Canada's Annual G20 Summit

If you grew up in an average middle-class town in the United States you were probably raised on the premise that the police were there to protect and fight crime, however, in many of today’s urban centers throughout the country, the tension between the police and the citizens has a very different relationship. The term ‘police’ brings many images to mind, while the objective of the police is to prevent and detect crime, this is far from the way so many Americans feel. Far from the original purpose of the police, the use of brutal and sometimes lethal force has evoked questions regarding the skewed system and the relationship between both in the communities. Ta-Nehisi Coates explores the issue in the article, The Paranoid Style of American Policing, often bringing up complex issues, and effectively brings the issues to life through anecdotes. Coates presents a logical, thought out and well-executed argument surrounding the cracked police system in America. Due to the well-supported thesis, the structure of the argument, and lack of fallacies, Coates position is adequately supported through the use

The purpose of this act is to encourage and monitor the sharing of information between Government of Canada institutions in order to protect Canada against activities that threaten the security of Canada, but this bill not only fails to fix those flaws, it recreates and causes more underlying problems without adding any meaningful safeguards to ensure the expansive powers it grants will not be similarly abused. The bill allows information sharing across 17 government institutions for a wide range of purposes, most of which have nothing to do with terrorism. After the bill was passed, it has raised serious concerns regarding the potential impact is has on the basic civil liberties of all Canadians. The new legislation significantly expands CSIS’

Since the 9/11 attacks on U.S. soil at the outset of the twenty-first century, western states have enacted vast changes in the way that they deal with terrorist groups and terrorists. Due to the fact that civilian casualties have escalated as a result of terrorist acts, western polities have steered away from a punitive paradigm that criminalizes terrorist acts and aims at penalizing individuals who perpetrate such acts. Instead, there has been a dramatic shift towards a preventative approach in which terrorist acts are prevented prior towards any manifesting and inflicting harm on innocent victims. In Jonathan Shapiro’s “An Ounce of Cure for a Pound of Preventive Detention: Security Certificates,” published in Queen’s Law Journal in 2008, discusses the paradigm shift in Canadian foreign policy as it pertains to terrorism through a cogent discussion of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The IRPA authorizes the government to detained suspected terrorists amidst deportation proceedings. However, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a decision that the Charter was provisionally violated by certain provisions of the Act, which is the central point of contention Shapiro has in this article. Indeed, he critiques the approach of the Supreme Court in the Charkaoi v. Canada decision, positing that the security certificate process violates several of the liberty and equality

Security can be a tool to rationalize, legitimize, marginalize violence (keeping minority groups in their place) which could in turn reinforce systemic inequalities present in society by turning a blind eye to context. This dichotomy serves as a platform for other invalidation ideologies that works on the continuum of fear that can divide into categories of “us” and “them”, which are then used to send us messages about who is a threat, and leads to constructions of what individuals who are not able to stand up for themselves. The death of Ashley Smith illustrates how the range of oppressive structures were responsible for the persistent and severe denials of her fundamental rights. In this context, we can see that the state has both the means to violate and protect human rights.

One of the main powers law enforcement officers carry is the authority to make citizens involuntarily give up their rights. Most people when confronted by police get mild to moderate panic reaction, can become nervous or anxious, and do as much as possible to limit the time spent with the officer. Due to the difference in power between a citizen and a police officer, citizens often unknowingly, give up their constitutional rights when an officer acts tough or bullies them (Guidelines?1).

“It’s security that is to blame.” claims Jane, Ben Orsiono’s daughter. “What does this signify to the rest of Ontario? Are they safe? What’s in it for their security?” The police however, claim that security isn’t the cause of the so-called “hate crime” but a flaw in the relationship between Ben and the suspect. Nevertheless, this wasn’t a sufficient conclusion for Ben’s family and the infuriated public who were demanding real answers.

In today’s society the police are harassed for supposedly abusing their power against people who commit crimes and innocent bystanders however the general public usually mix those two categories of people with each other. Officers are blamed for whatever course of action they decide to take in order to prevent a serious threat from arising. Consequently, the public is having a growing fear of the police, their own definitions of excessive force are biased, the police abuse their powers, etc. The change in how a police officer may carry out every situation may be a change that we need to protect the people.

