The October Crisis of 1970 was the first time the War Measures Act was invoked during peacetime. This was the third and final use of the act, enacted in both of the world wars, before being later replaced by the less controversial Emergencies Act. In 1970 Canada’s strength as a nation was being tested by the conflict in Quebec, and this paper will examine why the use of the War Measures Act was justified through the conflict. Le Front du Liberation du Québec (FLQ) was a group of radicalized nationalists. Its members were named terrorists after they progressed to extremist measures including attempted kidnappings, and many bombings. The group had the intention to create an independent state of Quebec. As tensions rose the government realized …show more content…
further actions must be taken especially with the kidnapping of James Cross, the trade commissioner to the British, and soon after of Pierre Laporte, the provincial Minister of Labor. The government was to take strong action against the demands of the FLQ, and under the leadership of the Prime Minister of the time Pierre Trudeau the War Measures Act was invoked. The act gave extreme powers to the government to be used in times of crisis. In application it severely reduced the civil liberties and rights of many citizens. The use of the act during peacetime has been contested by many, and, at the time, several politicians argued against the use of the act. The act did limit the rights and freedoms of citizens at the time, but to Pierre Trudeau the act was justified given the circumstances and dangers posed to Canada, including the possibility of an insurrection in Quebec. The violence caused by the FLQ was amplified through the media’s representation of the ordeal. After the kidnapping of James Cross the FLQ issued extreme demands to the government. This was a terrorist organization and therefore the use of the War Measures Act in October 1970 was justified given the threat posed to Canada as a whole, even when the act gave great powers to the government and restricted the rights and liberties of citizens. To understand the purpose and application of the War Measures Act the act must be analyzed. The purpose of the act is to give necessary security powers to the government in times of crisis. The act gives a range powers to the government including: (a) Censorship and the control and suppression [forceful prevention] of publications, writings, maps, plans, photographs, communications and means of communication; (b) Arrest, detention, exclusion and deportation; (c) Control of the harbors, ports and territorial waters of Canada and the movements of vessels; (d) Transportation by land, air, or water and the control of the transport of persons and things; (e) Trading, exportation, importation, production and manufacture; (f) Appropriation [take without permission], control, forfeiture [give up] and disposition of property and of the use thereof. The act gave the government the power to censor media, detain suspects without bail, control coastal waters and all vessels, the power over trading, and finally appropriation of all property. These were applied as necessary throughout the October crisis, however the problem lies in the fact that government power is not limited by this act. It would have been possible for this act to be used limitlessly and therefore required some responsibility in its use, especially during peace time. The Act is arguably flawed in its construction however did provide a solution to the government in times of crisis. The government took swift action as the crisis escalated into October 1970. The military was used throughout Quebec and in Ottawa to maintain the peace and provide aid to police through the aid to civil power. This allowed the police to focus on their job. On October 16th, 1970 the War Measures Act was enacted, and soon after the police, under the power of the act, conducted 3000 searches and detained 497 persons. Of the 497 detainees most were held approximately one week, and were released, only sixty-two of these persons were later charged. Many of these charges were dropped, and only 18 of these were convicted in the end. These were extreme actions taken under extreme conditions to quickly to defuse the situation. These actions permitted the police of Quebec to get a handle of the situation. The act was strongly supported by both Ontario and Quebec governments, with the Quebec government specifically asking the federal government for the act to be applied. It was not the federal government acting alone taking extreme measures and restricting rights and freedoms. Instead the provincial government, with police influence, were asking for the authority included in the act to end the conflict and protect citizens. Throughout the use of the act no Canadian civilian was harmed or killed as a consequence of actions taken under the act. Pierre Trudeau in what is known as the Just Watch Me speech defends his use of the War Measures Act during the crisis. Trudeau justifies his use of the act especially the presence of soldiers, defending the actions taken by explaining that the government should protect those at risk, and employ available assets as peace agents. The act itself could be considered flawed, however under a responsible government the act permitted a quick resolution to a serious situation. The actions taken can be construed as severe, however under the circumstances, and under the condition that the act was used as necessary, as it was, the act was justified. The FLQ wished to draw attention to its demands and of its goal of achieving Québec’s separation from Canada. As the FLQ began extremist measures, culminating in kidnappings and murder, the organization gained the world’s attention. This was the first time the group had such attention, especially from the international media. The media at the time had many events to cover, and to capture the attention of the world was serious. The media played an enormous role in shaping the October Crisis, through their portrayal of both the FLQ and of the government’s actions. The media’s portrayal of events is seen in the Globe and Mail headlines: “Police Identify Three More Kidnappings” and “Trudeau refuses to elaborate on need for War Measures Act”. Some of the media outlets located specifically in Quebec sympathised with the ideas of the FLQ and therefore cooperated with the FLQ. The media’s central goal was to produce the best story and as such was a tool in the hands of the FLQ, and many news outlets published all the FLQ demands. Until the kidnappings and the murder of Pierre Laporte the media did not restrict themselves to broadcasting the FLQ’s manifestos, sometimes even wrote supportively of the group. Soon after the application of the War Measures Act the government, knowing it had to place some control over the media’s propaganda, restricted CBC to only publishing articles where sources could be identified, effectively eliminating the ability to publish those articles using FLQ sources. The media was only exacerbating the already precarious situation, and by limiting its powers, this diminished the media’s ability to present news in a fashion that favored the FLQ. Pierre Trudeau and the cabinet were very aware of the power the media possessed throughout the crisis. This is seen in the famous Just Watch Me interview with Pierre Trudeau. Trudeau expresses his frustration with the media, even condemning the questions the reporters were asking and the way they would portray this interview itself in the media. The use of the War Measures Act to minimize damage from misguided media prevented the FLQ from damaging the nation further, but did not approach complete censorship of the media. The War Measures Act was not only applied to the needs of the government, but was backed by the support of the majority of Canadians and even the majority of those in Quebec.
