What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws, and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few - as we have learned to our sorrow.
What then is the spirit of liberty?
I cannot define it; I can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of those men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interest alongside its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded; the spirit of liberty is the spirit of him who, near two thousand years ago, taught mankind that lesson it has never learned, but has never quite forgotten - that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side-by-side with the greatest. And now in that spirit, that spirit of an America which has never been, and which may never be - nay, which never will be except as the conscience and courage of Americans create it - yet in the spirit of America which lies hidden in some form in the aspirations of us all; in the spirit of that America for which our young men are at this moment fighting and dying; in that spirit of liberty and of America so prosperous, and safe, and contented, we shall have failed to grasp its meaning, and shall have been truant to its promise, except as we strive to make it a signal, a beacon, a standard to which the best hopes of mankind will ever turn; In confidence that you share that belief, I now ask you to raise you hand and repeat with me this pledge:
How many Canadians today would recognize Learned Hand's notion of liberty? That's a question I would never want to be forced to answer.
Take Learned Hand's words, these words, and use them as a measure of our own prime minister.
"The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of those men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interest alongside its own without bias."
Can there be a more telling proof that the spirit of liberty does not exist within Stephen Harper? Harper's is "the ruthless, the unbridled will." Harper's is the "freedom to do as [he alone] likes." Harper's is the "denial of liberty [for others]." In Harper's society, "freedom is the possession of only a savage [and unprincipled] few."
All of these things stand as a powerful proof that Harper is a despot.
I had never heard of Learned Hand, Mos. Thank you for posting this. I really like the quote.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you enjoyed it, Karen. In law school I came to love studies in equity and jurisprudence which, together, encapsulate legal philosophy and the ancient, unwritten law that formed the groundwork for our civilization.
ReplyDeleteTo me, the great judicial philosophers are magnificent thinkers with a very disciplined, purity of thought and true wisdom.
Hmm. Could you recommend a few to read?
ReplyDeleteThere are a great many but my favourite Americans are Louis Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes. The most interesting of recent British judges was Lord Denning, MR, who died in 1999. I was lucky enough to meet Denning once many years ago.
ReplyDeleteKaren, your question led me to looking at some dusty old materials from years past.
ReplyDeleteHere are a few key names going back to the ancient Greeks and Aristotle.
David Hume, John Finnis, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Hobbes, Ron Dworkin, John Rawls and, of course, Immanual Kant (moral obligation).
Cool! Thank you. I'm happy to report that only the names John Finnis and Brandeis are completely unfamiliar to me.
ReplyDeleteI recently returned to school after 20 years in the construction industry and I was very much ashamed to learn how lazy my thinking had become. In addition to trying to finish a degree before I am 50, I am determined to learn how to think well.