A paradox has always exists between the issue of civil liberties and national security. Democracy creates civil liberties that allow the freedom of association, expression, as well as movement, but there are some people use such liberal democracy to plan and execute violence, to destabilize State structures. It illustrates the delicate balance existing between reducing civil liberties to enhance security in a state. States have detained suspects for years and have also conducted extensive privacy incursions as strategies to combat terror, however it risks violation of civil liberties. This essay discusses the extent to which a state should be allowed to restrict civil liberties for the enhancement of national security and not abandon democratic values. It looks at aspects of the legal response to terrorism in the United States after the 9/11 attack.

Security mechanisms used to protect the entirety of the Canadian state at the behest of certain ethnic and religious categories become legitimized through violence acts towards political institutions or figures (Bell 155). These ethnic and religious categories that experience biopolitical racial profiling by the security state are typically Middle Eastern or Islamic in appearance or action. These groups of people are increasingly being viewed as connected to terrorist activities in Middle Eastern countries. Critics arguing the Canada’s security regime breaches the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because of the possible use of surveillance and security provisions against Canadian citizens who are members of these ethnic and religious groups (Shaffer 200). Racial profiling in the surveillance provisions of these security acts against politically unpopular groups should not be underestimated” (Shaffer

There are many challenges that law enforcement agencies faces when it comes to enforcing public safety at the same time protect the rights of individuals. This paper will focus on several key topics involving the relationship between public safety and individual rights. The first topic is the statutory authority and responsibilities of government officials, security personnel, and private citizens. The next topic involves the practices or laws relating to search, seizures, and surveillance by police, corrections, private citizens, and security personnel. This paper will also compare the laws relating to the use of

An integral component to the infrastructure of government is law enforcement. In recent years, police abuse has come to the attention of the general public. While citizens worry about protecting themselves from criminals, it has now been shown that they must also keep a watchful eye on those who have been given the responsibility to protect and serve. This paper will discuss the types of police abuse prevalent today, including the use of firearms and recovery of private information. I will also discuss what and how citizens’ rights are violated by the police. We will also explore the measures necessary to protect ourselves from police taking advantage of their positions as law enforcement officers with greater permissive rights than

“Things will never be the same.” (Miller, Stone & Mitchell, 2002, p. 3) Law enforcement has undergone dramatic changes as a result of the devastating events in the United States on 11 September 2001 (9/11). This essay will examine how law enforcement, specifically within Australia, has shifted its policies and strategies to fight the post-9/11 terrorist threat. An analysis of police actions towards terrorist related incidents since 9/11, displays how law enforcement agencies have demonstrated their

Policing relies on the public trust, police legitimacy and accountability, which can be destroyed by unjustifiable police shootings (Squires and Kennninson, 2010). Within this country, there is a recognition that the police do not always adhere to the rule of law (Newburn and Reiner, 2012: 809), which has led to consistent public outrage at the lack of effectiveness and legitimacy the police has maintained. Therefore the deliberate decision to enforce police to attend to the streets unarmed was employed to reassure the public that the police were not to be feared (Waddington and Wright, 2010). Ultimately, concerns derive from the belief that the police are completely ineffective when dealing with gun crimes (Farrell, 1992: 20). However,

Most individuals can identify a police officer by their uniform, which subconsciously conveys power and authority. People with a presence of a police officer tend to hide or stop any illegal, deviant activities, because of the sudden worry of getting caught. Canada is a place of numerous cultures, and ethnicities that fused together to create a strong sense of multiculturalism, but depending on the background and social status of the individual the police

Bill C-51 also known as the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, is a bill that was first tabled in Parliament in January 2015. It was introduced to enhance Canada’s original anti-terror laws which were created shortly after the terrorist attack on September 11th 2001 in the United States of America. Moreover, the need to revise and amend these laws became even more evident after recent attacks both in Canada and abroad. In doing so the government recognized the need to adopt a more preventative approach to dealing with internal and external threats. However, there are a large number of individuals, groups and institutions which opposed this bill. This was evident in March of 2015 when political protests were held and over fifty-five rallies took place across Canada (Lepore, 1). The majority of those opposed to the new anti-terror legislation expressed concerns with three major components of the bill and the vagueness; to privacy concerns with the new information sharing between agencies, new amendments to the Criminal Code surrounding terrorism offences and the increased powers provided to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS); specifically their perceived lack of oversight. Although this piece of legislation is crucial to the safety and security of Canada against acts of terrorism it requires some amendments in order to ensure proper oversight and respect for Canadian values. This paper will argue that changes need to be made to the CSIS act, specifically regarding