The North Shuswap Wildfires - Was the response a lens on the New World Order

Is it possible that what we witnessed in the North Shuswap this summer were glimpses of what we can expect of the new world order? It felt eerily similar to a time when we were being governed by the World Health Organization rather than our own government. Rule by edict, state paternalism that evolved into gross state authoritarianism, civil rights trampled, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms ignored. I hope this paragraph is provocative, it is meant to be. When someone as “Liberal” and as respected as Margaret Atwood describes what she is witnessing in Western society as “creeping totalitarianism”, we need to heed her words.   

Nowhere was state paternalism and its folly better demonstrated than by what happened in the North Shuswap this past summer (2023). The local population of the North Shuswap demonstrated extraordinary courage, extraordinary resourcefulness, fortitude, and effectiveness. Were their efforts lauded, supported, and augmented by the government, no, in fact, the government impeded their efforts, confiscated their property, and obstructed them from defending their own property. This blitz of authoritarianism stemmed from the arrogance of administrators in both the BC Wildfire Service and the Columbia Shuswap Regional District (CSRD). It was with absolute dismay that I witnessed the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) become the hard edge of bad judgment and disregard for personal liberty. To add insult to injury, mainstream media besmirched the North Shuswap Residents (NSR) as thieves taking equipment and touting the official line, failing to tell the true story of NSRs in a meaningful way.

A story relayed to me went as follows: the CSRD issued an evacuation order. Three homeowners received the directive; two entrusted their homes to the CSRD's care, while one chose to defend his property. He stayed with a pump from the lake and his boat for an escape and fought the fire – he is fine, his house is fine, and his neighbours’ houses are gone. Whose judgment was sound and whose was not – the results indicate clearly.

It was reported to me that the BC Wildfire Service (BCWFS) decided to evacuate their crews due to a too-high level of risk. BCWFS evacuated their crews, but the locals stayed and were effective in staying the advance of the fire. The locals succeeded in that task, they are fine – who had better judgment, the results indicate clearly.

It was reported to me that a man had a tank in the back of his pickup. He was working in his community putting out spot fires – his truck, his gas, his effort – to be of service to his neighbours. He kept working even though authorities had insisted everyone shelter in place. Presumably, he knew, sheltering in place was stupid and ineffective when there are spot fires that threaten to create large fires and that’s why he RIGHTFULLY defied the order. The 'authorities' confiscated his truck and forced him to walk home, purportedly for his safety. Such decisions, made by inexperienced individuals remotely assessing safety concerns, disregarded his autonomy. Retrospective analysis clearly upholds the judgment of NSR and clearly indicates the poor judgment of government actors.

There was some nattering about training, the assertion was that citizens to protect their own property required a course in firefighting. So, this would indicate a 20-something with the life experience of a lab rat and a course was better equipped to fight a fire than the man that had worked in the woods his whole life, donated his own caterpillar to the cause, and began to cut a fireguard. It was reported to me, that the brave, generous citizen that acted was rewarded by being fined. I have used the water device to put out spot fires, and I have made fire guard … these are very basic tasks that you can learn in minutes, no course required – if you can muster up the manual dexterity to urinate, you can manage a Pulaski.

Credentials can be important, the challenge of course the giving of credentials has become an industry, a profit center unto itself. When I was seven years of age, my family had lost our father. My older brother, at 17 years of age, was tasked with putting up the hay. Logistics demanded that the hay be raked while he bailed the hay, and he asked me to help. He showed me how to operate the tractor before, for fun, the raking hay was a new task, he gave me instructions, and I followed them. I was proud to be able to contribute in a meaningful way and I am here to tell the story. I see adults having to take courses to operate a motorcycle or quads and side by sides. I think it would be hard to find a person my age who is absent from the experience of jumping on a machine, figuring out how to use it, and putting it to use. Caution is required of course, but everyone I know my age did and we’re all fine.  One understands the value of training, it can be necessary. One must, however, balance the value of training with stupid false imperatives associated with credentials, credentials that the granting of is a profit center and credentials that are serving as a supply management function under the guise of safety imperatives.  

