The document discusses balancing civil liberties with national security. It argues that while temporary suspension of rights may be necessary during crises, governments must place limits on this power to prevent abuse. Specifically, it notes that the War Measures Act was abused in Canada, suspending rights across the country in response to a localized crisis. More recent legislation like the Emergencies Act and Anti-Terrorism Act aim to better define when and where extraordinary powers can be invoked but still risk profiling based on attributes. Overall the document stresses the need to trust that governments will restrict rights only as much as necessary while upholding citizens' basic human rights.

1. Preservation of Rights<br />Ashlyn Rye<br />Humanities 30-1<br />Mr. Kabachia<br />June 10, 2010<br />The ideological perspective demonstrated in the source provided is modern liberalism with the exception of human rights being suppressed. In order for long term preservation of rights, certain laws should be put in place so power isn’t being abused and so all peoples rights aren’t being suppressed in time of crisis. <br />As the source says, “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.” However, in the time of crisis we should be able to trust our government to enact the suspension of our rights when drastically needed. We entrust in our government to keep us safe in times of need, however there should be a law in place that says, when power is being abused, it should be taken away for the benefit of our country. <br />When the War Measures Act was in place in Canada, it was being abused and in time of crisis in a particular province, such as the FLQ Crisis in Quebec, the rights and freedoms of individuals across Canada were being suppressed. During this time, for example in British Columbia, when the War Measures Act was put in place, the BC law enforcement took advantage of it and was arresting mass groups of hippies and people they didn’t like because they didn’t need proof or cause to do so. This demolished innocent people’s rights in a time where crisis wasn’t present in that particular part of Canada. In 1988 the Emergencies Act was put into place that put a limit on when you could suspend the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens based on the type of crisis or natural disaster occurring, and where it was occurring. The Emergencies Act could be put into place in time of a natural catastrophe, disease in humans, animals or plants, accident or pollution. When people’s lives are in danger is when the Emergencies Act is necessary, as well as when something isn’t working out, the power of the act can’t be abused in such places where crisis isn’t occurring.<br />Currently, after September 11th, the Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act was put into place stating that in time of a terrorist attack, threat or suspicion, the Canadian government can enact the Anti-Terrorism Act and arrest and hold suspicious people who may be a threat to our country. No fly lists were put into place stating that if you are suspicious and suspected of being involved in terrorist acts, or even if your name sounds suspicious or you look a certain way, your name will be placed on the no fly list and you will not be able to leave the country, nor fly anywhere in Canada as well. Although the Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act is in effect to help protect our country, and has worked in a situation where we apprehended individuals based on discrimination, but who actually turned out to be terrorists. The Anti-Terrorism act may be helpful in certain situations, but because the Canadian government can profile and discriminate against particular people based on what race, nationality, skin color and religion you are, this is considered a violation of our rights and freedoms as Canadian citizens. The saying, “my rights end where yours begin,” is based on what Canada, as a democratic country, believes in, and when we are violating certain people’s human rights, we go against our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. <br />When acts are put in place in order to keep that country’s people safe, the power and actions of the government should have limitations on how long and how much power they get to use. In Germany, during the time of Hitler, because of the abuse of power by Hitler many innocent people died. Hitler took advantage of the government and when he conjured up plans to start riots and to portray to the German people that the current government was corrupt, he was able to gain power. Hitler protested he was only going to “temporarily” suspend the rights and freedoms of his people, promising to take them out of place when the crisis was over, this is an example of an abuse of power in relation to a similar act, such as the War Measures Act in Canada. <br />How much power should the government really be allowed to have when it comes to our rights as citizens of that country? The extent to which we should embrace modern liberalism with the suspension of human rights, it the extent to which we can trust our government to do the right thing. In democracy, we vote for our government as whole, therefore we should be able to trust our government with the decision that in time of crisis, our rights as humans can and will be suspended, but only when absolutely needed, and that our rights will be unsuspended when it is safe to do so. As long as no human rights are being violated, and we are safe, the Emergencies Act, as well as the other acts that can be put in place, are to benefit us, and we should support our government to make the decision when the time is right. <br />