Perhaps the Act is questioned today as the time of crisis has passed and the focus now lies in the specific reductions in rights and civil liberties caused by the use of the act. Whether or not the use of the Act was warranted is often debated today, but is insignificant to the decision to employ the Act. The Act was arguably flawed, as it did give extreme powers to government and officials and limited the rights of the population. The decision to employ the Act was based on the abilities, of which the Act provided, the police and government required to bring an end to the crisis. Pierre Trudeau was well liked and spent years fighting for the individual rights and liberties of Canadians; he had no intention of purposely reducing civil liberties, but rather to protect these people. The War Measures Act was used at a time of crisis in Canada by a responsible government for the purpose of enabling the police to take the extreme measures required to do their job and provide security in the province of Quebec. Given that the act was employed responsibly for the purpose of empowering police to bring security back to Quebec, the Act was warranted even as Canada was considered to be in …show more content…
peacetime. The War Measures Act was used at a time of crisis within Canada, and given the situation at the time the general population supported the use of the Act.
The demands and actions of the FLQ were extreme, using violence to attract attention to their interests. The FLQ demanded many things in its manifesto, including the liberation of so called political prisoners, a plane for their escape, $500,000 in gold onboard the plane, and the name and picture of the person who gave information leading to the most recent police raid on the FLQ. These were extreme demands which could not be fully accepted ever, even with a life at risk. The danger also lay in the support for the cause outside the FLQ, including the majority of the Quebecois and the Quebec media. In Montreal the support was evident with rallies and student strikes in the streets. The only hesitation many Quebecois had for supporting the FLQ was its extreme use of violence to convey their cause and gather attention. The danger of further violence including bombs, kidnappings, and the threats of murder posed by the FLQ was ample reason to invoke the War Measures Act. The act was to be used by the government to protect the public and officials from the FLQ and as a precautionary measure to prevent the threat of insurrection in Quebec. The use of the act was an extreme precautionary action in response to the radical, violent acts and threats the FLQ presented throughout the
crisis. The liberals under Pierre Trudeau’s leadership won the election in which the central conflict was the situation in Quebec. Trudeau won with his policy of one nation with a bilingual federal government that would represent all Canadians. As the separatist movement began rolling in Quebec, and escalating into the FLQ action in October 1970, the federal government was forced to take action. Looking back throughout 1970 and even prior, there is a clear time line of events escalating towards the October Crisis in Quebec. The FLQ was responsible for kidnappings, bombings, and murder, it also issued extreme demands in return for James Cross’s and Pierre Laporte’s release. With the request coming from the Quebec government for the implementation of the War Measures Act, Trudeau acted quickly and decisively. Under a responsible government which would not utilize the, arguably flawed, act excessively, but instead to provide security to Quebec and to all of Canada. The use of the War Measures Act was justified, given the demand from Quebec, the violent situation in Quebec, and on the condition it was used responsibly as needed by the government, as it was.
Eden Robinson’s short story “Terminal Avenue” presents readers with the dystopian near-future of Canada where Indigenous people are subjugated and placed under heavy surveillance. The story’s narrator, Wil, is a young Aboriginal man who struggles with his own inner-turmoil after the suicide of his father and his brother’s subsequent decision to join the ranks of the Peace Officers responsible for “adjusting” the First Nations people. Though “Terminal Avenue” takes place in Vancouver there are clear parallels drawn between the Peace Officers of Robinson’s imagination and the Canadian military sent to enforce the peace during the stand-off at Oka, Quebec in 1990. In writing “Terminal Avenue” Robinson addresses the armed conflict and proposes
How do you think the polices were in the Regina manifesto helped Canadians? In 1933 a group known as the co-operative commonwealth federation as none as the CCF. They would meet in a farm in Regina Saskatchewan they called that the Regina manifesto. The policies outlined in the Regina manifesto were appropriate to the challenges faced by Canadians during the great depression.
The Front de libération du Québec was founded in 1963 during the “Quiet Revolution”, and for seven years, they carried out several minor bombings, with few FLQ members involved in each of the bombings, as they were relatively small scale. However, the Canadian government took little notice of these actions until Oct...
