Category Archives: Contributor Post

Exclusion and Exemption Clauses of ATI/FOI Laws From a functionalist, Liberal Pluralist and Marxist Perspective

Access to Information (ATI) and Freedom of Information (FOI) laws are intended to provide formal mechanisms with which members of the public can require government agencies to release public records. However, a common perception amongst academic researchers is that ATI/FOI laws serve the interests of the state more than member of the public. The ATI/FOI laws have been criticized as facilitating both transparency and secrecy (Larsen, 2013).

For the purpose of this analysis, I will hold a position that ATI/FOI laws were created by the government for their own interests of protecting the release of certain information from the public. The analysis will focus on the the exemption and exclusion clauses that access laws contain, as well as the role that discretion plays in the release of certain information. I will explain the function of ATI/FOI laws from functionalist, liberal-pluralist, and Marxist perspectives.

Functionalists believe that social control is necessary if society is to flourish (Comack, 2006). A functionalist would argue that because, as individuals, we are self-interested and egotistical, ATI/FOI laws are necessary in order to control the access and spread of government information for self-serving purposes that could be harmful to the state. The exemption and exclusion clauses in fact protect the state.

Functionalists utilize an “organic analogy” (Comack, 2006). They would see ATI/FOI laws are simply a small part of the structure in society that functions to maintain harmony and stability.  Functionalists would argue these laws are a essentially a source of order in society, and serve to mitigate potential conflicts.

Liberal pluralists see society as consisting of groups with competing interests who are in a competition for power.  Although liberal pluralists view that state as an impartial umpire, they would draw attention towards the question of the origins of the laws when acknowledging the concepts of power and conflict. They may inquire as to what vested interest groups played a role in the emergence of the ATI/FOI laws.

The underlying question that liberal pluralists would attempt to emphasize would be: “If laws originate from the moral inclinations of the more powerful in society, and if the agents of law (police and judges) utilize their discretionary power in ways that might disadvantage those with whom they come into contact, then is justice really blind?” (Comack, 2006, p33)

Marxists argue that consensus is not natural, it must be artificially created and manufactured by the ruling class (Comack, 2006). In fact, they view law as a form of ideology, a value-laden position. Marxists would argue that the exclusionary clauses of ATI/FOI laws were created simply to protect the ruling class.

Instrumental Marxists argue that law itself is a weapon of class rule. ATI/FOI would be seen laws are a means of protecting property and consolidating political power, as Instrumental Marxists view law as inherently political.

Structural Marxists would view ATI/FOI laws as a form of accumulation and legitimation. The exclusionary laws protect the interests of the state, while other clauses of the laws actually legitimize and maintain conditions of social harmony by making information available to the public.

In conclusion, there are vast interpretations regarding the nature and purpose of exclusionary and exemption classes of ATI/FOI laws from different socio-legal schools of thought. Yet all three perspectives (functionalist, liberal pluralist and Marxist) agree that ATI/FOI laws were created to manage conflicts and competing interests of different parties, classes and individuals.


Comack, E. (2006). Theoretical Approaches in the Sociology of Law: Theoretical Excursions. In E. Comack (Ed.), Locating law: race/class/gender/sexuality connections (2nd ed., pp. 18–67). Halifax, NS: Fernwood Pub

Larsen, M. (2013). Access in the Academy: Bringing ATI and FOI to Academic Research. BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association. Retrieved from donations/Donate?ID=1552&AID=2700


1 Comment

Filed under Contributor Post

Employment Concerns Due to Previous Usage of ATI/FOI

The terms freedom of information and access to information may be used interchangeably. Generally, FOI refers to freedom of information and are usually requests that are made under provincial acts whereas ATI known as Access to Information are requests made under federal acts.  At the federal level, the Privacy Act governs the use, disclosure, and collection of personal information which all individuals are permitted to only access information about themselves through a process of request. Since, access to information and freedom of information recognize the legal right for an individual to access public records about themselves; there has been concern that individual who request information may be using information given by the state to gain further research information of the government secrecy. Therefore, these individuals are more inclined to be under the radar of the government surveillance. In addition employment within the field of government would increase difficulty in seeking a job position.

