problem facing Canada and critiques the solution proposed by the prime minister through the lens of contentious issues

problem facing Canada and critiques the solution proposed by the prime minister through the lens of contentious issues

Introduction

Amendments that take place from a political perspective of a country could create moments where part of the population may not admire the changes that are made within either the constitution or other relevant policies and regulations outlined by various states. These changes are, therefore, escalated by specific issues that work towards tackling a more significant problem that the whole country could be facing. Canada is among those countries that work towards having new policies that aim at protecting it from any future terrorist activities or even threats. The article by Thomas Mulcair, Tom Mulcair: It Is Crucial That Anti-Terrorism Measures Do Not Erode Fundamental Freedoms,” the author explains the changes that are brought about by the new amendments that would be made to curb the issue of terrorism in Canada.[1] The Prime minister of Canada is making it hard for the people of Canada by giving them a choice to choose between their freedom or rights, which is not something that they should be going through.[2] The government has a mandate to provide the citizens with security and not infringe on their rights or even give them the choice of choosing between the two. The following paper identifies the problem facing Canada and critiques the solution proposed by the prime minister through the lens of contentious issues such as liberty, democracy, morphological analysis of ideology, and the role of justice.

The Role of Justice in the Case of Canada

In any case that a government is making amendments that will govern the public, it is not supposed to come up with specific rules that are mandatory for the public but rather an approach that fits the needs of its citizens. It is the mandate that drives a democratic country to ensure that everyone is considered in the new set of rules that are made by the government. According to Rawls, the concept of justice should apply in a democratic country since the moment when justice is denied; it means that its citizens have been denied their democracy. Freedom should be granted to the public or anyone in society, especially in a country where democracy is practiced.[3] Justice should, therefore, be respected as part of the democratic responsibility of any government.

It then means that any country should always deliver justice to its citizens as a democratic mandate. The case of Canada is detailed by Mulcair to be either restricting these citizens their rights or security and giving them the ultimatum of choosing either.[4] A democratic setting should then be fair and just and ensure that the citizens get to choose what they want but not on the context of what is given to them in the aspect of things that they should receive at the same time. Canada is a democratic country; it is not a country that should be limiting its citizens to choosing ways of life that they should be getting with having to choose one at the expense of the other. It is, therefore, not justifiable or even democratically correct to have the citizens choose between security and their rights.

Concepts of Liberty

There are other ways that the government can focus on delivering services of the government to ensure that it gives the public quality services even in ways that limit the actions of the public towards granting them freedom. These elements all focus on the assurance that freedom is granted to the citizens of the subject country. According to the book Liberty, the explanation on the difference between concepts of liberty is given where positive liberty is explained to be the freedom that any citizen is given to do anything that they want, and negative liberty is freedom from external restrains of the action of a person.[5] Looking at the issue from the concept of these two liberties, it then can be understood that any citizen in a democratic country is entitled to have both positive and negative liberty. With the combination of these liberties, the subject person will be able to exercise not only internal activities but also the external activities.

Judging on the understanding of liberty, and how it applies, it then becomes apparent on the fact that Canada is not exercising liberty on its citizens who are given a limitation on concepts of their lives that they should be given without any ultimatum. Mulcair affirms that Canada takes the position that gives the citizen an ultimatum of whether to choose between security and their rights.[6] The negative liberty is then violated in Canada, where citizens are denied the capability to engage in activities that involve a high number of people or even groups which pose a danger to their safety. Canadian citizens should have the chance to exercise both liberties and not have any limitations on exercising their rights.

The Morphological Analysis of Ideology

Governments are entitled to ensuring that they make the right decisions towards issues that the country is facing. It means that the decision made is supposed to be one that addresses these issues and meet the demands that are required for the mitigation of any problems that may arise. Freeden details that the government and mainly political leaders should be decision makers who think and evaluate beyond understanding the normal and ethical approaches towards the mitigation of the issues that are being faced by the society.[7] The new perception that should be brought into context should be focusing on noteworthy phenomena that society goes through occasionally.[8] With such a perspective, the politicians will then be able to make workable decisions that provide solutions to the problems faced by the government. It will allow the society to be happy with the decision making process and also have room in their conscience to work with the government and adhere to any changes that would be made to fit specific situations.

