Throughout history, the actions of governments have always been debated; however, occasionally there are certain events which spark much controversy, both at the time of the event and by historians today. One of these controversial acts was the invocation of the War Measures Act in 1970, an act which suspended the civil liberties of Canadian citizens. In October 1970, in what became known as the October Crisis, the Front de libération du Québec, (commonly known as the FLQ) which was a French Canadian organization advocating independence from Canada, kidnapped two politicians. This initiated a series of events, one of which was the invocation of the War Measures Act by Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Many historians argue that Trudeau was justified in invoking the War Measures Act because the October Crisis ended shortly after the Act was invoked. However, this argument is invalid as justification; primarily because the War Measures Act was an extreme overreaction by Trudeau, as the threat of the FLQ was largely small-scale, and the demise of the FLQ was impending with the rise of the Bloc Quebecois. Furthermore, the Act may have inspired Quebecers who favoured separatism, as they saw the government desperately employ the most extreme measure to stop the FLQ. Finally, the War Measures Act suspended the civil rights of citizens within a democracy, violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Front de libération du Québec was founded in 1963 during the “Quiet Revolution”, and for seven years, they carried out several minor bombings, with few FLQ members involved in each of the bombings, as they were relatively small scale. However, the Canadian government took little notice of these actions until Oct...
... middle of paper ...
...e to power in Quebec. This indicates that Quebecers supported non-violent methods in order to achieve independence for Quebec, rather than the violent methods of the FLQ, also indicating that the efforts of the FLQ would have been subdued by the Parti Quebecois. The death of Pierre Laporte was another unfortunate occurrence as a result of the War Measures Act which could have been avoided, yet some still believe his death is not related to the invocation of the War Measures Act. Justification is required for all actions which spark debate, and in events where the justification is provided under false pretences, someone must be held responsible. In this case it remains the Trudeau government. Trudeau may have had an admirable political career in which he made many wise decisions, however, the invocation of the War Measures Act in October 1970 was not one of them.
There were a number of things that were taken into consideration before the court could reach any final judgment. The history of hate propaganda was brought into consideration. Prior to the Canadian Charter, the laws like De Scandalis Magnatum, laws for the crime of seditious libel provided that a person was free to express what he wanted unless he has an intention or disobey openly, act in a violent way against the authority or he has a seditious attention where there is a unlawful use of force for bringing about a governmental change in
In 1970, Trudeau was tremendously criticized for the implementation of the WMA, however, his verdict was correct due to the fright and ambiguity that looms over the FLQ. The FLQ was a sovereigntist “revolutionary movement” that arose in 1963 and were willing to use violence to end English colonialism is Quebec. They started their violence by placing bombs in federal armouries and the neighbourhoods of wealthy Anglophones. Nevertheless, their violence did not stop but, it rose drastically. In 1968, the movement set large bombs at “a federal government bookstore, at McGill University, at the residence of Jean Drapeau and the provincial Department of Labour”. On February 1969, the group wounded 27 people through a bomb placed at the Montreal Stock Exchange. Committing over 200 bombings in 7 years as the group split into 2 cells; Chenier and Liberation cell. In the fall of 1970, the Liberation cell kidnapped British trade commissioner James Cross, and 5 days later the Chenier cell kidnapped the ...
“Just watch me.”Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau said in 1970. He meant it as he fought to keep Quebec a part of Canada. Not only did he do that, he managed to be prime minister for 16 years, as well as being Canada’s youngest leader at the time. He brought greater civil rights to Canadians, Quebec citizens mainly. His charismatic personality matched his innovative ideas, that enhanced Canada for the better. For his entire political career, not only did Canada watch him, the whole world watched him change the country for the better. He made a radical change to Canada by championing the idea of officially implementing bilingualism. Trudeau was a trailblazer from the moment he was elected.
