Freedom and security are two conceptions which seem inherently antithetical. It always seems that one must be relinquished for the other. However, for humanity, both are imperative to a functioning society. Many domestic controversies have sparked from a confrontation of the two aspects. The fallout after the October Crisis of 1970-1971 definitely constituted as one of them. After Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act in response to a terrorist kidnapping of government officials, many prominent activists denounced his decision, which they claim dissolved civil rights and was unconstitutional. However, the October Crisis was a genuine predicament which necessitated the invocation of the War Measures Act to resolve. …show more content…
During the time of the October Crisis, there was indeed an apprehended insurrection which necessitated the invocation of the War Measures Act. With thousands of backers and powerful advocates, the Front de Libération du Québec (FLQ) was certainly colossal enough to launch an insurrection. People, in their misconceived view of the situation, supported the FLQ and demanded that the government release “political prisoners” for the hostages, when the prisoners were actually bombers and murderers. There were hundreds of FLQ sympathizers who hid wanted FLQ members, refused to report information to police, and demonstrated or rioted on behalf of the FLQ. This made the situation even more severe. Threats from terrorism or even foreign armies could be dealt by the military or police, but threats from a country’s own people undermine its very foundation. That is what made the FLQ threat so menacing; the fact that its populism had infiltrated so deep into Canadian society. The actions of FLQ sympathizers disrupted public order and played right into the hands of the FLQ. While the government was occupied with …show more content…
However, much of the opposition was established with ulterior motives. For example, the Parti Quebecois (PQ) and other parties working towards the independence of Quebec disregarded the barbarous acts of the FLQ but criticized the government for their actions. The PQ’s criticism of the federal government turned the October Crisis into a battle between Quebec and Ottawa, which was exactly what the FLQ wanted. Worse, many critics of the War Measures Act made errors in their statements, which were even sometimes, hyperboles. The true objective of the opposition may have been to establish a provisional government to replace the Liberal Quebec government. To escalate the situation, 16 “eminent personalities” submitted a petition for the government to concede to the terrorists. None of them recognized that a kidnapping in a democratic country will erode its system if the government succumbs to blackmail. Kidnappings will be followed by more kidnappings and the government would essentially cede authority to the terrorists and fail to preserve the rights and freedoms of society. Aside from the opposition, the media also played a role in intensifying the crisis. According to Israeli political Professor Raphael Cohen-Almagor, “The behaviour of some organs of the French media exacerbated the crisis and forced the government to contemplate possible procedures for monitoring the media.” The media provided extensive coverage of
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.
To answer this, one must address the severity of the crisis, as well as the degree to which the War Measures Act would alleviate the situation. This proves to be an unexpectedly difficult task, as it is impossible to accurately capture the zeitgeist of such a turbulent time period without being subject to bias. However from a purely objective standpoint, the evidence clearly identifies that there was no insurrection, nor was one likely to take place. Trudeau relied heavily on galvanizing the risk that the FLQ posed to the Canadian public. However, this came to be a detriment to his case when the supposed danger was discredited. According to most authorities, the FLQ “was a collection of scattered, radical grouplets who communicated amongst themselves with great difficulty and apprehension”(Conrad et al). It is of course, rather difficult to carry out widespread insurrection without a cohesive unit to do so. Trudeau’s speech relied heavily on the notion that the FLQ posed a greater threat than they realistically did, and by the end of the crisis it was clear that his claims were null. However, Trudeau did not operate alone in his endeavors. The crisis was rapidly escalated in scale by local and national media alike. The media “Fed the notion of a hydra head conspiracy, unknown, unknowable, but of course infinitely dangerous”, an error that almost did more to aid in the FLQ’s influence over the country, than it did to call in any sort of justifiable action (Bothwell, 447-50). This combined with rumors of Quebec dissolving their government due to the “severity” of the situation, a rumor that was initially reported to be started by Trudeau (although it was enforced by numerous parties”) in order to gain the support of the public for the actions he was preparing to take (Clement). It is generally agreed upon that War
MacDonnell, Vanessa A. "The Protective Function And Section 7 Of The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms." Review Of Constitutional Studies 17.1 (2012): 53-85. Academic Search Complete. Web. 16 Nov. 2013.
