While the civic elements of American politics have largely given way, in recent decades, to a narrow definition of liberalism that “conceives of persons as free and independent selves, unencumbered by moral or civic ties that they have not chosen” (Sandel 1996:6), Canada’s constitutional foundation is built on a different analysis. Along with the traditional liberal-democratic rights of association, expression, and so on, the new Charter contains modern clauses on equality and group rights. The Charter brought citizen’s rights into the Constitution, but more importantly, articulated many of those rights in terms of minority group identities (Pal 2001), emphasizing equality over issues of individual liberty.

Canada’s preoccupation with equality, as compared to American notions of freedom, lies at the base of our lucky escape from the drug war mentality. Differences matter and in Canada the state still has a role, albeit an attenuated one, in ensuring equality--an equality that cannot be achieved simply by maintaining the fiction that every newborn babe begins life in an atmosphere of absolute equal opportunity. In this Canada is closely paralleling trends in other western nations which demonstrate an aspect of political culture characterized by:

…a tension between individual and group rights. The former consist of the traditional collection of civil and political rights that aim to treat individuals roughly the same, regardless of their social and economic differences. The objective was to build a political community that, for the purposes of public policy, ignored group differences and concentrated instead on equal rights of citizenship. This is a noble political ideal and one that still commands substantial support. However, this type of liberal individualism was vulnerable to the arguments that differences did matter, particularly economic differences, and they impeded the practical achievement of real political equality (Pal 2001:64).

Finding ways to talk to Canadians about drug and crime issues that resonate with and re-enforce uniquely Canadian approaches to social problems is a matter to which community groups like the John Howard Society should give much thought. There are many frames to choose from--ones that advance the cause of social justice and others that can do damage in the long term.

While some drug reform advocates, for instance, have advanced the notion that Canada is engaged in a drug war, despite evidence to the contrary and presumably to discredit the policy, such a strategy weakens rather than supports the idea that Canada is a society distinct from the U.S. with the will and wherewithal to develop its own social vision. Canada, although strongly influenced by our aggressive neighbour and trading partner, has clearly not entered into a U.S.-style drug war and is the better for it. It is an important point for advocates to remember and make, rather than undermine, in their public statements.

Social justice advocates should also be prepared to challenge the dominant frames of news coverage in which the issues that matter most to their clients are presented to the public in ways that advance our solutions. The frame has great power to change the nature of the story and its interpretation by audiences. If, as the Fraser Institute (1998) study suggests, the individual rights frame predominates in Canadian news coverage, then what is being presented is a legal problem with a legal solution--reform the law. Those who seek social justice for the disadvantaged, however, must use frames that advance social justice solutions.

For the social safety net has been damaged by the greater priority post-materialist Canada places on concepts of freedom and individualism over the more collective notions that have historically supported our social policies—equality and collectivism. Those members of the public who have internalized the “new values” are less supportive of policies that would redistribute wealth through publicly funded social programs in favour of an agenda focussed on issues relating to personal autonomy and quality of life (Nevitte 2002). And these new priorities can be successfully exploited using the drug issue.