# data[].attributes.body
This act is also known as competitive law passed in 1890 by the congress. This law enabled the government to have more control over competition. For instance larger corporations have more control over their businesses and how the run things makes them the bigger one. Competition would have no power to compete against them because they have more money and will always overrule. This law made it illegal for larger corporations to do such acts. Some people that would agree is smaller businesses that have to try to to compete with larger ones in the market.

# data[].attributes.body
The patriot act was an act in the United States that was used to further strengthen safety and security within the country. It was used to prevent terrorist attacks also known as the anti terrorist act. This act began on October 26th 2001 it gave the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) access to search telephone records, email, and financial records and many other private records. This was implied to any citizen suspected to be a terrorist. It was a problem to all citizens because people didn't like their private being accessed with free will just because a law said so. Most citizens would not support this because it is an invasion of privacy. Although the Government had every right to because the country was at a state of fear, it was the mourning of 9/11, it was their job to prevent something like this from happening again. Safety and security was their number one priority.

# data[].attributes.body
Gun laws in the USA regulate the sale, possession, trade and use of firearms. This law was created to limit the number of gun deaths, homicide and trafficking of guns in the United States. Although many states have a constitution which protects the right to keep and bear arms. Different states have different laws, for example some states you have to get a permit or licence to carry firearms and other states are less restrictive than federal laws. State and local police departments are not legally obligated to enforce federal gun laws. I think these laws do not take away people’s human rights. These laws are made for the security and protection of all citizens. These laws still allow people to use and own firearms but restricted to protect all citizens.

# data[].attributes.body
The war measures act during the FLQ also known as the October crisis was a way for the government to take action and get help from the armed forces to protect government monuments and politicians. This all began on October 5 1970 after the kidnapping of James cross who was a British trade commissioner in Montréal and then carried on to kidnapping and killing the Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. The origin of this crisis was the fact that citizens were unhappy by the way the unemployment rate was rising which lead to the creation of an independent Québécois state. After the violence and the breakout of crimes the Canadian armed forces were called upon and took away the liberties of all citizens. This act took away the rights of all citizens, people were getting arrested without charge and their personal freedoms were suspended. During this time of the war measures act the armed forces took away the right of people, as they had full control and authorization to arrest or detain anyone who’s was suspected to be part of the FLQ. This took away the right of people to not be arrested without a reason and proof that they are guilty.

# data[].attributes.headline
Entrenching Collective Rights in the Constitution 

# data[].attributes.subject
Entrenching Collective Rights in the Constitution 

# data[].attributes.body
By having a constitution, along with it comes an entrenched clause. An
entrenched clause causes the ability to change or make amendments to our
current constitution very difficult. If a change is proposed, the only way it
would be accepted would be through a supermajority, or a referendum.  Any amendment being made would require a review and justifiable reason to view the right as unconstitutional, orhindering others. The groups that have collective rights are extremely
important to protect in the constitution because they have been a part of
Canada’s past and have been major contributors in shaping Canada to the way it
is today. I believe it is important to implement these collective rights into
the constitution because many minority groups have been discriminated against
and been taken advantage of in the past. By living in a democratic society we
should support the differences between us and acknowledge the impact that
certain groups have made to our country.

# data[].attributes.body
The USA PATRIOT ACT Stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required To Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. This was created as an anti-terrorist bill after the events of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, also known as 9/11. It was signed by President George W. Bush and instated on October 26, 2001 to catch terrorists before they act as well as give terrorists harsher consequences. It gives the government and special agencies the right to tracking and intercepting communications to gain intelligence, as well as fight corruption of US banks and funds towards terrorism efforts. It allows special intelligence agencies to have access to all private records and personal privacy if they suspect you of being a terrorist. The Act strengthens border security and gives the government the ability to remove or arrest terrorists however they see fit. The United States Government’s view is that they are better able to provide safety from terrorists if they are able to take away some of the people’s rights and freedoms. Many people were scared from the events of 9/11 and were ok with giving up some privacy in return for safety. However other citizens of the United States were against this act, calling it an invasion of their privacy and infringement on their rights and freedoms.

I believe that the Patriot Act was an act of Safety and Security by the American Government. Like Hobbes said, you must give up some liberties in order for your government to keep you safe. Although many of the cases are confidential, so there is a lack of examples on this topic, but basically if you have nothing to hide then the Act does not affect you, only keeps you safe. There are regulations that agents must go through to get information, they cannot just look you up whenever they feel like it. Also, in some serious cases it is important for the Government to be able to legally dig deeper to find evidence to prevent serious repercussions. If you live a wholesome lifestyle and are not involved in terrorism then this Act really can not do you any wrong. And since the events of 9/11 and the Patriot Act there has not been a terrorist attack nearly as detrimental as 9/11 so can we really say that the Patriot Act was hindering the United States?

