Class Notes (1,200,000)
CA (650,000)
York (40,000)
SOSC (3,000)
Lecture 5

Lecture 5 Notes are spaced out on first two pages, single spaced for rest of document!

Social Science
Course Code
SOSC 1910
Dorathy Moore

This preview shows page 1. to view the full 5 pages of the document.
AP SOSC 1210 (lecture) Wednesday,
October 28, 2009
Civil Liberties & National Security
1) Civil Liberties
a) right to due process of law
b) right to dissent – freedom of speech, expression & assembly etc.
c) right to security of the person
d) right to personal privacy
2) National Security
a) external threats
b) internal threats
3) National Security as an invalidation ideology
4) Case Studies in Civil Liberties & National Security
a) Japanese Canadians
b) Arab/Muslim Canadians
1) Civil Liberties
Citizenship: broader, right to belong, contribute, benefit equally in Canadian society
Being a part of a whole, even if membership in other cultures
We have obligation to engage civil, our differences (peacefully & respectively, no force)
Canada, don’t have right to bear arm or use violence/force in protest
Civil liberties: (divided into 2)
oRight to participate to vote, elections to vote in, participate in political
decision making process
oRight to self determination free from gov’t control of life aspects
Political occupy prominent place in charter, litigation association
Charter = shield against gov’t but not as a sword to provoke gov’t
Much more to do with lives than just national security
oIntegrity & dignity
Gov’t & gov’t actors – limits beyond gov’t cannot go
Ertha Wilson: fence around each person, where gov’t can’t go
Right to due process: consist in part of lawfully enacting legislation
oRule of law
oApplying law within its limits
oFairness of process
Political right (combination with economic rights, indivisible rights, issue of dignity &
oRight to dissent/differ (more & more constrained by gov’t)
oRight to freedom of speech, assembly & association
oFreedom to press
oRight to security of person (right not to be arbitrarily detained, searched, fair
trial as power against government)
oPersonal privacy without personal information used publicly
oRight to be heard
oRight to ownership of personal information
Privacy of poor vs. people not in need of social assistance
Women of social assistance, no privacy
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Only page 1 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

National Security: safety of state
Characterized: good of all (vague perception) & can change over time
No one’s sector benefiting more
External threat : protect ourselves & country friends, potential to taint our foreign policy b/c
of country friends
Internal threat: enemies within, people living here but oppose state or our country friends
(Who constitutes our enemy? Are protesters considered internal threat?)
National Security as an invalidation ideology
Kingsman argue: when definition changes, freeing up police power & violation of civil
oCan serve as invalidation ideological
oServe to entire group
oCampaigns take place under secrecy (surveillance, violate privacy)
Spy on other countries who perceive to be enemy
Difficult to dispute state’s best interest
Canada, is it in their best interest to protect trade with US, will we violate civil liberties as
US wishes Canada to, to get there?
Discourse of national security racism
Process of othering produces foreignness transcends legal distinction
Case Studies in Civil Liberties & National Security
Canada, many groups national threat, who is really? Who’s loyalty doubtful? Who has
chance to prove loyalty but why do they have to?
Are we disloyal or exercising democratic & political rights?
After Russian Revolution 1917 in Canada, Communists considered threat because political
Marxism opposed capitalism
Cuba still considered external threat to America
Violation of Human rights
When population seen as internal threat, entire population assumed disloyal
Japanese Canadians
Ancestors wife from Japan hen most born here still considered disloyal
Racism to Japanese Canadians, turned over to persecution “war to measures acts”
Sweeping powers to cabinet allowed persecution, arbitrarily detained & relocated decided
by authority
Used in part to fill labor shortage, used as free labor + property taken away, confiscation of
legally owned property
Used proceeds to pay
Persecution lasted longer in Canada than USA, Tried to send/deport people born here to
Othering of Japanese Canadian before/after war
Practices of racialized othering, reinstate White nation, promote White Canada a policy
Population can feel affect on Civil Liberties violation
Arab/Muslim Canadians
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version