On October 5, 1970, British trade commissioner James Cross was kidnapped in his Westmount home by members of the terrorist group Front de liberation du Quebec. The FLQ Manifesto called for non-democratic separation to be brought about by acts of terror. From 1963 to 1967, the FLQ planted 35 bombs; from 1968 to 1970 they planted over 50 bombs. By the fall of 1970 the terrorist acts of the FLQ cells had claimed 6 lives. The kidnappers' demands included the release of a number of convicted or detained FLQ members and the broadcasting of the FLQ Manifesto. The Manifesto was read on Radio-Canada. Then, on October 10th, the Quebec minister of justice guaranteed safe passage to anywhere in the world for the kidnappers in exchange for the safe release of Cross. That same day Pierre Laporte, a famed Quebec reporter, author of The True Face of Duplessis, and the minister of immigration and labour in the Quebec government, was kidnapped by a different FLQ cell on the lawn of his suburban home. Laporte's kidnapping triggered a phone call from Liberal Premier Robert Bourassa asking Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau to prepare the Canadian Armed Forces for action in Quebec and to declare War Measures. Two days later, October 12, Trudeau summoned armed troops to guard potential targets in Ottawa and Montreal such as cabinet ministers, John Diefenbaker, who was on the FLQ hit list, and federal buildings. On the following day, October 13, Peter Reilly of CJOH and I were at the west door of the Centre Block of the House of Commons. Reilly was asking Trudeau some basic questions in a laconic, unemotional style about the army and tanks being in Ottawa. Suddenly we were joined by CBC reporter Tim Ralfe who asked Trudeau a very emotional question about his decision to invoke the War Measures Act. Pierre Trudeau interview
Trudeau had to work quickly and efficiently in order to locate Cross before he was hurt, as well as make very difficult decisions. He chose to enact the War Measures Act because the FLQ appeared as a real threat at the time which could potentially overthrow the government. The various attacks that they planned before injured and killed innocent lives, and Trudeau was not going to stand and do nothing. Furthermore, the support of the FLQ was growing large at the time, with about 3000 people gathering up at the Paul Sauvé Arena during the October Crisis in order to show their support. If Trudeau did not diminish this revolution, it may have grown into an actual terrorist threat at
...conclusion that Louis Riel is indeed a legacy who should be regarded as one who is innocent. He has left us questioning whether or whether not his movements were plausible, but then again, he has nevertheless managed to carry honor and pride, while contributing many things towards Canada through his objectives. He preserved the Métis home territory and rights through many obstacles, which gradually led to the formation of Manitoba. He went through plenty of danger, while he knew they were coming. Louis Riel’s noble actions are too worthy to be burdened with charges of high treason and felony. “No matter what happens now,” he stated, “the rights of the Métis are assured by the Manitoba Act; that is what I wanted. My mission is finished.” Louis Riel, a hero, a saint, a prophet, is not the only one that is facing injustice and discrimination today in the 19th century.
The War Measures Act, which had been created for the protection and benefit of Canadian...
Canada: The Quiet Revolution in Quebec The English-French relations have not always been easy. Each is always arguing and accusing the other of wrong doings. All this hatred and differences started in the past, and this Quiet revolution, right after a new Liberal government led by Jean Lesage came in 1960. Thus was the beginning of the Quiet Revolution.
He has been called a prophet, a traitor, a martyr, a visionary and a madman, but whatever one thinks of him, Louis Riel, remains one of the most controversial figures in Canadian history. Does this man who has continued to haunt Canadian history for more than a century after his execution, deserve all of those descriptions? After reading three different interpretations of the rebellions, it is still difficult to decide which is closer to the truth. All three authors retold the Metis history and although they differ on crucial issues, there was agreement on the basic facts. The primary difference amongst the three authors was whether the Canadian and Manitoban governments acted in good faith in carrying out the terms of the Manitoba Act, whether John A. MacDonald purposely deceived the Metis as to what Canada’s intentions were with respect to the Canada-Metis Agreement and to what extent were there deceptions in the administration of the Metis land grants. How these three historians attempt to encapsulate Riel’s life, accomplishments, and mistakes is very different. How they attempt to separate fact from fiction and decide whether Riel was justified in his actions against the government is written from three very different perspectives. Where their sympathies lie, how subjective they are and how they interpret the facts is quite evident, but there are many sides to history and every side must be examined if a fair judgment is to be made.