Drawing from Michel Foucault’s theory looks into the importance of how power, knowledge and subjects all work together to create social forms, laws etc.. Furthermore, Foucault emphasises “We should admit rather that power produces knowledge…that power and knowledge directly imply one another; that there is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations…the subject who knows, the objects to be known and the modalities of knowledge must be regarded as so many effects of these fundamental implication of power-knowledge and their historical transformation” (Pavlich pg.139). In this sociological theory from Michel Foucault we observe that the value of power, subjects, and knowledge working together as a team to form laws as well as social norms. The power of knowledge through the work of a subject that hold knowledge which leads to power can make historical transformations as Foucault states. In this particular theory I believe it is strongly related to a concern to those who want or plan to seek an occupation within the government. Reason being, with individuals who possess knowledge have a clearer understanding of how the government functions and therefore with more knowledge leads to greater power once employed into a position within the government.

Another sociological theory Michel Foucault looks another type of power which is governmentality. The word government did not refer to political structures or the management of a state, but rather it was designed as a method in which the conduct of group or individuals might be directed towards (Sokhi-Bulley, 2014). The power of governance is a way of gatekeeping which individuals are employed and whom does not. This has largely to do with the definition of governance and how it’s definition may be warped overtime. Since individuals who seek information through the process of access to information or freedom of information. The secrecy and privatization of the government has an impact in determining who gets employed into a government position.

Theory of law has always been about power. Finnis looks in the area of natural law where he believes that natural law is nothing other than a theory of good reasons for choice. He emphasis that practical reasoning is crucial not only to law but generally to how we live our lives, because practical reasoning allow us to hold the basic values of human existence and thus, too, the basic principles of all moral reasoning (Pavlich, pg. 34)

Practical reasoning is a way to reveal moral ways of acting, moreover it cannot be derived from human nature but practical nurturing of the human to use moral reasoning. Yet, in regards to determining those who seek employment in the government. However, the practical reasoning of determining who gets employed and who doesn’t should base its reasoning not by who has used a process of ATI or FOI, but be unbiased towards individuals who have used ATI and FOI to gain information about themselves.

Moreover, Finnis argues, “It is never possible to have a value free description and analysis of law. By expressly focusing on the moral dimensions of law, he argues that ‘natural law theory tries to do openly, critical and discussably, what most other analytical and descriptive theorists do covertly and dogmatically” (Pavlich, Pg.36).  ATI and FOI should have its acts such as the Access to Information Act, as well as Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. These should be open to the public’s right to access information about them and should not then be further questioned or put under the radar for the assumption of gaining information about them which translates to a greater possibility to harm governmental procedures.


Bal Sokhi-Bulley, B. (n.d.). Governmentality: Notes on the Thought of Michel Foucault. Retrieved December 5, 2014.
Pavlich, G. (2011). Law & Society. Canada: Oxford University Press.

1 Comment

Filed under Contributor Post

Parliament hill shooting a smoke screen

​On October 22 2014, a young Michael Zehaf-Bibeau attacked parliament hill. He
appeared in Ottawa with an assault rifle, and a motive, to break into parliament, and kill
the prime minister, and any other MP’s he could. He managed to kill a soldier standing
guard at a war memorial nearby, but upon entering parliament, he was killed before he
could get anyone else. The country was in a state of shock. People could not believe
what had happened. Canada had never experienced an international terrorist attack,
especially one that struck so close to the chest (our parliament building). The reaction
by the Harper Conservatives however, is where the real nightmare begins. As the
Harper government introduce new bills to further strengthen its surveillance abilities on
Canadians, many begin to question whether or not it is warranted. Eric Wright describes
how Harper made the connection between an earlier hit and run terrorist attack on a
soldier in Quebec, without any evidence to suggest the two incidences were related.
Voices of condemnation regarding Harper’s newest terror initiatives have been
sprouting up in the New Democrat Party.