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/09/07/do-we-still-need-the-patriot-act/the-patriot-act-is-a-vital-weapon-in-fighting-terrorism

# data[].attributes.headline
Conscription in the USA (Vietnam War) aka "The Draft" (revised) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Conscription in the USA (Vietnam War) aka "The Draft" (revised) 

# data[].attributes.body
In 1961 President John F. Kennedy signed a military and economic treaty with democratic South Vietnam. In the view of the United States’s safety and security, communism needed to be abolished. The USA had used conscription and fought in World War II, as well as fighting in the Cold War and the Korean War against communism and had a long standing rivalry with communist USSR. At this time, North Vietnam wanted to become a communist country, potentially aligning with the USSR so the United States Government, as a stakeholder thought that it was worth providing some of their troops to stop the spread of communism. However, the United States had a volunteer based military system which did not provide enough soldiers to fill the quotas needed by the ally South Vietnam so the USA government needed to reinstate “The Draft”. This meant that all single men in America were at the top of the list to be drafted to be conscripted to go to fight, after them were married men and then married men with children were at the bottom of the draw. During this time period a lot of things were going on that opposed the Conscription such as the Anti-War/”Hippie” movement as well as civil rights movements. African American men thought it was wrong that they were not given the same rights as the other men in their country but were expected to go to war and kill for the US government. Therefore they tried to become conscientious objectors. Also many white men objected to the fighting due to the fact that they had just been through a aimless war without gaining anything but casualties and did not understand why their country was involved in another pointless war. To avoid the draft, there were so many quick marriages to get lower on the draft list that in 1965 the stipulations changed and it no longer mattered whether you were married or not. Many men eliminated the risk of being drafted by volunteering to the cause to ensure that they would get a better position. Only some occupations such as a doctor or college student prevented men from being conscripted. So for the average uneducated American, being forced to fight or go to jail were not the two options they wanted to have. From a pool of 3 403 000 eligible men, 2 215 000 were drafted towards the cause. The Vietnam War was a brutal war that no one wanted to fight in due to harsh chemical warfare as well as the atrocities they had to commit and the PTSD soldiers almost always had when they returned. US troops fought for about 12 years and finally withdrew from the war in 1971 without anything to show for it because of cost and mass casualties. Another stakeholder in this event was South Vietnam who, without the help of the US Army would not have been able to protect themselves from communist North Vietnam.

I believe that the use of conscription by the United States in the Vietnam war was an abuse of freedoms and not in the best interest of the US citizen’s safety and security. This is because the US citizens had already just been through wars like the Korean war wherein the United States Citizens had no gain.  People did not understand or agree what they were forced to fight for. The Vietnam War was long and brutal and life changing. People’s sons, husbands, and friends were forced to go to a land and kill people or go to jail. They should not have been forced to fight for something they did not believe in and continue to fight for so many years. 60 000 United States Soldiers died and Vietnam remains a communist country to this day. The US government did not listen to what it people wanted and took advantage of the power they had.

http://www.historynet.com/vietnam-war

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties

# data[].attributes.body
In a means to try limiting controversy, the Quebec Charter of Values
was proposed as a bill in the province of Quebec in 2013. The goals of this
bill included an amendment to the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms
by limiting the ability to express religious freedom through “boastful”
apparel. This meant that government workers had to appear neutral with no
evident bias that could affect how they perform their job towards their country
and to their citizens. The Party Quebecois introduced this bill because they
believe that by implementing a more stance on government workers that it will
improve their quality of work and allow citizens to feel more comfortable and
trustworthy in the people within their government. In my opinion it would be
the wrong thing to do if the government were to approve this bill. Individual’s
come to Canada to escape intolerance and persecution by being able to express
their freedom of religion which is engraved in our Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms. It would not be logical to have one “normal” standard of
religious values when we as a country are supposed to promote equality and
non-discrimination.

