Position paper mica
-
Upload
flintmica -
Category
News & Politics
-
view
188 -
download
2
Transcript of Position paper mica
Remove in Order to Protect
Humanities 30
Mica Pettibone
Remove to Protect Humanities 30 2 | P a g e
Modern Liberalism is a system that is built around the rights and freedoms of every individual
and is built in such a way to try and compromise between different individuals rights as best it can. So
when we are in a situation that requires that we suspend the rights and freedoms of individuals it
becomes a very complex issue. To begin with, the consequences of removing rights and freedoms are
steep, at what point are we giving up too much, when does the government have too much power?
People have been able to abuse the ‘suspension’ of rights and freedoms in the past. Hitler rose to power
legally, by asking for ultimate power and never giving it back he removed the rights and freedoms of
Germany’s, and the Reich’s, people. When is it appropriate to suspend rights and freedoms? When our
right to life and safety is threatened should we then be allowed to suspend the people’s rights to
freedom and privacy? To what extent can we justify taking this ‘suspension’? What limits need to be
placed on these powers? These are all questions that do not have simple yes or no answers, as they
apply to every individual involved the multitude of opinions results in the inability for there to be a clear
answer, the best thing to do is find the common ground and compromise.
Having our rights and freedoms stripped from us is never going to be an easy subject. When we
do this we are giving up the founding principle our system is formed on. The ‘suspending’ of rights and
freedoms is something that can be done without the consent of the individual. In the past we have seen
the idea of ‘suspending rights’ abused. Hitler is the most notable and widely recognized example of this
as his rise to power has been thoroughly documented and scrutinized by most countries. Hitler gained
his power by legal means, he asked the people for the power to do anything, and they gave it to him.
Unlike what some might think they did not do this without good reason. Hitler promised to give the
power back, he said he needed it to restore Germany, to fix the problems that were rampant in the
country that was suffering under a devastated economy. The risk is always there when we give up our
Remove to Protect Humanities 30 3 | P a g e
ability to control our government. The amount of power we give them should never exceed our ability
to say it is no longer necessary. In the case of Germany Hitler was able to commit one of the worst
genocides in history and instigate a war that consumed the globe. These consequences of giving up all
power to one individual are something to be seen as a warning. There needs to be a ‘safety’ a way of
taking back the power given, without this we risk losing our freedom and our rights not just as humans,
but as living beings.
With this some may argue that it is then better to never go against the base ideals of our system
by removing rights and freedoms. This is not advisable; the circumstances that require such suspension
are those when our rights and freedoms are being threatened. Our right to life and to safety should take
far more precedence than our right to privacy. Simply because if our right to life or safety encroached
upon it is not something that crosses the line of injustices that do not leave lasting harm. If you are
dead, there is not much point in still having a right to not be detained without just cause, or to not have
people tapping your phone lines. By this logic it is reasonable to say that when the peoples safety is
threatened other less consequential rights should be suspended in order to preserve the basic right to
life. This brings up the idea of ‘Common’ or ‘Greater good’. The good of the whole is more important
than the good of the one. This is generally accepted, because it’s true the majority needs to be put
before the individual if we intend to coexist, or even if we intend to survive as a species. This is the
justification behind the suspension of rights. An example of when such a suspension has been necessary
is in the October Crisis in Quebec. The FLQ, a radical group more appropriately titled terrorists
kidnapped two high-ranking ministers and killed one. The War measures Act was enacted in order to try
and preserve the remaining officials right to life. The measures did not result in the successful capture of
the individuals directly involved in the kidnapping, rather we settled with the kidnappers and gave them
Remove to Protect Humanities 30 4 | P a g e
free passage to Cuba for the safe release of the remaining minister. Some might argue that this is why
we should not be allowed to suspend rights, because they failed in this scenario, they failed and the
people responsible were not punished. Is the life of someone not worth letting some ‘bad guys’ go? It is,
on the assumption that these same criminals will not be able to cause any more damage in future if left
alone. We must always be weighing the results and effects of our actions in order to try and make
decisions that have the most benefit. In this case 497 were arrested and detained only 62 of which were
charged, there was much criticism of this, as it meant hundreds of people had been subjected to a
removal of their rights, however; the hundreds that were not charged were released when the war
measures act was removed and no permanent harm done. As to the War Measures Act being
ineffective and even unjust in its use during the October Crisis, it is better to have something and not
need it than to need it and not have it. If being able to arrest without cause could help catch the
criminals and save a life, why not use it. Why not use the resources available to us? There is no reason
not to, so long as we do not cause more damage than good in our use of such terms.
It is necessary under certain conditions to suspend rights the question is to what extent we take
this power. We have already seen modifications to the scope of power available in a situation that might
call for the suspension of rights. The War Measures act was remodeled into the Emergencies Act which
places restrictions on the government’s ability to enact and use the power available. It required that the
declaration of an emergency be approved by parliament and that any temporary laws made had to be in
accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Later the emergencies Act was replaced with the
Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act after the ramifications of the attack on the world trade center made the
idea of Terrorism and the question of how to deal with it come to the forefront. This legislation was
more invasive than the Emergencies Act but most of it was limited to 2007 where it was not renewed.
Remove to Protect Humanities 30 5 | P a g e
These are all examples of us putting reasonable restrictions on the amount of power our government
can have and how they can use it in order to preserve our rights and freedoms and keep the suspension
temporary. This is to ensure two things; when the measures are no longer needed they must be
removed and when the measures are doing more harm than good they must be removed. This is the
basis for our limitations, in order to prevent the abusive of power and in order to protect our rights and
freedoms.
The idea of restricting or suspending rights and freedoms is a controversial, but necessary
action when the safety of our people or our nation is threatened. The risks that come with having too
much power given to a small group or one individual by allowing the suspension of rights can be
combated by placing restrictions on legislation that prevent the abuse of power. Suspension of rights
becomes necessary when our more influential rights are placed under threat in order to protect our
basic rights to life and safety as well as too protect the structures keeping our society stabilized. So long
as we continue to keep limits on the amount of power given to the government when they suspend our
rights we can be assured of their return. Although our rights and freedoms are important their
suspension is at times necessary and at these times we need to have the legislation in place to respond
to the best of our ability while being assured that power cannot be abused.