Thomas Mulcair, leader of the New Democrat Party, has already signaled the
Parties issues regarding the Conservative governments response to the Parliament Hill
attack. Mulcair has pointed out that the shooter on Parliament Hill was a criminal with
mental health issues, rather than a terrorist. In fact the shooter on Parliament hill was
described as behaving erratically, living in a homeless shelter in the days before the
shooting (Jordan, 2014). No link has ever been found between any international terrorist
organizations, and Michael Zehaf-Bibeau’s attack on parliament (Wright, 2014). In fact
the shooter has never been found to be in contact with any organization. He has been
described as having severe personality and mental disorders, and in these frequenting
mental states, he eventually decided to become a fighter for Islam (Jordan, 2014). This
was an attack he carried out on his own. However the Harper government considered it
an attack carried out by a terror organization. There is no evidence to suggest that the
terrorist organization, ISIS ever knew of, or had any involvement with Michael Zehaf-
Bibeau. So why would the government go in this direction, making these accusations,
and passing new laws extending the arm of surveillance in Canada? Because it gives
the government a greater degree of social control.
Just as alexis Ohanion, founder of Reddit pointed out, the NSA in the United
States is engaged in a surveillance program against its own citizens which emphasizes
a “collect everything” agenda. The Canadian government is also interested in engaging
in a similar program here in Canada for several reasons, including industry development
in Canada. However this can also be aligned with a need for increased security
surveillance over Canadians, not just exclusive to Muslim Canadians, but to any and all
Canadians that any Candian governments feel may pose a threat of any kind, even if that threat fails to extend any further than inconvenient protests regarding policy

Comments Off on Parliament hill shooting a smoke screen

Filed under Contributor Post

Concerns of Students filling out ATI/FOI Forms

When some students are first introduced to the topic of Access to Information (ATI)/ Freedom of Information (FOI) they have some concerns. This includes that filling out a report might ‘put them on radar’ or identify them as ‘people to watch out for’. It has been noted that it is a particular concern to those who plan to seek employment within the government (example police officer).

“Access to Information gives Canadian citizens, permanent residents, or any person or corporation present in Canada a right to access information that is contained in government records (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat – Access to Information).”

Freedom of Information allows “the public to request and obtain copies of records held by B.C. government ministries or the Office of the Premier, when those records are not routinely available (B.C. Government – Freedom of Information).”

The Official Version of Law is supposed to be impartial, neutral, and an objective system for resolving social conflict. As well as her decisions are supposed to be measured and precise. However this does not seem to be the case since some students have expressed concerns about filling out a report(s) to obtain ATI and FOI record(s). If the Official Version of Law was actually neutral and objective students wouldn’t feel like it would ‘put them on radar’ or identify them as ‘people to watch out for’. However no student would ever be straight out told that they are being denied the job because of the information they wanted to obtain about the government as a student as that would violate their rights. This being said it does not mean that just because people have rights to access these records that it will not be used against them, which I believe, goes against what the Official Version of Law is supposed to be.

I think this concern is relevant as just because one has the right to access ATI and FOI records it doesn’t mean that it won’t be on record and someone might use it against them in the future after they have graduated school and now are applying for jobs that may be in the government. As no student would ever be able to prove that they are being denied the job over their request for records it does make it more challenging. I think social jurisprudence would help explain this to some degree as it is interested in the study of the actual social effects of the law. The law states that you can fill out a form and get information however it does not include anything about who can access what you have requested or not and if your name would be attached to it.

Legal realism by Frank can also help explain this as he says all judges view facts of a case differently based on their internal psychological processes and perceptions. This can be applied to this as employers may few someone viewing files as something that matters or something that is no big deal. Also the files someone accessed that are viewed as bad or not depending on the department of the government or what the person exposed opening up public access to government records. This may make the employer wonder what else they make expose to the public at a later date and time something about the government.

There is no way to predict the outcome of filling out an ATI or FOI report. This being said with the ‘theory of law’ in mind that it should have no implication on a government job, as it is a legal right to access documents about the government. The laws were made so that citizens could have access and study some of the information that only the government has access to. In Canada we have the rights to access information and freedom to information if they did not want this they would have no made these rules.

Overall I think it is a valid concern of students however I do not think it would stop me from filling out a report for ATI or FOI. The laws and rights were put place to protect the government information and at the same time give me access to some information.


Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat – Access to Information

B.C. Government – Freedom of Information

Mike Larsen Lecture Notes

Week 3 – Positivism and Sociological Jurisprudence

1 Comment

Filed under Contributor Post

Reforms for the Access to Information Act that the Federal Government are Hesitant to Reform

 Locate and briefly discuss one call for the reform of Canada’s Access to Information Act. This could take the form of a government report, an NGO report, a media article, or an academic article. Drawing on one or more socio-legal theories, explain why the federal government has not reformed the ATIA in response to this call. For example, you could reflect on the functions of ATI/FOI laws, the relationship secrecy and bureaucracy, the ideology of Access, or the relationship between ATI/FOI and sovereign power.