# data[].attributes.headline
Allow Yourself to Choose to End Your Pain 

# data[].attributes.subject
Allow Yourself to Choose to End Your Pain 

# data[].attributes.body
The Canada Supreme Court as of February of 2015, a law was passed that it is now legal for doctors to help adults who are majorly suffering end their lives. It was first addressed in Quebec and now spread around to more provinces. “Death is not feared, but welcomed” which is meaning that if people do not want to stay on earth anymore and suffer day to day, will have the choice if they feel like stopping is the best solution for themself. It is a conversation that the doctor and patient have to have. The doctor just isn’t allowed to prescribe the patient with the deathly amount of drug. This is having a major fear being brought on many doctors and people who will have to help make the decision of a person's life or death. The procedure to decide on what to do, and making sure it is the right time is very lengthy. I personally feel that Dr. assisted suicide is not a bad thing to have. Doctors will make sure that the reason is 100% valid before continuing with it, and that the family and friends will be onboard with it. I do find it a good idea through, the worst thing is having to suffer, and if you’re old, have lived your life and now suffering with a deadly disease, then having the choice to go peacefully is a choice you are now allowed to make.

# data[].attributes.headline
Collective Rights Have Become Entrenched

# data[].attributes.subject
Collective Rights Have Become Entrenched

# data[].attributes.body
Canada is founded from numerous ethnic backgrounds, but mostly French, British, and Aboriginals, there for their rights should be protected and embraced. Entrenching these collective rights into the constitutions provided the ability for Francophones to be valued equally and have access to French all around them. Aboriginals have the right to their own schools, and since they are in the constitution these rights cannot be taken away. This was created to respectfully ensure all individuals rights were protected and promoted to create the best living conditions for Canadians. In regards to collective rights applying to  group versus an individual allows for the group to receive special rights because of their past. This brings up the issue of “reverse discrimination” but for aboriginals we assimilated them to suit our lifestyle. These actions of protection were taken into actions after many individuals were victimized for following their traditions.

The government is only acting towards protecting rights, and “reverse discrimination” is a subjective perspective because no one's rights are being taken away. These are just included to protect the minority groups. Freedoms aren’t being taken away, but granted to those who are seen as lesser than the average white man.

# data[].attributes.body
Lasting from 1920-1933, prohibition was the ban of selling, producing, importing, and transporting alcohol. It was mandated in the eighteenth amendment of the US constitution, and taken out by the twenty-first amendment. There were rules on what kinds of alcohol were banned though, as religious wine was not banned. Although it was not illegal to privately own and drink alcohol, some states completely banned it. Prohibition was highly promoted by activists and groups who felt alcohol consumption (especially excessively) was a bad thing and an abuse of a gift given to us by God. Supporters of prohibition were known as "dry crusaders," and they came from both political parties. Their support for prohibition was based on their personal morals. Those against prohibition were known as "wets," and they argued that it was too based on rural Protestant ideals. I think the prohibition was a good idea in theory but not in practice. It was definitely for the safety of the people, but many found a way around it with speakeasy clubs becoming very popular. It also resulted in greater amounts of organized crime, and the government suffered in lost tax revenue.

# data[].attributes.headline
WW I & II's Implementation of the War Measures Act

# data[].attributes.subject
WW I & II's Implementation of the War Measures Act

# data[].attributes.body
When World War I broke out on June 28 1914, it left the world in a state of panic and crippling fear. So on August 22, 1914 after the United Kingdom declared war Germany upon the British Empire's request, a completely new policy known as the War Measures Act was put into place as a protection mechanism. Due to Canada still being a British colony at the time, they were included in this as well. The War Measures act was a legal policy that was put into place in times of emergencies, such as WWI, where the safety and security of the people was at risk. It allowed for the government look past the Bill of Rights and Parliament and expel people's rights if they were so much as suspected of having any attachments to the enemy countries in the name of security. It essentially made it legal for the government to do illegal things to keep the country safe. This often times lead to the rights of individuals being abused due to false accusations and punishments, as the War Measures act did not mandate explicit evidence before action could be taken. Immigrants from the enemy countries were looked upon as spies once the war hit and were thrown into internment camps where they were severely deprived of basic needs; a huge human rights violation for someone who was falsely accused. This mainly targeted Germans and the Japanese as they belonged to the enemy countries, even though most had been there long before the war had even occurred. The War Measures Act also enabled the government to do things that were in fact not security related. During the war, the government would shut down machinery companies and factories and force them to produce guns, bullets and other army related supplies. When WWII erupted on September 1, 1939, Canada had patriated from Britain, but they still decide to join the war as an independent country, yet again using the War Measures Act where all of the same issues occurred. As well, after each of the wars ended and the War Measure Act was discontinued until a new crisis occurred, the government neglected to give each and every individual who's rights were taken away their rights back

As the citizens of Canada watched this all take place in both WWI and WWII, many were petrified and paranoid, partially because of what the government was instilling into their brains through propaganda, saying untrue things about the Japanese and German and developing stereotypes about these primarily innocent people. The people were advocates of any sort of system that would help to ease their anxieties and keep the supposed bad people away from society. Most Canadian citizens would have supported the War Measures Act during the world wars. However, the groups that were suppressed and treated unfairly would have strongly been against the War Measures Act and would support something more like the Emergencies Act which doesn't take away rights of specific people and groups unless there is tangible evidence.