The War Measures Act was a law passed in 1914 by the Canadian Government in Canada during WWI, amongst many others that the government had passed that allowed the government to take control of communications, establish censorship of transatlantic cables, and organize the militia (Bolotta, Angelo et al. 39). The War Measures Act itself allowed the government to: censor and suppress publications, writing, maps, plans, photographs, communications, and means of communication, arrest, detain, exclude, and deport persons, control harbours, ports, and territorial waters of Canada and the movements of vessels, control the transport of persons and things by land, air, or water control trade, production, and manufacturing, and appropriate and dispose of property and of the use thereof (Bolotta, Angelo et al. 39). It gave the government emergency powers “allowing it to govern by decree” while Canada was in war (War). In World War I (1914-1920), it had been used to imprison those who were of German, Ukrainian, and Slavic decent, and was used in the same way again in WWII (1939-1945) to imprison Japanese-Canadians, and to seize all of their belongings. They were then relocated into internment camps and concentration camps (Bolotta, Angelo et al. 171). Both times, those that were persecuted did not have the right to object (War). Those these laws had been created for the purpose of protecting Canadians from threats or wars for security, defense, peace order and welfare of Canada it instead greatly limited the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens and debasing immigrants of enemy countries both in WWI and WWII (Bolotta, Angelo et. Al 39).
“Over the past century, Canadian attitudes towards the use of force and the exercise of military power in support of national aims have fundamentally shifted”. This is a quote written by Major Todd Strickland in his article, titled, “From the Boers to the Taliban: How Canadians Attitudes towards War Have Changed”. This article reviews Canada’s history within the wars and also Canadian’s thoughts on war. The Afghan war began in 2001 and is still ongoing today. The war began due to the terrorist attacks that took place in the United States on September 11th, 2001, also known as 9/11. The purpose of this war was to invade Afghanistan and to disassemble an organization, known as the al-Qaeda terrorist organization. Another objective was to dismantle the Taliban government. The Taliban government was simply to blame for the deaths of so many Americans on 9/11. The leader, brains and financial support behind this organization was one by the name of Osama bin Laden. Because his country did not surrender him, the United States made the decision to declare war on Afghanistan and fight for those who lost their lives in 9/11. Canada became involved in the Afghan War very quickly after the attacks of 9/11. Because the Afghanistan war is a war that is constantly covered by the media, it makes the information overwhelming. To narrow the topic down, this paper will focus mainly on the Canadian’s involvement in the Afghanistan war. Violent political wars have been reoccurring for as long as anyone can remember, and the intensity of this violence continues to rise. The magnitude of political violence involved, the main interpretations on the causes of political violence, and the prospects for conflict resolution are all topics that will be covered...
Democracy is more than merely a system of government. It is a culture – one that promises equal rights and opportunity to all members of society. Democracy can also be viewed as balancing the self-interests of one with the common good of the entire nation. In order to ensure our democratic rights are maintained and this lofty balance remains in tact, measures have been taken to protect the system we pride ourselves upon. There are two sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that were implemented to do just this. Firstly, Section 1, also known as the “reasonable limits clause,” ensures that a citizen cannot legally infringe on another’s democratic rights as given by the Charter. Additionally, Section 33, commonly referred to as the “notwithstanding clause,” gives the government the power to protect our democracy in case a law were to pass that does not violate our Charter rights, but would be undesirable. Professor Kent Roach has written extensively about these sections in his defence of judicial review, and concluded that these sections are conducive to dialogue between the judiciary and the legislature. Furthermore, he established that they encourage democracy. I believe that Professor Roach is correct on both accounts, and in this essay I will outline how sections 1 and 33 do in fact make the Canadian Charter more democratic. After giving a brief summary of judicial review according to Roach, I will delve into the reasonable limits clause and how it is necessary that we place limitations on Charter rights. Following this, I will explain the view Professor Roach and I share on the notwithstanding clause and how it is a vital component of the Charter. To conclude this essay, I will discuss the price at which democr...
As the Reign of Terror in France grew and invoked fear the internal threats became more radical and deadly. The French Revolution began in 1789 as an attempt to create a new and fair government. (Doc A) As year four of freedom lurched the thirst for power in Maximilien Robespierre stirred and the hunger for more blood provoked him urging him to create the Reign of Terror. 1793, the first year of the Reign of Terror, Robespierre grasped on to his new power and as the revolution spun out of control the Jacobins Club established a new way to “fight enemies” by constructing a Committee of Public Safety and a Tribunal Court. (Doc A) This new government was working swell it contained counterrevolutionaries in the Vendée Region, and it smothered and ferreted the internal threats. (Docs A, C, G) The counterrevolutionaries adopted a name that meant trouble – the rabble. (Doc D) In a letter written by a city official of the Town of Niort a...
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted under the Pierre Trudeau government on April 17, 1982. According to Phillip Bryden, “With the entrenchment of the Charter into the Canadian Constitution, Canadians were not only given an explicit definition of their rights, but the courts were empowered to rule on the constitutionality of government legislation” (101). Prior to 1982, Canada’s central constitutional document was the British North America Act of 1867. According to Kallen, “The BNA Act (the Constitution Act, 1867) makes no explicit reference to human rights” (240). The adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms significantly transformed the operation of Canada’s political system. Presently, Canadians define their needs and complaints in human rights terms. Bryden states, “More and more, interest groups and minorities are turning to the courts, rather than the usual political processes, to make their grievances heard” (101). Since it’s inception in 1982 the Charter has become a very debatable issue. A strong support for the Charter remains, but there also has been much criticism toward the Charter. Academic critics of the Charter such as Robert Martin believe that the Charter is doing more harm than good, and is essentially antidemocratic and UN-Canadian. I believe that Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic, although, the Charter itself represents a democratic document. Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic because the power of the executive is enhanced at the expense of Parliament, and the power of the judiciary is enhanced at the expense of elected officials, although, the notwithstanding clause continues to provide Parliament with a check on...