I have a good deal of respect for people who fight forest fires, the young people on the ground. One understands the imperative to attend to their safety.  One understands the concern of leadership to reduce the risk in a risky endeavour. The challenge is, that there is no reward for risk for the leaders fighting the fire, so they are risk-averse. A person defending their life’s work, a farm, a ranch, a business are willing to fight tooth and nail, they are willing to risk everything, perhaps even their life – no state actor has the right to stand in their way. When one is fighting for their life’s work, they are willing to take risks they would never expect or want the young people who are employed by the government to take.

It is important to note, that people are allowed to risk their lives in defense of themselves and their property – there is a large body of law to support this fact, and obstructing them from doing so excites Section Seven of the Charter.

It is perverse to me that the assertion by members of government and the press that a person defending their life’s work is somehow putting first responders at risk – when a property owner is pursuing an action that involves risk, the decision whether to respond or not should they come under distress lays firmly with the first responder. The actions of the Wildfire Service indicate these judgments were made, they felt it too risky to fight the fire for a time and withdrew, leaving citizens there to defend their properties.

When the government obstructs a citizen from defending their own property, it is taking control of the citizen’s property. This is a de facto act of expropriation. The only time the government is permitted to expropriate property is when there is a clear and pressing public interest. When one’s barn is on fire, the only pressing interest is to put it out; the public interest is inherently satisfied by the owner’s actions, if they have success the fire never spreads.  Government actors are often saying they possess a liability if people defend their property and get harmed – incorrect interpretation of the law. The government has a liability in obstructing (effectively the temporary expropriation of property) and effecting a loss to the landowner. This assertion is made under the rubric of Section 7 law, a law that the BC Emergency Program Act (EPA) is subordinated to.

The manner in which the EPA is being administered is effecting several ills, all vividly displayed in the North Shuswap this summer. The act itself is poorly constructed as such its use generates gross overbreadth and permits an obscene degree of authoritarianism. I have been affected personally by the act. I have arrived at roadblocks personed by varying authorities, in every instance when I’ve requested a copy of the order that is authorizing the roadblock none have produced the order. Often it is just a civilian standing there as opposed to a police officer. It seems then anyone can arbitrarily block a road. At every instance in Canada, when one’s liberty is impaired, it must be done so by fundamental law, the only way a citizen can know this is being attended to is by knowing what law is governing them. By extension, one must have the opportunity for legal recourse, in this case injunctive relief. The only means to seek legal recourse is by knowing what law is affecting one.

In reviewing policy related to Covid 19 I have found interesting reading that indicates the use of government edicts that suppress fundamental freedoms are ineffective, or, rendered mute by public behavior. When a mother is informed that a fire is likely to consume her home and endanger her children, her immediate response is to load them into the car and evacuate. There is no requirement to order her to leave providing the government actors delivering the message are credible. When the government gives notice of impending danger, people are grateful and respond – so that is what the government should do. Issue notices of impending danger and recommend the means to respond to that danger. This transforms the government from descending into state paternalism and all its trapping to an entity providing needed data.

When you say to a rancher who has been running their ranch for 30 years and spent his life taking care of himself and his property, there is a fire coming that is likely to consume your ranch, he’ll look over the hill, contemplate the assertion and makeup is mind whether to stay or go – that is his choice to make. There was this very circumstance at Risky Creek some years ago, the ranchers stayed, fought the fire, and prevailed, had they left all would have been lost. They did so in contravention of an evacuation order, had they left by order of the government, and their property destroyed, the government should have been expected to be held libel.

If you read this and have some antidotes to offer or input to offer please do. This has taken the form of a blog post, it is excerpted from a government report I am preparing. Any data you might add may serve to help effect a change in the behaviour of the government and its subordinates.