I believe that the War Measures Act was meant to be put into action to provide safety and security to the citizens, but evolved into a form of freedom abuse due to the government's abuse of the system because of their paranoia. In World War I when anyone of Japanese dissent was incarcerated, this was an act of paranoia as many had been living in Canada for many generations and had absolutely no way of contacting the Japanese government and therefore could not be spies. They intended to do this to protect their countries from spies but went overboard and wrongly took advantage of innocent people

# data[].attributes.body
The War Measures Act was a federal status adopted in 1914 by the Canadian parliament just 4 years before the end of World War one. This War Measures Act took away civil liberties and personal freedoms for many people especially the Europeans and the Ukrainians from 1914 to 1920 and also during World War two when the Canadian government put all Japanese Canadians into internment camps because they were all thought to be spies for the Japanese’s government even though most of them had been in Canada for generations. The War Measures act was put in place so that the Canadian government would have more power and control so that they can maintain order and security when Canada is in a time of distress, like a war or an invasion. Some other things that the War Measures Act does is that it lets the government control things that factories make an example is the government ordered factories to stop making farming equipment and to start making arms and ammunition for the war.  In both World War one and two these people were stripped of everything they owned and valued, there rights were taken away and they weren’t treated as equals. It wasn’t fare for the government to do this to these people because there was no proof that they were from the opposition and that they were going to betray Canada. The government gave these people rights and then took them away because they could. The Nazis would agree with this because

they also took a certain group of people away from there lives and treated them like garbage and traders. The Nazis treated the Jews much worse but it is the same principle. A group that would disagree would be the FLQ because they took drastic measures and did horrible things to try and get the point across that it wasn’t right for the government to take away peoples basic human rights. I believe that it wasn’t right for the government to take away peoples rights for the better good of people. The government is supposed to protect people’s basic human rights but instead of doing that they stripped them away and made Canadian citizens feel exposed and helpless.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The October Crisis began at 8:15 a.m. on Oct. 5, 1970, at the home of the British trade commissioner in Montreal, James Cross.

Two members of the Libération cell of the Front de libération du Québec knocked at his door, disguised as delivery men. Admitted to the house by a maid, they pulled their guns and kidnapped him.

By the time the crisis ended on Dec. 28, Quebec labour minister Pierre Laporte had also been kidnapped and then murdered, the national government of Pierre Trudeau had invoked the first peacetime use of the War Measures Act - suspending Canadians' civil liberties - and the army had been deployed in Ottawa and throughout Quebec.

Canadians watching their television screens saw every appearance of a country under martial law. Tanks were on the lawns of Parliament. Hundreds of union leaders, artists, scholars, students and other political activists in Quebec were rounded up by police, arrested and detained without charge. The mayor of Vancouver tried to employ the security regulations to clear the city's beaches of hippies.

Forty years later, the legacy of the October Crisis challenges the notion of who we think we are.

The steps taken under the aegis of the War Measures Act - overwhelmingly supported by both French- and English-speaking Canadians - remain a symbol of the country's fragile attachment to civil liberties and human rights, with echoes along the road from anti-terror legislation in the wake of 9/11 and the policing of the streets of Toronto during the G20 summit.

Despite the Charter of Rights and Freedoms being cherished as a symbol of national identity, it is the mantra of Canada's first Constitution of 1867 - "peace, order and good government" - that appears to trump all other mythologies of the country that Canadians want.

"They like peace and they like order," says Ramsay Cook, one of Canada's greatest historians. "I don't think this has ever been a country that had an enormous interest in civil rights."

The imposition of the War Measures Act indelibly stained the stature of Mr. Trudeau as a civil libertarian and advocate of democracy - even though it was done at the request of Quebec's premier Robert Bourassa and Montreal's mayor Jean Drapeau.