Canada is, therefore, facing a situation that requires a better decision making process from the leadership including the Prime minister, who finds there should be a choice between security and upholding their rights. According to the new C-51, the new mandate towards CSIS would focus on disputing groups that pose a threat and violating the rights of citizens or allowing the group activities to take place and compromise the security of the public.[9] Freeden offers a solution that would work towards the issue and give the political leaders a chance to rethink the choices that they would be making in such scenarios. Through the application of the approach given by Freeden, the government will not limit itself to choices that only infringe the rights of citizens but also allow them to make the choice that fits their lifestyle. The application will then encourage the Prime Minister to make a decision that will suit the lifestyle of the citizens, such as the improvement of security levels and not letting the citizens deny themselves their rights to get safety.

Conclusion

Among the contentious issues that have criticized the solution that has been offered by the Prime Minister of Canada include liberty, democracy, morphological analysis of ideology, and the role of justice. The primary issue with the offered solution is the fact that it gives the citizens of Canada an ultimatum for keeping them safe, and the ultimatum lies between having their rights violated or being safer from any terrorist attacks. However, the efforts that should be made should not include the citizens, but the government should focus on increasing security in major cities and those places where people gather in groups. Having them not to engage in activities that involve groups is not a practical approach, and the politicians need to find new ways that they can solve the issue. Canada is a democratic country, and hence its population are entitled to their freedom in areas such as expression. It is therefore a violation of their democratic rights to deny them to gather in groups while the government can take other measures to protect the general public from terror attacks. The morphological analysis of ideology has given the leaders and mainly the Prime Minister an opportunity to find a new way that is not fixed on normal and ethical approaches but also a new solution that will address the interests of the government and that of the citizens. The liberty of Canadians will be violated once the new amendments are enforced, and the citizens have to choose between either security or their rights.

[1]. Thomas Mulcair, “Tom Mulcair: It Is Crucial That Anti-Terrorism Measures Do Not Erode Fundamental Freedoms”, National Post, Last modified 2015, https://nationalpost.com/opinion/tom-mulcair-it-is-crucial-that-anti-terrorism-measures-do-not-erode-fundamental-freedoms.

[2]. IBID

[3]. John Rawls, A Theory of Justice Massachusetts, United States: Harvard University Press, 1971. 203

[4]. Thomas Mulcair, “Tom Mulcair: It Is Crucial That Anti-Terrorism Measures Do Not Erode Fundamental Freedoms”, National Post, Last modified 2015, https://nationalpost.com/opinion/tom-mulcair-it-is-crucial-that-anti-terrorism-measures-do-not-erode-fundamental-freedoms.

[5]. Isaiah Berlin and Henry Hardy, “Liberty”, 2002, doi:10.1093/019924989x.001.0001.

[6]. Thomas Mulcair, “Tom Mulcair: It Is Crucial That Anti-Terrorism Measures Do Not Erode Fundamental Freedoms”, National Post, Last modified 2015, https://nationalpost.com/opinion/tom-mulcair-it-is-crucial-that-anti-terrorism-measures-do-not-erode-fundamental-freedoms.

[7]. Michael Freeden, “The Morphological Analysis Of Ideology”, Oxford Handbooks Online, 2013, doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199585977.013.0034. 2

[8] IBID, 2

[9] Thomas Mulcair, “Tom Mulcair: It Is Crucial That Anti-Terrorism Measures Do Not Erode Fundamental Freedoms”, National Post, Last modified 2015, https://nationalpost.com/opinion/tom-mulcair-it-is-crucial-that-anti-terrorism-measures-do-not-erode-fundamental-freedoms.