to our tribe nor to our cause. I agree with his pragmatic appeal to self-interest as an argument for due process in addition to an appeal to the principle itself. I’d add another dimension. When we live in contradiction to our own principles in everyday life, it affects us as a people, both individually and collectively. In denying due process, we not only ignore and violate others’ dignity but also cheapen our own dignity and worth. It becomes more difficult for our minds and consciences to live out our biblical calling to “act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God.” It may seem a minor thing, but what we are doing to ourselves, individually and collectively, may be as consequential as what we are doing to others.

WHAT I’M READING

Truth Matters, Even on Social Media

Peter Stockland’s post on the Rewrite substack summarizes a Saskatchewan court decision which finds a professor’s description of a book as “racist garbage” as worthy of both general and pecuniary damages. It turns out that the professor had not read the book she was criticizing but felt it necessary not only to opine publicly but also to organize a campaign protesting the book's promotion. Her defence was that as a “recognized expert,” it was her right and obligation to protest the book even if her description was false. Stockland laments the lack of attention this case received, highlighting the judge’s conclusion that democracy itself “is imperilled when people think it better to suppress or ban books than debate their merits.”

Tariffs Have Consequences

Data released this week indicates that US President Trump’s tariff and immigration policies are starting to have a measurable economic effect. The Wall Street Journal reports that while this month’s inflation and employment data don’t yet make it fully obvious, the economic boost isn’t as positive as the administration might wish. Reportedly, the president is considering firing the head of the Federal Reserve, Jerome H. Powell, who has so far resisted pressure to lower interest rates. Mr. Trump has even taken a draft letter of firing to meetings this week, polling other legislators as to whether he should fire Mr. Powell.

What Moves the Political Needle?

A decade of politics dominated by Donald Trump has resulted in most opinions of him—pro or con—to be solidified. Two items this week, however, caught my eye as insightful as to how public opinion responds to Trump. David Brooks has a lengthy Atlantic essay which considers the Trump phenomenon within the larger context of how the public understands virtue. Michael Lind has a Free Press column in which he observes how some of the podcasters who claim to speak for the working class voters who elected Trump may not be as influential as they think, especially when they decide to oppose the president on certain issues.

Antisemitism Shocker

Reports on antisemitism are important, but what really matters is the corrective action that follows them. That’s the basic point that Avi Benlolo, CEO and Chairman of the Abraham Global Peace Initiative, makes in his National Post guest column. His column follows a federal government report this week on rampant antisemitism in Ontario schools, including incidents that teachers initiated or supported. Mr. Benlolo calls the report a moral alarm bell and writes, “You have a choice: issue a statement as an institution, take action as a leader or speak out as an individual. But do not remain silent.”

Goodbye Dad

The death of a loved one is rarely easy, even in the case of a drug-addicted father who was never around for his children. That’s the story Canadian comedian Jordan Foisy tells in The Globe and Mail as he recounts the last days of his own dad. Be warned. Foisy’s tale is sad and you may not even agree with all his conclusions, but it’s still a good read. Interestingly, though, he ends with a mention of forgiveness. It also reminds me of an article I’d written in Convivium eight years ago about “a good death.”

MEANINGFUL METRICS

Thumbs Up to Emojis

Sometimes, it seems to me younger generations speak to each other by pictogram—otherwise known as emojis. That’s not all bad, of course, since a picture can be worth 1,000 words. According to Statista, we can expect the emoji trend to continue. While I know about the thumbs-up and smiley-face emojis, of course, I hadn’t realized there were thousands of them out there. (Apparently, there were even 76 emojis back in 1995 when we were still using dial-up modems to connect to the internet.) And next year, it’s projected there will be almost 4,000 emojis, though I don’t know how many of those will actually see frequent use.

TAKE IT TO-GO

Grammar Party Time

It’s a grammar party and nobody’s not invited. The idea launched in my mind after reading Jonathan Roper’s Substack post on double negatives, which an Insights reader helpfully sent my way. Roper cites Mick Jagger’s “I can’t get no satisfaction” as an example of how it’s not always true that two negatives make a positive, as English teachers liked to tell us. Sometimes multiple negatives intensify the meaning.

So, having taken off on this flight of grammar observations, I need to figure out how to organize this party without sounding like an aorist-ocrat. Would it help if I told you that I’m drafting this in an airplane at 37,000 feet en route to Chicago and I feel like I ain’t never gonna land? That sounds pedestrian enough. Or maybe now you think I just don’t got no sense. Whatever the case may be, perhaps my wordplay will improve by next weekend, when I hope Insights won’t not be back in your inbox.