Recent scholarship by, among others, historian John English, author of an exhaustive two-volume Trudeau biography, has lent support to the former prime minister's declaration that he acted to deal with an apprehended insurrection. Yet his response of "Just watch me" to a CBC reporter who asked him how far he would go to defeat the FLQ was tied to him for the rest of his life, and ignited a still-ongoing debate over whether the act's application was justified.

But the FLQ crisis was hardly the first time in Canadian history that civil liberties have taken a beating; the impulse toward law and order is woven into the fabric of the country.

In the latter part of the 19th century, the Métis of the Prairies were starving, the buffalo herds on which they depended had been killed off, land promises had been reneged upon. Yet their resistance to government measures - which eventually led to the Northwest Rebellion - was met only by relentless demands from newspapers of the day that their defiance be crushed.

The Winnipeg General Strike of 1919 was ended by gunfire from police. The communism that took root among the unemployed of the Great Depression was criminalized. The federal government of Mackenzie King that invoked the War Measures Act at the beginning of the Second World War refused to allow Parliament to discuss its regulations - regulations harsher than measures under comparable legislation imposed by Britain, which was under direct enemy attack.

Following the cessation of hostilities, the courts upheld the government's decision to use the War Measures Act to deport Canadian citizens of Japanese descent.

Since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms became part of Canada's Constitution in 1982, the courts have strengthened police powers of arrest. We have human rights commissions in every jurisdiction in the country that with only a couple of exceptions - in Saskatchewan and Quebec - are pro-active in protecting Canadians against discrimination on the basis of race, gender and religion but not against individual violations of civil rights.

The Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act enacted in 2001 allowed for in-camera trials, pre-emptive detention and expanded security and surveillance powers. Anne McLellan, Canada's minister of public safety at the time, said in an interview that great care was taken to strike a careful balance between the government's primary obligation to protect Canadian society and its responsibility to uphold individual rights.

Civil libertarians strongly disagreed with her, and the courts have whittled away at some of her legislation's provisions, but they've done so without much support from Canadians.

A majority of Canadians - 58 per cent - told pollsters at the time Ms. McLellan's legislation was introduced that terrorism threats outweigh the protection of their individual rights and freedoms and the due process of law. Sixty per cent said they would give police the power to randomly stop and search either themselves or their vehicle. A small majority (53 per cent) even said that law-enforcement officials should be given the power to detain suspected terrorists indefinitely without specific charges.

Where does this thinking come from - if Canadians rate the Charter near the top of the list of things that symbolize their national identity, right up there with the majesty of the land and hockey?

Bruce Ryder, a constitutional legal scholar at Toronto's York University, looks for an answer in an older cultural theory of Canada. He sees in Canada's Tory traditions - brought north across the border by Loyalists after the American Revolutionary War - more concern for the well-being of society than for individual freedoms.

"There's arguably distinct features of Canadian culture that aren't particularly friendly to civil liberties by dissenting individuals or groups," he says. "That's probably stronger than the individual liberties in American traditions."

University of Ottawa legal scholar Craig Forcese, a specialist in national security law, says the Charter is now internalized as a social value in Canada. "We do talk more emphatically about rights and we take them more seriously [since the October Crisis] But Benjamin Berger of the University of Victoria's law school says having a Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't in itself guarantee a culture of civil liberties; that requires an engaged and active citizenry.

Late last month, the Ontario government announced that the province's former chief justice and a much-respected former attorney-general, Roy McMurtry, had been called in to look at a law that was twisted to allow police to misrepresent its provisions.

What Mr. McMurtry's mandate will be is a little vague. But on the weekend, he was going through a box of papers in his house and came across letters he wrote as a lawyer in private practice in November of 1970 to The Globe and Mail and to federal Conservative leader Robert Stanfield, decrying the invocation of the War Measures Act.

"The events of the past three weeks," he wrote, "have demonstrated how quickly a nation can forget the importance of its basic freedoms when it is confronted with a crisis and the often irrational emotions that result therefrom." (The letters are posted on The Globe's website.)

Mr. McMurtry does believe the Charter has changed the culture of civil liberties in Canada. He was asked if he would conduct his inquiry in the context of the Charter.

He said yes.
VIEWS OF THE CRISIS
The opposition leade r

Then the federal NDP leader, Tommy Douglas was a prominent and early opponent of the War Measures Act, which he called "overkill on a gargantuan scale."