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has long been the legal document that protects Canadian citizens from infringements made by unscrupulous politicians and legislators. However, there are questions explored about the Sections of the Charter and in those of Section 7 in particular. This is because of the protective function of Section 7 and its obligations of the protection of a citizen’s rights to life, liberty and security of the person. There are third parties that could be posing “threats” to Charter interests and therefore the extents of Section 7 in terms of its protective function for individuals’ rights are put into question. Section 7 of the Charter says that “[E]veryone has the right to life, liberty and the security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” The meaning of Section 7 is to adhere to each individual’s right to the sanctity of life, their physical liberty in a narrow sense, and the integrity of the person is to be kept secure. However, what would the extent of Section 7 be or moreover, what is the extent of each protected interest? The objective of this paper is to examine the extents of Section 7 of the Charter in which the focus is on the protected interests of life, liberty and security of the person. Each protected interest will be discussed in depth with its relationship to a specific Canadian court case. This will help to determine the extent of Section 7 and therefore help understand how much the Charter protects the freedom of Canadian citizens. For right to life, the First Nation communities in Canada had ‘high risk’ of threats to health in their water systems according to Health Canada. The focus of this topic...
Canada is perceived by other nations as a peace-loving and good-natured nation that values the rights of the individual above all else. This commonly held belief is a perception that has only come around as of late, and upon digging through Canadian history it quickly becomes obvious that this is not the truth. Canadian history is polluted with numerous events upon which the idea that Canada is a role model for Human Rights shows to be false. An extreme example of this disregard for Human Rights takes place at the beginning of the twentieth-century, which is the excessive prejudice and preconceived notions that were held as truths against immigrants attempting to enter Canada. Another prime example of these prejudices and improper Human Rights is the Internment of those of Japanese descent or origin during the Second World War. Also the White Paper that was published by the government continues the theme of Human Rights being violated to the utmost extreme. All these events, as well as many others in history, give foundation to the idea that “Canada as a champion for Human Rights is a myth”.
The War Measures Act, which had been created for the protection and benefit of Canadian...
"The Evacuation." The Canadians at war 1939/45. Montreal: Reader's Digest Association (Canada), 1969. 114-115. Print.
“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...
To decide what to do after Quebec separates, First Ministers and the ROC, must first look at why it happened. Perhaps Quebec's profound nationalism and unique national identity conflicted with citizens in the ROC; in order to gain understanding of their decision the ROC must look at Quebec's past. Quebec was not always treated fairly nor where they given many rights in regards t...
He has been called a prophet, a traitor, a martyr, a visionary and a madman, but whatever one thinks of him, Louis Riel, remains one of the most controversial figures in Canadian history. Does this man who has continued to haunt Canadian history for more than a century after his execution, deserve all of those descriptions? After reading three different interpretations of the rebellions, it is still difficult to decide which is closer to the truth. All three authors retold the Metis history and although they differ on crucial issues, there was agreement on the basic facts. The primary difference amongst the three authors was whether the Canadian and Manitoban governments acted in good faith in carrying out the terms of the Manitoba Act, whether John A. MacDonald purposely deceived the Metis as to what Canada’s intentions were with respect to the Canada-Metis Agreement and to what extent were there deceptions in the administration of the Metis land grants. How these three historians attempt to encapsulate Riel’s life, accomplishments, and mistakes is very different. How they attempt to separate fact from fiction and decide whether Riel was justified in his actions against the government is written from three very different perspectives. Where their sympathies lie, how subjective they are and how they interpret the facts is quite evident, but there are many sides to history and every side must be examined if a fair judgment is to be made.
The horrors of racial profiling during World War II had always seemed to be distant to many Canadians, yet Canada was home to several xenophobic policies that were a violation of many rights and freedoms. One of the cruelest instances of this was the Japanese Canadian internment. At the time, the government justified the internment by claiming that the Japanese Canadians were a threat to their national defense, but evidence suggests that it had nothing to do with security. The government made illogical decisions in response to the mass panic and agitation in British Columbia. To aggravate the situation, Prime Minister William Mackenzie King reacted passively to these decisions, as it was not in his best interests to be involved. Moreover,
Canada is known by outsiders to be a very peaceful country. But if you ask any Canadian they well tell you that is unfortunately not the case. For there is a large ongoing conflict between Canadians. The conflict is between the French and the English, or more specifically between Quebec and the rest of Canada. As a result of this conflict, along with some wrongdoing and propaganda. Quebec has considered and has gone as far to hold referendums over Separatism (Surette,2014). Separatism is that the province of Quebec separates from the rest of Canada to form its own country. Which would have immense effects on indubitably Quebec but also the rest of Canada (Martin, 2014). This report will focus on the root causes and origin of Quebec Separatism, the current state of Quebec Separatism and finally how we as a society can act towards Quebec Separatism.
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...
1. The FLQ organizations should be tracked down using all the resources and capabilities available for the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec. We should form an Anti-Terrorism task forces and send them in a secret mission to hunt down the remaining members of the FLQ and imprison them. Thus, giving the chance to the Government of Canada to publicly announced that they have caught all the remaining members of the FLQ organizations and sentence them to long period of years. The leaders of the FLQ will be executed for their violent methods of action.
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