1. Restrict only to ProtectHumanities 30-1Breanna Nielsen<br />During times of war, emergency, and disease, democracies have restricted the rights and freedoms of its citizens in order to deal with the crisis at hand. But the issue with limiting the people’s rights and freedoms forms when, in these times of crisis, illiberal policies are applied only to certain groups or individuals. Nelson Mandela once said that in order to be free, you have to live in a way that not only enhances your personal freedoms, but also the freedoms of others. This outlook can also be applied when our freedoms are temporarily suspended. In order to preserve a nation and its democracy in an emergency, it is necessary to temporarily suspend rights and freedoms which apply to the crisis. But when the rights and freedoms of a nation are limited, it is the democracy’s responsibility to ensure that all of society benefits from the suspension and that the intentions of placing the restrictions are fully justified. There have been many examples of the necessary use of the suspension of rights and freedoms throughout history. Unfortunately, Canada’s use of the War measures Act in the Second World War with the Japanese-Canadians improperly treated the targeted collective, did not benefit the collective society, and was not acted upon justly. An example of a successful use of the suspension of rights and freedoms was demonstrated through the pandemic outbreak of SARS in 2003. As any good democratic government working towards the bettering of their nation, Canada recognized the effects of the War Measures Act in the past, and established a new act, referred to as the Emergency Act, which accounted for the rights of Canadians as outlined in the nation’s Charter. Despite the circumstances necessary to suspend the rights and freedoms within a nation, there must be limitations set to protect the nation, its democracy, and its citizens.<br />During the Second World War, the Canadian Government enforced the War Measures Act by placing restrictions on the freedoms of the Japanese-Canadians. Although a vast majority of them were born in Canada, the Japanese-Canadians were collected and placed in internment camps due to the public’s fear of disloyalty. The males were placed in work camps, and the women and children were taken to communal buildings. Sadly, the conditions these Japanese Canadians were living in at these internment camps were so poor that the Red Cross sent care packages from Japan. The federal government also allowed the sale of the Japanese-Canadian’s property, which the original owners were forced to abandon when taken to the camps; none of which received compensation for the sold property. Near the end of the War, the federal government decided that all Japanese-Canadians should be removed from British Columbia and had to deport to Japan, or relocate east of the Rocky Mountains. As a Canadian, the suspension of the Japanese-Canadian’s rights and freedoms during the World War is an embarrassment. They never should have been placed in such harsh circumstances based on their race and ridden of their freedoms of movement and ownership of property. This is why a government must justify that the suspension of rights and freedoms will benefit the all of society.<br />In 2003, the outbreak of the SARS pandemic rapidly grew into a global issue due to its easy spread from person to person and borderless path of infection. With the convenient ability to travel, the serious and sometimes fatal illness spread from country to country, leaving the global community with the difficult decision to limit the rights and freedoms within the global society in order to prevent the continuous spread of the deadly pandemic. The infected patients were restricted of their basic freedoms of movement and had to be quarantined within hospitals. But there was not an issue with having to restrict freedoms of movement because the infected patients were being cared, and the rest of society which was still healthy was being protected. Because of the way this pandemic was dealt, the global society as a whole was able to benefit from the suspension of rights and freedoms of the infected citizens.<br />Following the introduction of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canada introduced the Emergency Act. This act defined a public welfare emergency, so that it could be identified when a crisis developed. As well as set limits on the government’s power during the time of crisis, to help prevent any reoccurring events like the unjust treatment of the Japanese-Canadians in World War Two. An important thing to recognized, which the Emergency Act indeed did, is to take in account the rights of Canadians outlined within the Charter. With the Emergency Act, situations which are necessary to suspend rights and freedoms will be handled smoothly, and result in greater success.<br />Rights and Freedoms are essential to a democracy; however, there may be times when a temporary suspension of rights and freedoms is necessary to guarantee the preservation of democracy. In World War Two, Canada did not properly deal with the restrictions put on the Japanese-Canadians, and unreasonably violated rights which did not need to be suspended. The SARS global outbreak was a successful use of the restriction of rights and freedoms in order to protect a nation because the infected and the healthy were protected from the suspension. With the Emergency Act within Canada, it will be easier for the government to deal with a crisis, and protect all of society. In times of war, emergency, and disease, it is necessary to suspend rights and freedoms within a democracy. But when the rights and freedoms of a nation are limited, it is the democracy’s responsibility to ensure that all of society benefits from the suspension and that the intentions of placing the restrictions are fully justified.<br />