From his speech in Parliament on Nov. 4, 1970, explaining why his party voted against the act: "I have no hesitation in saying that those of us who voted against that motion did so for two reasons: first, because we have not been given any evidence that there was a state of apprehended insurrection in this country and, second, because we could not approve the regulations enacted under the War Measures Act because they deprive Canadian citizens so extensively of basic civil liberties ... as a member of Parliament standing in my place I have no right to restrict the liberties of 21 million Canadians without adequate proof."
The minister
The late Trudeau-era cabinet minister Eric Kierans wrote in his 2001 memoirs: "There was no secret knowledge that explained the imposition of war measures. Everything we were told in cabinet came from the streets outside.

"... None of the secret police raids turned up the guns, rifles, machine guns, bombs or dynamite, although they did sweep up Pauline Julien, who sang separatist songs. ... It was Tommy Douglas of the NDP who stood in the House, day after day, and hammered the government for suspending civil liberties, and if you ask me today why I wasn't up there beside him I can only say, damned if I know. He showed political courage of the highest order."
The journalist
In his book Here Be Dragons, Telling Tales of People, Power, Passion, Peter C. Newman wrote that Pierre Trudeau lied to him about a conspiracy to set up a provisional parallel government that would replace Robert Bourassa - only to discredit the story that Mr. Newman had been urged to write:

"I felt angry and cheated by Trudeau's revisionist version of events. I hadn't been in Ottawa for a dozen years without becoming inured to the fact that prime ministers lie. ... Then the penny began to drop. If the prime minister could reverse himself so casually, then the entire scenario had been a meticulously concocted lie. ... The only apprehended insurrection the PM had going for him was the puny parallel government rumour in my story, which was not an insurrection, nor had it been apprehended, since it never got started."
The Mountie boss
Political scientist Reg Whitaker's 1993 Queen's Quarterly article, Apprehended Insurrection? RCMP Intelligence and the October Crisis, suggests the RCMP were unwilling participants:

"The reality is that the RCMP never asked for the War Measures Act, were not consulted as to its usefulness, and would have opposed it if they had been asked their opinion.

"Two days before the invocation of the War Measures Act, a meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security and Intelligence heard RCMP Commissioner William Higgitt suggest that the best course was to continue investigations 'as at present.' He added that a 'broad sweep and preventive detention of suspects' would be counterproductive, leading to 'massive problems.' "
Rhéal Séguin Selections from the recently published anthology Trudeau's Darkest Hour (Baraka Books), edited by political scientists Guy Bouthillier and Édouard Cloutier.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The October Crisis began at 8:15 a.m. on Oct. 5, 1970, at the home of the British trade commissioner in Montreal, James Cross. Two members of the Libération cell of the Front de libération du Québec knocked at his door, disguised as delivery men.

# data[].attributes.body
Canada lost many soldiers going to war, and the amount of volunteers to go fight were getting smaller. Therefore conscription was introduced and became a  fierce debate topic during both world wars. During WW1 (1917) Prime minister Robert Borden created the Military Service Act to compensate for the soldiers they had lost. The Act allowed him to recruit men from all across Canada to fight, if Borden felt it was necessary. The French Canadians were strongly against conscription because they didn’t feel loyal to Britain or France, but to Canada. Henri Bourassa was the first French Canadian to speak out and lead the other Francophones to oppose conscription. The Francophones opposition  to conscription created tension between French Canadians and English Canadians.  An election was in 1917. The voters included the people already overseas, and citizens of Canada. The people not allowed to vote were conscientious people and recent immigrants to canada. Borden came back into power and the Military Service Act was put into place.

WW2 had the same conscription problem as WW1 but with less political damage. Once again Canada’s force had a shortage of troops and resorted to conscription. This time the Prime minister held a national plebiscite to get future permission to use conscription. Majority agreed to conscription, but once again the French Canadians were a minority and voted against it. The Prime minister avoided the tension between French and English Canadians by putting a limit on the number of Canadians conscripted. I believe the Prime minister did the right thing by getting everyone's vote and then using conscription. Statistically the amount of soldiers sent overseas was very small to the amount conscripted.In WW2 17 000 recruited and only 2463 actually went to Europe.  The French Canadians do have a right as a minority but they choose to be a party of Canada, therefore they should abide by the rules every other Canadian does.

# data[].attributes.headline
Bill C-51 The anti-terrorism Act is an Act of the Parliament of Canada that broadened the authority of Canadian government agencies to share information about individuals easily. It also expanded the mandate of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Bill C-51 was introduced and passed by the Conservative party, who held the majority seats in Parliament, with support from the Liberal Party, which promised to amend the bill to increase oversight if elected. The Green Party of Canada, the Bloc Quebecois, