Repetition of violations can be avoided

[CDNBear]

Repetition of violations can be avoided


Written by Grace Macaluso


The Windsor Star
24 January 1989

There was little fanfare last summer when Parliament passed a bill that replaced one of Canada's most hated pieces of legislation.
No official celebrations accompanied the demise of the 75-year-old War Measures Act; just the hope that the new Emergencies Act would prevent the repetition of civil rights abuses which have blotted Canada's history.
Some perceive the new statute as a sign that Canada has become a tolerant multicultural society. They're confident we've outgrown the type of irrational behaviour that led to events like the roundup of more than 450 Canadians during the 1970 October crisis and the internment of 22,000 Japanese Canadians during the Second World War.
But others, like Walter Uegama, a former Japanese-Canadian internee, fear that any act of promise carries the chance of betrayal.
"The new legislation marks the maturity of a government," admits Uegama, a professor at the University of Windsor. But, "I don't know why we should expect to be immune from awful events of any magnitude. History doesn't seem to be a good teacher on some of these things."
The War Measures Act, adopted in 1914, gave the government sweeping powers to suspend civil liberties in the event of an emergency. It was used in both world wars, to intern thousands of Canadians, and as recently as 1970.
During the October Crisis, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau received widespread public support when his government suspended civil liberties after the Front de liberation du Quebec (FLQ) kidnappings of British trade commissioner James Cross and Quebec labor minister Pierre Laporte.
Those detained in Quebec had no legal recourse to appeal their arrest, and police as far away as British Columbia tried to use the War Measures Act against political dissidents having no connection with the FLQ kidnappers.
Federal Defence Minister Perrin Beatty says he's confident the Emergencies Act will prevent the recurrence of abuses.
"Under the new law, the government can declare an emergency in a specified area," Beatty said in a telephone interview from Ottawa. "It will allow you to use a scalpel instead of an axe.

Link

It's old but worth the read.

I agree in some assessments that the Act was abused and attempt abuses were committed as far away as British Columbia.

I'm not thoroughly convinced that the invocation of the Act was fully necessary either.

It remains the most 'fascist' act in Canadian history, IMHO. Especially enacted during a time of peace.

It is true that the Act was invoked against the Japanese during WW II (LWF). But if one were to honestly examine the ferocity of the Japanese Nationalism, one wouldn't be that confused as to why the extreme was taken.

In the case of the October Crisis. Canada was at a state of peace, relatively speaking. The FLQ was in full swing and their crimes heinous. But I disagree that the Act was the only method at the disposal of the authorities to combat the issue at hand.

Leading up to October 1970. The authorities under directive of the PMO. Were handcuffed and ordered to stand guard without their weapons loaded. To avoid confrontation when incited. To handle the situation beyond the rehlm of sane policing, that is to say, with the softest of kid gloves.

I assert that this method of interference in policing, did little to stem the tide of criminal acts. In fact, it promoted them, by leaving space and a sence of impunity in the would be terrorists and their supporters.