Too Close to Home

Should politicians and other public officials who make controversial decisions be allowed to cloister themselves away in their homes or should they be forced to face the jeering crowds?

This is not an abstract question. In the spring of 2023, demonstrators showed up at the homes of conservative US Supreme Court Justices to protest the judges’ position on reproductive rights. Here in Canada, protestors have visited the homes of municipal, provincial, and federal politicians, including the Premier of Ontario and the Mayor of Ottawa, when they felt that their voices were not being heard through more traditional methods of protest. Those who engage in such protests argue that it is unfair to allow public figures to escape the social impact of their decisions by fleeing to what is often a beautiful residence. The fact that the measures being challenged often target those who live in sub-standard housing or are themselves homeless only adds insult to injury.

Those in charge may also try to distance themselves personally from their actions by characterizing them as collective decisions resulting from the need to find savings or respond to complex situations. By visiting their homes, protestors make it clear that decision-makers cannot escape personal responsibility for their actions by blaming “the system.”

Those taking an opposing view would argue that a public official has a right to privacy and should be able to shed their formal persona when they return home. Should serious issues not be discussed in appropriate fora on public property not by invading what many would consider someone’s private space? And by visiting someone’s home, is there not the potential to create an atmosphere of intimidation?

There is also the question of the disruption that these protests cause to innocent bystanders, including the official’s family and neighbours. Knowing that your home and neigbourhood might be the target of protests might dissuade good people from entering public life.

Politicians and other public officials operate in an imperfect world with few easy answers. Decisions often involve difficult trade-offs and choosing the “least worst” option. At the same time, there has been a growing tendency for public officials to try to avoid taking responsibility for decisions that have a negative impact on people’s lives, creating an accountability vacuum.

How should the public respond?

Discussion Questions

Further Reading

• “Protesting Outside of Supreme Court Justices’ Homes is Fine, Actually” by Kelsey Jost-Creegan (2022)
• “The Problem of Protesting at People’s Homes” by Andrew Fiala (2020)
• “Editorial: Don’t Hold Your Protest Outside Politicians’ Homes” by Ottawa Sun (2020)
• “Manor Village Tenants Take Fight Against ‘Demoviction’ for Barrhaven LRT to Mayor’s Home” by Megan Gillis (2020)

Bibliography

Fiala, Andrew. 2020. “The Problem of Protesting at People’s Homes.” Blog of the APA (blog), May 27, 2020. https://blog.apaonline.org/2020/05/27/the-problem-of-protesting-at-peoples-homes/.

Gillis, Megan. 2020. “Manor Village Tenants Take Fight Against ‘Demoviction’ for Barrhaven LRT to Mayor’s Home.” Ottawa Citizen, November 24, 2020. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/manor-village-tenants-take-fight-against-demoviction-for-barrhaven-lrt-to-mayors-home.

Jost-Creegan, Kelsey. 2022. “Protesting Outside of Supreme Court Justice’s Home is Fine, Actually.” EarthRights International (blog), May 19, 2022. https://earthrights.org/protesting-outside-of-supreme-court-justices-homes-is-fine-actually/.

Milloy, John. 2023. “Case 1: Too Close to Home.” In Ethics Bowl Canada 2023-2024 Regional Case Set, edited by Ethics Bowl Canada Case Development Committee. n.p.: Ethics Bowl Canada. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mY2bsD2RqhrVnPrLWO_RZxvgZ-X2ddIS/view.

Ottawa Sun. 2020. “Editorial: Don’t Hold Your Protest Outside Politicians’ Homes.” November 29, 2020. https://ottawasun.com/opinion/editorial-dont-hold-your-protest-outside-politicians-homes.

Attribution

Unless otherwise noted, “Too Close to Home” by John Milloy (2023) [and the Ethics Bowl Canada Case Development Committee], via Ethics Bowl Canada, is used and adapted under a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

The Ethics Bowl Canada Case Development committee gives permission to third parties to use the Case Sets it has developed between September 2021 and March 2024 under the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license. The Committee also asks that users notify Ethics Bowl Canada of their use of the case sets, especially if they are adapting or remixing it. This can be done by sending an email to contact@ethicsbowl.ca.