qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw

1 | P a g e R e j e c t i n g t o P r e s e r v e L a c e y P i l g r i m

Rejecting Liberalism in Order to Preserve It

Humanities 30-1Mr. Kabachia

6/10/2010

Lacey Pilgrim

2 | P a g e R e j e c t i n g t o P r e s e r v e L a c e y P i l g r i m

In times of national crisis, there have been occasions where the government suppresses

their citizen’s rights and freedoms in order to protect their democratic ways. The question

many citizens ask themselves is if the government is making the appropriate decision, and if it is

a necessity to protect the democratic system that is such value to them. People need to be

willing to sacrifice their rights and freedoms temporarily in order to sustain the principles of

liberalism that democracy is based on. In the source, it is stating that rights and freedoms are

an essential aspect of democracy, however, in certain times of crisis, these rights and freedoms

may have to be temporarily suspended in order to recover and preserve democracy. The

keyword that catches my attention is temporary; the source states that this suspension of rights

and freedoms must be that of a temporary one in order to appropriately maintain democracy.

The different situations the nation faces, the government is faced with a choice to decide to

suppress people’s rights are not an easy task, and these situations are those of a breach in

national security: war, terrorism, or a pandemic. This must be thought out, considering each

consequence of their action, and if it is a necessity in preserving democracy. Suppressing the

rights must be beneficial all of the society, and all of the citizens within the democracy. If these

conditions are met, then the outcome will resort in the preservation of liberal democracy and

the reinstating of the citizen’s individual rights and freedoms.

A suitable example of the suppression of citizen’s rights and freedoms in such a way that

violates the conditions is the Enabling Act Hitler and the Nazi Party issued in 1933, prior to

World War II. This act was initially supposed to be a four-year plan; however soon after it was

put into play, Hitler quickly took advantage of it. Hitler opposed any other party from coming

into power, making Germany a one-party state. Hitler was now allowed to pass legislation

3 | P a g e R e j e c t i n g t o P r e s e r v e L a c e y P i l g r i m

without the approval of the Reichstag- the now powerless group that represented the citizens

of Germany. With the loss of power from the citizens, Hitler was now a dictatorship, extending

the act past its original four year period. This not only violated the temporary clause, but also

demoralized the rights and freedoms of all German citizens, and also gave no rights to the

people he claimed to be “undesirable”. This inappropriate use of suppressing the rights and

freedoms of the people resulted in a tragic World War. An example of an appropriate occasion

where the conditions were followed was the Canadian War Measures Act. The War Measures

Act was put into play a three times in the government’s history, and each time was a temporary

and necessary suppression of the citizen’s rights, which successfully preserved liberal

democracy.

The Canadian War Measures Act was an act to enable the government to suppress the

rights and freedoms of individuals in order to protect them from potential danger in times of

crisis. The third and final time the War Measures Act was invoked was in October 1970,

otherwise known as the October Crisis. During the 1960’s the global community underwent

considerable political, social, and cultural changes. This occurrence prompted more individualist

ideologies, therefore the FLQ (Quebec Liberation Front) spoke out and demanded

independence of Quebec. This group felt change was needed in order to protect their language

and culture, and also to have equal opportunities for the participation in the economy of

Quebec. The FLQ was a group that was willing to resort to terrorism and caught the attention of

the public on October 5, 1970. On this day, the group abducted British trades commissioner

James Cross, and kidnapped and later murdered Pierre Laporte, a popular Quebec cabinet

minister, only five days later. The Canadian government quickly invoked the War Measures Act

4 | P a g e R e j e c t i n g t o P r e s e r v e L a c e y P i l g r i m

in order to protect the citizens and preserve the liberal democracy. The actions that were taken

by the government succeeded and democracy was maintained, however the government began

to realize that this act was too broad for occurrences such as the October Crisis. The

government realized that a new plan was a necessity, therefore creating the Emergencies Act.

The Emergencies Act was introduced to Canadians shortly after the Canadian Charter of

Rights and Freedoms was introduced. The government devised a plan to correspond with the

articles of the Charter. They created a list of public welfare emergencies that could be a

potential high risk; natural catastrophes, pandemic, and accident of pollution resulting in

danger or disruption to society. Under this act the government is obligated to specify to which

part or parts of the country the emergency procedures apply. These safeguards prevented

people from taking advantage of the suppression of the people’s rights and freedoms and at

the same time, protecting the citizens from any potential danger. The Emergencies Act follows

the conditions and has successfully worked in times of need. The Act is temporary and when

the government deems the situation safe for the nation, the act is disabled.

The rejection of liberalism can be justified when it is temporary and when it is necessary

for a nation to preserve the liberal democracy in a time of national crisis. It should also be

rejected in order to sustain a stable democracy, and in this case the people should be willing to

temporarily sacrifice their rights in order to do so. In times of crisis, the government should

carefully consider which situations they should apply this act towards and if applying this act

would benefit all of society and the citizens of liberal democracy. Although the rejection of

liberalism is not considered democratic, the only reason for rejecting liberalism should be to

5 | P a g e R e j e c t i n g t o P r e s e r v e L a c e y P i l g r i m

sustain liberalism in the future, or when the high-risked situation is deemed safe by the

government. Preserving democracy should be the essential focus when temporarily rejecting

liberalism.