Canada is viewed as being a very safe and stable place to live because people are lucky enough to have healthcare, benefits for unemployment and family needs, as well as maternity leave. Crime is something that Canadians don’t often think about because people feel as though they are out of harm's way. As Canadians, we’ve watched the world experience different threats and crime, and we’ve seen the world fight back. For example, our neighbors in North America, the United States, have gone through terrorist attacks and issues with guns and violence. Just because we are witnessing these things in other places doesn’t mean that we aren’t at risk as well, and Canada does have certain approaches and regards in place if we are ever in danger. What I wish to address in this paper is how Canada is set up for reacting to crime and jeopardy, as well as an example of where we went wrong in our past. Methods in response to crime, Canada’s legal regime and the issue of Residential schooling for Aboriginals a hundred years ago will be presented.
The Committee of Public Safety’s use of violence in order to exert control over French citizens seemed to reflect a power-hungry nature and an attempt to impose a strict government. On September 5, 1793, the Committee declared that terror was “the Order of the Day,” allowing them to use force against citizens in order to carry on the revolution (Timeline). During this time, constant uprisings, such as protests in Vendée on
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, Quebec was exposed to the possibility of its own national identity. The realization of this identity emerged through events such as the Quiet Revolution, the creation of the Parti Quebecois, and the inherent separatist activism seen through the actions of the Front de Liberation du Quebec. The Front de Liberation du Quebec (FLQ) was generally characterized as a protesting terrorist group who sought French nationality and rallied for independence. Through an examination of the literature, the actions of the FLQ are framed as unjustifiable attacks on British liberalism and the unification of Canada. For example, in the article “Quebec: October 1970”, Laurier LaPierre states the vandalism done throughout the 1960s
This difference emphasizes how difficult it is to match public opinion with national policies and how difficult it is to handle refugee immigration in the context of late 1930s Canadian society. Moreover, the petitions from La Société St. Jean Baptiste provide additional insight into the diverse range of perspectives within Canadian society. The strong opposition expressed in these petitions, particularly against Jewish immigration, reflects deeply ingrained xenophobic attitudes prevalent at the time. Additionally, the opposition to all immigration expressed in the second petition underscores the broader resistance to immigrants, further complicating the discourse surrounding immigration policy. This contrast emphasizes the need for decision-makers to balance opposing ideas and create immigration laws that serve both the interests of the country and humanitarian ideals.
McDonald, M., 2008. Global Security after 11 September 2011. In: S. Carter, T. Jordan & S. Watson, eds. Security: Sociology and Social Worlds. Manchester: Manchester University Press..
In the war on terror, it is observed that many democratic states have restricted liberties by applying the so-called “emergency powers” to deal with terrorism. Emergency powers derived from the preventive security laws allows the government to safeguard the security of the state while limiting the damage to liberty and democracy. As Paul Wilkinson remarks, “In countering terrorism, the democratic state confronts an inescapable dilemma. It has to deal effectively with the terrorist threat to citizens and the state itself without destroying basic civil rights, the democratic process, and the rule of law.”
The issue of security has long been the preoccupation of international relations. It has been argued that there is no common concept of security and disagreement in the normative and methodological approach. In the simplest form, the core of security is survival, and consequently a lack of threat. In terms of international relations, the state has been the main referent object of security. Arnold Wolfers proposed the definition of security as the "(security), in an objective sense, measures the absence of threats to acquired values, in a subjective sense, the absence of fear that such values will be attacked".” In the traditional approach, threats to security comes from a hard power source and is framed through a national security paradigm. It was argued that security is only concerned with power politics and military action. Proponents of the traditional approach argue that international relations is dominated by a realist perception. States are obliged by anarchy in international relations to follow a course of self-protection and face a security dilemma. External physical threats are the main source of insecurity for state. For traditionalists, protecting national boundaries and sovereignty is the central focus of security. In his seminal paper titled, “The Renaissance of Security Studies,” Stephen Walt argues that the domain of security studies is “the phenomenon of war.” For Walt, security is rightfully preoccupied with analyzing the impact of the use of force on individuals, societies, and the state. In this perspective military power was used as in instrument of foreign policy, political propaganda, and for economic aims. The former approach to security dominated the Cold War era. During this time, global military c...