Canada is known by outsiders to be a very peaceful country. But if you ask any Canadian they well tell you that is unfortunately not the case. For there is a large ongoing conflict between Canadians. The conflict is between the French and the English, or more specifically between Quebec and the rest of Canada. As a result of this conflict, along with some wrongdoing and propaganda. Quebec has considered and has gone as far to hold referendums over Separatism (Surette,2014). Separatism is that the province of Quebec separates from the rest of Canada to form its own country. Which would have immense effects on indubitably Quebec but also the rest of Canada (Martin, 2014). This report will focus on the root causes and origin of Quebec Separatism, the current state of Quebec Separatism and finally how we as a society can act towards Quebec Separatism.
The horrors of racial profiling during World War II had always seemed to be distant to many Canadians, yet Canada was home to several xenophobic policies that were a violation of many rights and freedoms. One of the cruelest instances of this was the Japanese Canadian internment. At the time, the government justified the internment by claiming that the Japanese Canadians were a threat to their national defense, but evidence suggests that it had nothing to do with security. The government made illogical decisions in response to the mass panic and agitation in British Columbia. To aggravate the situation, Prime Minister William Mackenzie King reacted passively to these decisions, as it was not in his best interests to be involved. Moreover,
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted under the Pierre Trudeau government on April 17, 1982. According to Phillip Bryden, “With the entrenchment of the Charter into the Canadian Constitution, Canadians were not only given an explicit definition of their rights, but the courts were empowered to rule on the constitutionality of government legislation” (101). Prior to 1982, Canada’s central constitutional document was the British North America Act of 1867. According to Kallen, “The BNA Act (the Constitution Act, 1867) makes no explicit reference to human rights” (240). The adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms significantly transformed the operation of Canada’s political system. Presently, Canadians define their needs and complaints in human rights terms. Bryden states, “More and more, interest groups and minorities are turning to the courts, rather than the usual political processes, to make their grievances heard” (101). Since it’s inception in 1982 the Charter has become a very debatable issue. A strong support for the Charter remains, but there also has been much criticism toward the Charter. Academic critics of the Charter such as Robert Martin believe that the Charter is doing more harm than good, and is essentially antidemocratic and UN-Canadian. I believe that Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic, although, the Charter itself represents a democratic document. Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic because the power of the executive is enhanced at the expense of Parliament, and the power of the judiciary is enhanced at the expense of elected officials, although, the notwithstanding clause continues to provide Parliament with a check on...
1. The FLQ organizations should be tracked down using all the resources and capabilities available for the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec. We should form an Anti-Terrorism task forces and send them in a secret mission to hunt down the remaining members of the FLQ and imprison them. Thus, giving the chance to the Government of Canada to publicly announced that they have caught all the remaining members of the FLQ organizations and sentence them to long period of years. The leaders of the FLQ will be executed for their violent methods of action.
In the past 30 years, two “Rebellions” have taken place between the Métis and the Government of Canada. I strongly believe that the terminology used to describe the Red River “Rebellion” and North West “Rebellion” is misused and should be modified to correctly represent these events. Due to the nature of these events, the more accurate term to use would be “resistance” as the Métis were strictly defending their rights as human beings. A rebellion is defined as an effort by many people to change the government or leader of a country through the use of violence. A resistance however, is the refusal to accept or comply with something; the attempt to prevent something by action or argument. The Métis were not in pursuit of changing the government; they simply wanted a voice in Confederation. The use of the term “rebellion” delivers the wrong impressions of the Métis. Their use of violence was not an act of destruction but of defense. It is for the following reasons that I believe the term “”rebellion” should be corrected to “resistance”.
A century ago, Canada was under control by the British Empire. The battles we fought the treaties we signed and the disputes we solved all helped us gain independence from our mother country “Britain”. Canadians fought a long battle protecting others, and from these battles we gained our peaceful reputation and our independence from Britain. Canada became a nation on July, 1st 1867. Although we were an independent country, our affairs and treaties were all still signed by Britain. In the next years Canada would establish its own government, and lead its own affairs. Many important events led to Canada’s independence, one of the earliest signals that Canada wanted to establish autonomy was the Chanak affair of 1921. In addition the battle of Normandy, which occurred on June 6 1944, contributed to the autonomy of Canada. The Suez Canal Crisis, which took place in the year 1956, earned Canada a place in the media spotlight, displaying Canada as a peaceful country that deserves the right to be independent. One of the final steps that aided with Canada’s independence from Britain was the Canada Act of 1982. Independence from Britain steadily increased throughout the 20th century because of political decisions made in Canada.