Examples of Liberal Democracies Disregarding the Will of the People

In Québec, the Front de libération du Québec (FLQ) was founded by some radical Québécois who wanted drastic changes made quickly. The members of the FLQ did not want to be governed by an Anglophone majority government. They wanted Québec to be ruled by the Québécois. They took action against federal institutions and the federal government.

In 1970, they kidnapped British diplomat James Cross and later Québec provincial government cabinet member Pierre Laporte. The FLQ issued a manifesto, making several radical demands for the "liberation of Québec". They wanted the manifesto to be published in newspapers and read on television to show the injustices the people of Québec endured. However, the murder of Pierre Laporte by members of the FLQ forced the federal government to take action.

Prime Minister Trudeau and his cabinet had a difficult decision to make as a result of these radical terrorist actions by the FLQ. The Canadian government did not know where, or when, the FLQ might strike next to make their point.

In 1914, when Canada was at war with Germany and its allies, the Canadian government passed The War Measures Act. This act gave the Canadian government emergency powers to take complete control of the country to maintain the safety and security of Canadians. The War Measures Act was intended to be used only in emergencies and only when Canada was at war.

In 1970 during the October Crisis, Prime Minister Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act, which took away all basic liberal democratic rights, including the right of habeas corpus—the right to be told why you were arrested and to be granted a fair trial. In other words, the police or the army could arrest you without a warrant and without any real reason.

By using the War Measures Act in peacetime, Trudeau's government rejected liberal ideology and, in essence, created a police state until government officials decided to reinstate constitutional rights. The War Measures Act was replaced in 1988 with the Emergencies Act, which provides more protection for rights and freedoms of Canadians.

Please watch the following video explaining October 1970:

 

PATRIOT Act in the United States

The PATRIOT (Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act was enacted in 2001 in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. This Act allowed the United States government to take actions that reject liberal values. The United States PATRIOT Act gives the government, the CIA, the FBI, the police, and the newly formed Department of Homeland Security sweeping powers of surveillance, arrest, detainment, and search in the name of national security. If government officials believe an individual is involved in terrorist activities, the officials are allowed to tap phones and read personal e-mails and records of health and financial information.

Throughout the United States, citizens have criticized the PATRIOT Act. They believe that the PATRIOT Act denies citizens the basic freedoms that the American people are guaranteed through their Constitution and Bill of Rights. This Act has been criticized for contradicting the Bill of Rights because individuals are being detained, questioned, and held in custody without recognition of their rights. The defenders of the Act point out that this suspension of rights is being done only to provide safety, security, and maintenance of order in society.

Please watch the following video explaining the PATRIOT Act:

 

U.S. Prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

The PATRIOT Act is an example of how a government's actions can reject liberal values.

In the 1950s, the American government leased land in Cuba from the Cuban government. Since 1987, the United States has operated a prison in Guantanamo Bay on the southern edge of Cuba. After 9/11 and the beginning of the U.S. war on Iraq, American officials sent as many as 775 detainees to Guantanamo Bay. Approximately 420 were released without charge. As of January 2009, 245 detainees remained. The stories of individuals held in Guantanamo Bay provide examples for you to consider how a government might act in ways that are a rejection of liberal values.



Please watch the following video explaining Guantanamo Bay:

 

The Anti-Terrorism Act (2001) in Canada

The Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) was enacted after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. To protect itself and others, Canada had to develop an anti-terrorism strategy. The goal of the Anti-Terrorism Act is to give powers to the Canadian government to arrest terrorists and terrorist groups and to manage the extraordinary challenges presented by terrorism. The Anti-Terrorism Act aims to protect the safety, security, and fundamental rights of Canadians.

If you are suspected of terrorism, your phone could be tapped, your e-mail and Internet activities monitored, and your confidential information accessed by government officials. In addition, you could be arrested. Many people believe these powers contradict the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Government officials maintain these powers are necessary to keep order and to maintain security for Canadians and the free world.

The Anti-Terrorism Act

  • provides the powers to discourage terrorist organizations from setting up in Canada

  • provides the tools that the police and national securities agencies need to identify and find terrorists

  • provides tougher criminal sentences for terrorism offences

  • makes it a crime knowingly to participate in, facilitate, or contribute to a terrorist group

  • makes it a crime knowingly to collect or give funds to carry out terrorist acts

  • within carefully defined limits, allows for the arrest and detention of, and imposition of conditions of release on, suspected terrorists to prevent terrorist acts and save lives

  • helps Canada achieve its international obligations in the war against terrorism

  • ensures that Canadian values of respect and fairness are preserved through laws against hate crimes and propaganda

Please watch the following video explaining a rally against Bill C-51:

 


Canadians as Suspected Terrorists

A similar situation to Ibrahim Aziz under the PATRIOT Act in the U.S. also happened to Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen. Maher Arar was born in Syria and moved to Canada in 1987. He worked in Ottawa as a telecommunications engineer. In September 2002, he went on vacation to Tunisia. On a stop in New York City during his return to Canada, U.S. officials detained him. The officials claimed he had links to the terrorist organization al Qaeda. Instead of allowing him to go back to Canada, and although he had a Canadian passport, the officials deported him to Syria.

After Arar was released and returned to Canada, he said he had been tortured when he was in Syria. He accused American officials of sending him to Syria even though they knew that the Syrians use torture as a form of interrogation. Since his release, Arar has spoken out against abuses of human rights, and he is seeking compensation for his mistreatment.

On June 2, 2009, 400 police officers raided homes in Toronto and Mississauga, Ontario. On June 3, 2009, the police identified 17 people charged under the Anti-Terrorism Act with following a violent ideology inspired by al Qaeda. Twelve adults and five youths were arrested. The suspects were accused of plotting to blow up various sites in London, Ontario, and of plotting to storm Parliament Hill, to behead politicians, and to bomb nuclear plants and the RCMP headquarters in Ottawa. Many of the people arrested were released on bail. One of the detainees was denied bail. He was charged with receiving training from a terrorist group and with intending to cause an explosion likely to harm people or damage property. The police were able to identify the suspects by using wiretapping and testimony from witnesses.

Please watch the following video of Maher Arar speaking:

 



Read "The 1917 Conscription Crisis in Quebec" to "The Anti-terrorism Act" on pages 294-300 of your textbook, Understandings of Ideologies. These pages will further your understanding of the concept of liberal democracy.

You should make notes, either on paper or on your computer, about what you have read. You may want to read the tutorial How to Make Notes. When you are finished the tutorial, return here to continue this unit.

Authoritarian Political Systems

Liberal democracies walk a fine line between achieving the will of the people and rejecting liberal values to protect society against threats like terrorism. By contrast, authoritarian governments typically do not bother with the will of the people or individual rights and freedoms. Authoritarian political systems are more concerned with obedience to those in power and their ideology.

Remember which way power flows in an authoritarian political system compared to liberal democratic systems. Examine the diagram below:



Read "Authoritarian Political Systems" on pages 301-303 of your textbook, Understandings of Ideologies. These pages will further your understanding of the concept of liberal democracy.

You should make notes, either on paper or on your computer, about what you have read. You may want to read the tutorial How to Make Notes. When you are finished the tutorial, return here to continue this unit.