In an article written by CBC in July 2012 labeled “Action to Access to Information Act turns 30 amid calls for reform”, illustrated two important issues regarding the need to reform the Access to Information Act. The first issue raised was that receiving information after applying for access to information took commonly longer than the estimated time frame. The second issue raised was the frustration of journalists when the Cabinet confidence exemption is utilized.

The Access to Information Act came into effect on July 1st, 1983 (CBC, 2012). This act allowed individuals in society to apply for public records that were not disclosed to the public by the government. By following a bureaucratic process of submitting forms, an individual would be able to receive public records from the government. However since its enactment 30 years ago there has been much frustration and demand for reform. The issue of requests taking longer than the 30 day deadline has started to become much more common. In the CBC article the rate of extension to information request increased by 18.6 percent. What is even more problematic was that situations in which a requester got absolutely no information increased by 49.1 percent (CBC, 2012). There was great demand for the reform of the act to make sure that extensions would decrease. The commissioner of information Suzanne Legault first response to this issue was that there was indeed an issue with the government not complying to the legislation that outline the deadline for information to be delivered. She stated that she was trying to push for her and her department to have more power to distribute information if the access to information request was taking too long. However in an interview with CBC a short while after she stated that “I just think we need to have a basic timeline that is more defined than what we have now, which basically says a ‘reasonable extension under the circumstances (CBC, 2012)”.

The second reform to the Access to Information Act that many journalists advocate for is that the act minimizes the usage of Cabinet confidence exemption. Under the law a department can withhold information if the information is deemed to be utilized to make decisions (CBC, 2012). However as the CBC article states the number of exemptions that have occurred due to Cabinet confidence exemption is the size of “Mack Truck” (CBC, 2012). Certain information can be thrown into this exemption simply if it could embarrass a minister if it became public. The commissioner of information briefly stated that there needs to be a balance between what should be kept secret within the government and what should be disclosed to the public.

The question that arises from the issue of the government prolonging the time frame to disperse information as well as increase the amount of requesters who receive no information can be explained through the use of Marxist’s theory. Marxist’s theory is based on the belief that laws are created to benefit the elite class while exploiting the working class (Pavlich, 2011). The elite class needs to maintain the interests of a capitalist’s society, and therefore exploiting the working class does this. By not providing information to the public, or denying access to information the government is able to protect information that may bring awareness to the working class the many ways they are being exploited. This could disrupt the interests of the elite class. Marxist theory therefore can illustrate that the function of ATI/FOI laws is to protect the interests of the elite class.

Another important aspect of Marxism that can outline the reasoning as to why the government has not made the requested reforms to the Access to Information Act is due to the fact that “access” is an ideology. Marxist stated that the state utilized ideologies to hide injustices (Pavlich, 2011). The government appears to be transparent as it allows for individuals within a society to apply for information. Therefore all information is deemed to be available. However what makes access an ideology is due to the numerous exceptions that are in place to withhold information from the public. As the CBC articles outlines the government is able to withhold information utilizing the cabinet confidence exemption. In addition the government is able to continuously prolong the amount of time it takes to deliver access to information requests without any penalty. Therefore access is an ideology, for as a society we are taught that we can access all information when in reality this belief (ideology), is suppressing the fact that the government is withholding information, which is unjust.


 CBC News (2012). Action to Access to Information Act turns 30 amid calls for reform. Retrieved



Pavlich, George (2011). Law & Society Redefined. New York: Oxford University Press.

