Stephen Harper, the leader of the Canadian conservative party, promised that if re-elected he will protect the national security of Canada by criminalizing trips to certain regions. The main goal of his promise is to prohibit travelling to regions where Islamic groups enroll and train people. According to Harper, the threat is real and only with this legislation, Canadian security could be ensured. Harper also promised that some exceptions would be made for people that prove that they are travelling to “terrorist hotspot” for legitimate purposes i.e. journalists or aid workers. The leaders of the other parties had different reactions to the promise made by Harper. For instance, Justin Trudeau is convinced that Harper talks about security in order to distract people from the conservative’s failure in the Canadian democracy. While Tom Mulcair thinks that Stephen Harper decided to announce his legislation at the same time as Mike Duffy’s trial in order to turn aside the scandal in which conservatives are involved. …show more content…
This legislation has an enormous significance: if Stephen Harper is re-elected, Canadian citizens will no longer have the ability to travel where they want.
The freedom of people will reduce. Islamic State is a controversial subject, yet it does not mean that all the people who travel to terrorist hotspots such as Syria or Iraq, have the intention of joint terrorist groups. However, even if criminalizing travels to certain regions has a negative impact on people’s freedom; it is meaningful to the Canadian politics because this legislation will ensure the national security of the country and reduce numbers of Canadian citizens that travel to the Islamic State in order to join terrorist
activists. This report slides with the leftist point of view. Even if the point of view of the authors is completely absent, this article in a subtle way demonstrates the negative sides of the legislation. The author of this article presents Stephen Harper’s legislation in a neutral way without taking any position, yet with the usage of the opinion of other leaders, the article in question proclaims the negative sides of the legislation and some left side beliefs. For example, Justin Trudeau, leader of the liberal party, clearly said that he would not vote the legislation; it does not interest his party. Gilles Duceppe was not completely against Harper’s promise : “ S'il veut être sérieux M. Harper, qu'il maintienne l'équilibre entre la sécurité et la liberté, mais qu'il cesse de fournir des armes à des régimes qui bafouent les droits humains.’’( Latraverse, Emmanuelle. Radicalisation : Harper veut criminaliser les voyages dans certaines régions ) Duceppe is not against this promise, but expects a balance between security and freedom. In brief, the author did not have an opinion about the report, yet the use of the opinions of other leaders makes the ideological slant of this report left sided. This article is missing the author’s opinion. The author’s point of view on a certain issue or subject is always useful for the understanding of an article, yet in this case, the author only uses the opinion of the leaders of other parties. The use of statistics or information on the number of Canadian citizens that join the terrorist activists could be useful for the issue of this article because it would demonstrate to the readers the reality of the threat of terrorism. With the use numbers, readers could see to which extent Harper’s promise is necessary for the national security of Canada. In addition, there is no point of view that is shortchanged, as said before; the author did not have a point of view on this promise. Even if this report did not have author’s opinion, it did change my point of view of this promise. The leaders other parties made some good points about the promise. It is not a coincidence, Harper chosen a perfect time for the presentation of his legislation. In fact, his promise did distract people from Mike Duffy scandal. In addition, I think that this promise will only reduce the freedom that all citizens should have. Terrorism is not justified, yet people should have the ability to travel anywhere without being criminalized for it.
Throughout history, the actions of governments have always been debated; however, occasionally there are certain events which spark much controversy, both at the time of the event and by historians today. One of these controversial acts was the invocation of the War Measures Act in 1970, an act which suspended the civil liberties of Canadian citizens. In October 1970, in what became known as the October Crisis, the Front de libération du Québec, (commonly known as the FLQ) which was a French Canadian organization advocating independence from Canada, kidnapped two politicians. This initiated a series of events, one of which was the invocation of the War Measures Act by Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Many historians argue that Trudeau was justified in invoking the War Measures Act because the October Crisis ended shortly after the Act was invoked. However, this argument is invalid as justification; primarily because the War Measures Act was an extreme overreaction by Trudeau, as the threat of the FLQ was largely small-scale, and the demise of the FLQ was impending with the rise of the Bloc Quebecois. Furthermore, the Act may have inspired Quebecers who favoured separatism, as they saw the government desperately employ the most extreme measure to stop the FLQ. Finally, the War Measures Act suspended the civil rights of citizens within a democracy, violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Since the Confederation of Canada until today, the province of Quebec has always wanted become its own nation by separating from Canada. As a result, Canada’s scariest ever terrorist group, the Front de Libération de Quebec (FLQ), wrote the darkest chapter in Canadian history, The October Crisis. To end the terror, Canadian Prime Minister, Trudeau, was forced to invoke the War Measures Act (WMA) during his term in 1970 which was flawed with disapproval and controversy since it was the first time the Act was used during peacetime. However, despite the criticism, his decision to invoke the War Measures Act was reasonable because of the fear presented by the FLQ, the public and governmental demands, and the end result of the October Crisis.
Known as one of one of the founding fathers of Canada, Sir John A. Macdonald helped shape our country into what it is today. During the early 1800s, significant people and events aided the development and growth of Canada. Born on January 11, 1815, Macdonald worked tirelessly to join the provinces of Canada together into one country. He was the first prime minister of Canada, fought for confederation and will continue to be remembered for his contribution to Canadian history. Sir John A. Macdonald is significant to Canadian history because he created the North West Mounted Police, initiated the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and helped Canada achieve confederation and come together as a country.
Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson was a prominent figure in Canada in the 1960s. Pearson was Canada's most significant post WWII prime minister because of his government's many innovations that still benefit Canadians today. He fostered Canadian nationalism, which continues to the present day, promoted equality throughout Canada – equality that now thrives as part of Canada's identity – and he introduced many social services that are still implemented today.
An angry Trudeau replied: "There's a lot of bleeding hearts around who just don't like to see people with helmets and guns. All I can say is go on and bleed." "How far are you going to go?" Ralfe insisted."Just watch me!" said Trudeau. And Canadians across the country watched as, at 3 o'clock in the morning, Friday, October 16, Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act. The Press Gallery was packed. Trudeau was careful, cold, analytic - and brilliant. The invocation of the War Measures Act meant the suspension of traditional Canadian civil l...
With Canada's Prime Minister Stephan Harper and his Conservative approach to follow in our bordering neighbors foot sets with the Safe Streets and Communities Act, and his 'get tough on crime' approach Canadian's are entering dangerous territory.
The history of Canada was flooded with many influential and incredible events, particularly during World War 1 and World War 2. During the 20th century, Canada got more involved in worldwide events. It was a very important period for Canada; it was where they gained their independence and progressed as a country. After this century, Canada was considered an important and powerful country. The three main 20th century events in Canadian history are the battle of Vimy Ridge, the change of woman’s rights and the battle of Juno Beach.
Canada’s parliamentary system is designed to preclude the formation of absolute power. Critics and followers of Canadian politics argue that the Prime Minister of Canada stands alone from the rest of the government. The powers vested in the prime minister, along with the persistent media attention given to the position, reinforce the Prime Minister of Canada’s superior role both in the House of Commons and in the public. The result has led to concerns regarding the power of the prime minister. Hugh Mellon argues that the prime minister of Canada is indeed too powerful. Mellon refers to the prime minister’s control over Canada a prime-ministerial government, where the prime minister encounters few constraints on the usage of his powers. Contrary to Mellon’s view, Paul Barker disagrees with the idea of a prime-ministerial government in Canada. Both perspectives bring up solid points, but the idea of a prime-ministerial government leading to too much power in the hands of the prime minister is an exaggeration. Canada is a country that is too large and complex to be dominated by a single individual. The reality is, the Prime Minister of Canada has limitations from several venues. The Canadian Prime Minister is restricted internally by his other ministers, externally by the other levels of government, the media and globalization.
There are many more examples of conflicts between Trudeau's thoughts and his actions. For instance, Trudeau has always been uncomfortable with excessive state intervention in the economy. For this reason he has consistently opposed the imposition of price and income controls. But this did not stop him from deciding, in 1975, that a lack of responsibility on the part of business and labour necessitated the introduction of a controls system. Trudeau has spoken of the need for a shift of emphasis in Canadian society from consumption to conservation. And yet, he allowed energy-conservation measures in Canada to fall far behind those of the United States. More than a few times, Trudeau has insisted that it is our moral obligation as Canadians to share our wealth with poorer nations. Nevertheless, he still reduced foreign-aid spending and even put a protective quota on textile imports from developing countries. Trudeau has written about the importance of consensus in government. But again, this did not prevent him, on more than a few occasions, from entirely disregarding the consensus of his cabinet ministers on a given issue, preferring instead to make the decision on his own.
"Prime Minister Promotes Open Federalism." Prime Minister of Canada. N.p., 21 Apr. 2006. Web. 15 July 2014. .
Have you ever wondered which events in Canadian history have been the most significant in shaping Canadian identity? Many significant events in the twentieth century left a lasting legacy for Canada. Canada would not be the culturally rich, prosperous and progressive nation that it is today, without its immigration patterns in the past. World War I (WWI) was also a significant event as it united Canada and left behind a legacy of sacrifice and national pride. Economic development during the post war period contributed to Canadian success nationally and globally. Immigration, WWI and economic development were significant events in Canadian twentieth century history. Each event brought new and powerful
The Prime Minister of Canada is given much power and much responsibility. This could potentially create a dangerous situation if the government held a majority and was able to pass any legislation, luckily this is not the case. This paper will argue that there are many limitations, which the power of the prime minister is subject too. Three of the main limitations, which the Prime Minister is affected by, are; first, federalism, second the governor general and third, the charter of rights and freedoms. I will support this argument by analyzing two different types of federalism and how they impact the power of the Prime Minister. Next I will look at three of the Governor Generals Powers and further analyze one of them. Last I will look at the impact of the charter from the larger participation the public can have in government, and how it increased the power of the courts.
Anand, A. (2011). Combating terrorist financing: Is Canada’s legal regime effective? University of Toronto Law Journal, 61(1), 59-71. Retrieved from http://library.mtroyal.ca:2078/journals/university_of_toronto_law_journal/v061/61.1.anand.html
...). 'Our faith was also hijacked by those people': reclaiming Muslim identity in Canada in a post-9/11 Era. Journal of Ethnic & Migration Studies. 37 (3), 425-441. 17. doi: 10.1080/1369183X.2011.526781
This website provides information related to military, security and terrorism in the country. It has been a vital source of information for developing an insight about the Canadian policy on anti-terrorism and in analyzing the strategies that has been taken up by the government to provide public safety. The website provided detailed information on the Anti-terrorism act and the departments involved in the security and countering terrorism.