Author Archives: chadgautreau

Terrorism and the State of Exception

In response to an act of terrorism, governments must respond accordingly and act in approval of its citizens while the criteria for legality need not be required. In response to terrorism, governments must incorporate the safety and lives of their citizens so that purpose of taking or holding of their legal rights can be meet with a proper understanding from the countries leader in that government. For the purpose of having things done without going through political questioning, governments can freely impose their will without being challenged.

While an overbearing concern of terrorism can deter the Canadian government’s ability to question, it is whether or not the time and effort into passing a quick and rough bill into Parliament to attempt to pass the bill is worth it. Threats and questionable acts of terrorism over the presumption that it could possible become more prominent, is a framework that can be effective in times of political and social duress. For instances, a “design of an emergency regime may well be the best available defense against a panic-driven cycle of permanent destruction” (Ackerman 2004; 1030). What Ackerman is suggesting is that the use of a quick, reactionary government over parliamentary decision making is best used to tackle terrorism because emergences are needed to be dealt with swiftly therefore there is a need to disregard Parliament’s argumentative approach for instances of actually terrorism. To avoid the time-heavy and nuisance of having party members in Parliament to agree and redraft on a suggested bill that can make it easy to have individual’s liberties be withheld while being time consuming. Not only does it free up time but it can also relieve Parliamentary scrutiny by not having members of Parliament enacting their potential powers to veto a suggested bill that would do the same as a State of Emergency call. Enforcing dominancy from governments to enact State of Emergency can send the message that the reasons for using the Emergencies Act is reasonable over fighting for of against a bill.

For the members of the public that receiving the news that their government has declared a state of emergency for the purpose of eliminating terrorism can provide for conflicting views. Individuals in society can see this enactment of a state of emergence as something that shows the government being tough on terrorism. This message of taking a stance on terrorism does not only boost the morale between governments and their citizens, it can also give the notion that the government intended to protect their citizens by the apprehension of a suspected groups of other people that may be in connection to terror plots or organizations.

On the other hand, there will always be someone in the public who would think and respond differently to the enactment of a state of emergency. Taking the view that the overall goal of a government when implementing an act of emergency is to withhold individual rights and freedoms as they can be free in detaining or searching people’s houses without using the proper form of getting warrants from a judge is a concern. There can also be a case that the federal government has been looking into two or three groups that may be involved with international crimes overseas, such a terrorism, but have little to no evidence to approve of a warrant could be of interest to pull the state of exception rule into society on order to work around such stifling techniques.

Governments that are able to introduce bills are those sovereignties that demand a democratic approach prior to initiating an increase to security and police serveses that could be viewed as supporting ‘totalitarian’ ideals (Pavlich 2011). Although rushed, it is understandable how governments look to the Parliament or Senate prior to deciding whether or not it is a good idea to put their act into fruition. Governments that are able to hold a debate on the reasons for a state of emergency are to be well admired as they are following how democratic society should come together as one to answer the question of rather than jumping to it right away.

The public, in witnessing of a bill suggesting for a state of emergency, can listen in and make their own decision on what they think should occur. Having debates in Parliament not only opens the floor to those wanting to speak on terrorism, it is also allows for an honest discussion about the rules around state of emergences and how they can be effective. As the public hears more and more about the bill, they would be able better connect with the reasons for the increased police power and be able to reflect on how this can effect society as a whole in all kind of ways, good or bad or neutral.

In today’s demographic, it makes more sense for a government to create a bill to increase police and security services. By doing so, the government does not have the right to remove everyone’s freedom and liberties for a short period of time. Introducing higher powers for police services can also be used a deterrence factor that makes the possibility of terrorist attack even lower. As more responsibilities are handed to police and security services, the public can become more reciprocal and attentive to police out on the field.

The third option here is to not act at all. With Governments not enforcing a bill or considering the calling for a State of Emergency, they are leaving the issue with police to follow the laws already imposed on society from the Parliament of Canada. From this, a government can wait until another act occurs or that the government will promote the idea of working together with law enforcement to end terrorism, while not actually implementing a state of emergency or strength the service of police and security. Although terrorism has approached the level of publicity that sees acts of terror as being something seriously affecting the rest of Canada, it would be improbable for governments to take this third option due to the scrutiny received from Canadian citizens. Much like sovereigns who are petty in nature, these sole entities would become disconnected and oblivious to the real issues at hand (Pavlich 2014). The issue around terrorism should be meet with a high standard as there needs to be an act done in order to resolve public worry and show government re-actions. And this high standard can come from bills or the initiation of a State of Emergency in most cases.

Reference

Ackerman, B. (2014). The Emergency Constitution. The Yale Law Journal. 113 (5). 1029-1091.

Pavlich, G. (2011). Law and Society Redefined. Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press.

Advertisements

Comments Off on Terrorism and the State of Exception

Filed under Contributor Post

Terrorism and the State or Exception

In response to an act of terrorism, governments must respond accordingly and act in approval of its citizens as the criteria for legality need not be required. For the purpose of having things done without going through political questioning, governments can freely impose their will without being challenged.

While an overbearing concern of terrorism can deter the Canadian government’s ability to question whether or not the time and effort into passing a quick and rough bill into Parliament to pass. Threats and questionable acts of terrorism over the presumption that it could possible become more prominent, is a framework that can be effective in times of political and social duress. For instances, a “design of an emergency regime may well be the best available defense against a panic-driven cycle of permanent destruction” (Ackerman 2004; 1030). To avoid the backlash and nuisances of having party members in Parliament to agree and re-redraft on a suggested bill can make it easy and fast to have individual’s liberties be withheld. Not only does it free up time but it can also relieve leaders by enacted their potential powers. Enforcing dominancy from governments can send the message that the reasons for using the Emergencies Act.

For the members of the public that receiving the news that their government has declared a state of emergency for the purpose of eliminating terrorism can provide for conflicting views. Individuals in society can see this enactment of a state of emergence as something that shows the government being tough on terrorism. This message of taking a stance on terrorism does not only boost the morale between governments and their citizens, it can also give the notion that the government intended to protect their citizens by the apprehension of a suspected groups of other people that may be in connection to terror plots or organizations.

On the other hand, there will always be someone in the public who would think and respond differently to the enactment of a state of emergency. Taking the view that the overall goal of a government when implementing an act of emergency is to withhold individual rights and freedoms as they can be free in detaining or searching people’s houses without using the proper form of getting warrants from a judge is a concern. There can also be a case that the federal government has been looking into two or three groups that may be involved with international crimes overseas, such a terrorism, but have little to no evidence to approve of a warrant could be of interest to pull the state of exception rule into society on order to work around such stifling techniques.

Governments that are able to introduce bills are those sovereignties that demand a democratic approach prior to initiating an increase to security and police serveses that could be viewed as supporting ‘totalitarian’ ideals (Pavlich 2011). Although rushed, it is understandable how governments look to the Parliament or Senate prior to deciding whether or not it is a good idea to put their act into fruition. Governments that are able to hold a debate on the reasons for a state of emergency are to be well admired as they are following how democratic society should come together as one to answer the question of rather than jumping to it right away.

The public, in witnessing of a bill suggesting for a state of emergency, can listen in and make their own decision on what they think should occur. Having debates in Parliament not only opens the floor to those wanting to speak on terrorism, it is also allows for an honest discussion about the rules around state of emergences and how they can be effective. As the public hears more and more about the bill, they would be able better connect with the reasons for the increased police power and be able to reflect on how this can effect society as a whole in all kind of ways, good or bad or neutral.

In today’s demographic, it makes more sense for a government to create a bill to increase police and security services. By doing so, the government does not have the right to remove everyone’s freedom and liberties for a short period of time. Introducing higher powers for police services can also be used a deterrence factor that makes the possibility of terrorist attack even lower. As more responsibilities are handed to police and security services, the public can become more reciprocal and attentive to police out on the field.

The third option here is to not act at all. From this, a government can wait until another act occurs or that the government will promote the idea of working together to end terrorism, while not actually implementing a state of emergency or strength the service of police and security. Much like sovereigns who are petty in nature, these sole entities would become disconnected and oblivious to the real issues at hand (Pavlich 2014). The issue around terrorism should be meet with a high standard as there needs to be an act done in order to resolve public worry and show government re-actions.

Reference

Ackerman, B. (2014). The Emergency Constitution. The Yale Law Journal. 113 (5). 1029-1091.

Pavlich, G. (2011). Law and Society Redefined. Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press.

1 Comment

Filed under Contributor Post

Insight on Insite: Reflection on Legal Positivism and Judicial Activism

September 30 2014

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision appears to follow the school of thought called legal positivism. This legal theory upholds that the law is compounded of rules legitimately imposed, and in its purest sense, disregarding of moral ideals in society. Simply put, the concern of legal validity for which the conditions are based entirely of social facts. Therefore, for the Insite case, it would follow the act of judge-made decision as a source of law deemed and in corroboration from a social fact. Because the Insite case featured the concern of the Supreme Court of Canada judges and there rational choice to uphold the treatment centers as well as defending section 7 of the Canada Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Insite is the city of Vancouver’s response to drug addiction and systemic overpopulation of homeless individuals injecting themselves with drugs that which can be seen on city streets. Interviews and in-depth research in to this site is provided by the Drug Reporter HCLU where it is shown that the downtown east side on Hasting street safe injection site is not only for proper health care but it also for relieve pain from those addicted by teaching healing and proper techniques of injecting. This site, which is one of its kind around the world, has been discussed through-out the court system in British Columbia and the Supreme Court of Canada because it brings up the notion of harm and self-assisted harm with a goal and how judges who respond to the case handle the issue of judicial activism. The judges must also seep through politics and what policies are being represented through its statistical findings.

Makin mentions that this case decision has somehow formed a ripple effect as the released findings of how much the Insite is helping in regards to the number of lives it saves. In other words, the main argument being represented is effect of social sciences and the overarching ideology of with judges and society in a Canadian law context. Seeing as Insite has been in British Columbia and has provided drug addicts the ability to be overseen during safe injections, it is still the concern that the harm being down in the institution of Insite against unsafe practices is still considered harm. This harm in-turn damages section 7 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states that everyone is entitled to safety, security and the liberty of their person against cruel and unusual punishment. Makin suggests in his article that the harm still being done goes against such rights we are all inclined to receive. It is also observed that the judges whom agreed to the ruling of maintaining Insight, that their reasoning was because of ideology. This view that is mostly represented in this case is that of legal positivism. Without condoning or saying that what occurred was judicial activism on this blog, rather what was noticed is that the message of accepting social facts as a facet for the decision of upholding Insite and its safe injection works. In the case, it was mentioned that because this site saves lives and promotes safety if one where to inject and does not provide the injectable substance to eliminate any trafficking of drugs it can leave one to believe that these socially produced facts caused or at the very least influenced the judge’s decision. The evidence provided by social science concurs that it is the case judges at the moment of the decision where made aware of the facts prior to judgment.

McKay-Panos article relates to Makin by further developing judicial activism. This type of activism is the unacceptable method of judgment in relation to following a side that is heavily promoted for which makes a judge base their decisions on. Because this was the first-government sanction safe injection site and that it deals with the criminal possession of drugs, there are many things that need to look at such as what the charter should represent and how harm is being dealt with in the context of safety against the more dangerous way of injection on the streets. This case formed the rule that if we are to be concern with the level of harm, then should it be the case that it is okay to take down laws if there is social evidence showing that a regulation actually worsened the danger? It is also the hopes that in the future the Supreme Court of Canada makes more of a use of an interpretation of the law solely instead of worry about accusation of judgments being derived from judicial activism and decide to look at a broader scale of all sides of Insite and other programs. Whether or not judicial activism had occurred, this case follows the school of thought known as Legal Positivism because of the use of social facts, or at the very least, knowledge of social science facts in relation to the legal decision of the Supreme Court of Canada judiciary group.

1 Comment

Filed under Contributor Post