1 Comment

Filed under Contributor Post

Using data doubles & function creeps to explain police databases

When it comes to the privacy of individuals, it is a very touchy topic because people want to be able to go about their daily lives without worrying if anyone is spying or monitoring their activities. The government plays a large role when it comes to the privacy of citizens through surveillance, CCTV cameras, personal identity records etc. Many say that this is an invasion of their privacy and should be outlawed but the government responds by saying that it is essential for the safety and security of all citizens. The Toronto Star news corporation did an investigation on the police to see whether they are recording appropriate and relevant information in their Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) databases. After a lengthy analysis, they found out that in Canada, around 420,000 individuals’ names and other personal information are in police databases even though they have never been convicted of a crime in their life. Although these individuals have never been convicted of a crime, their names appear in the databases for other reasons such as mental illnesses and being charged with a crime; essentially any personal information given to the police during any sort of interaction with them remains in their system regardless of the significance of the incident. It seems unfair to record this information of a person because it attaches a label to them and judges a person’s entire character based on this information. For example, many places require a criminal record check to see if individuals have a clean background; the information in the police databases shows that they are ‘dangerous’ based on crimes that they have never been convicted for; they might not even be posed as a threat at all in fact (The Toronto Star, 2014).

The Toronto Star mentioned a lady named Diane who was wrongly accused of assault on her ex-spouse; as a result, she had great difficulty trying to keep her job as a counsellor, because of a false accusation against her, when a background check was required for her. Although it was a withdrawn assault charge, it still remained in the police database and judged her to be a person who committed crime in the past even though she had done nothing. She finally had her charge removed from the police database after many unsuccessful appeal attempts; unfortunately, many other people remain on the police databases even though they aren’t deemed a threat to society. The CPIC was initially developed to only record personal information of individuals with criminal charges or convictions but now it is being used to store personal information of anyone that interacts with the police, even if they don’t have any charges or convictions against them. Individuals with criminal charges and convictions would usually have the charges removed after a certain period of time but now it is almost impossible to have any sort of information from the CPIC removed, making it very difficult and frustrating for individuals with no criminal past. Some Criminologists say that it’s not necessary to maintain non-convicted records because it is irrelevant and the purpose of the police databases is to only record important information that deems individuals a threat based on convictions (The Toronto Star, 2014).

Haggerty and Ericson discuss the notion of data doubles and function creeps to explain why any piece of information of a person is kept in the police databases regardless of it being irrelevant. Every person has a data double which is a profile of their ‘digital footmarks’ left in electronic information. The data doubles are used by the government and other places to differentiate between categories of individuals for marketing and institutional agenda purposes. For instance, data doubles are used for monitoring individuals known to be a threat or causing civil disobedience in society. Function creeps are another surveillance technique in which it is a process where information gathering procedures are justified and approved for a particular application and are being used for purposes that were not initially designed for. Function creeps is used by the police to ‘leak’ or relay vital information about individuals in the database to places that deal with them in order to assess and evaluate their level of threat. These function creeps may cause problems because they are only designed for a single purpose in which new surveillance techniques can be found in a system that was not originally created for that specific purpose; then again they may be beneficial but it is hard to predict the uses for them in the future (Haggerty & Ericson, 2006).

According to the Toronto Star investigation, the need to record personal information in the CPIC databases is to ensure the safety and security of the public and the police themselves when dealing with individuals on the job. This information is also being recorded into databases for the purpose of data doubles so that the police can easily access it according to the categories that individuals are placed in, when assessing and responding to a situation. These data doubles indicate a reliable prediction towards the assessment and discretion that should be made by police officers towards various individuals with criminal charges and convictions; this is said to simply be in the best interests of the police and the public while looking out for their safety by taking appropriate actions. Furthermore, function creeping will permit the police to use the information in the databases for other purposes than it was originally intended for, in the future; this could be very useful and vital information to have in hand in an emergency situation and whatnot. Critics argue that the CPIC databases are a form of government surveillance and that it is an invasion of people’s privacy because individuals’ personal information is stored in the system and impossible to remove even if they haven’t even committed a crime. All of this personal information stored in databases, along with the concepts of data doubles and function creeping, could potentially mean the difference between effectively and efficiently handling a situation or letting another crime occur when it could have been prevented through these security measures.


Haggerty, K. D., & Ericson, R. V. (2006). The New Politics of Surveillance and Visibility. In R.V. Ericson & K. D. Haggerty (Eds.), The new politics of surveillance and visibility (pp. 3–25). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Robert Cribb, Jim Rankin, & Andrew Bailey. (2014, May 25). 420,000 in police database never convicted: Analysis. The Toronto Star. Retrieved from

1 Comment

Filed under Contributor Post

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.


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.

Comments Off on Terrorism and the State of Exception

Filed under Contributor Post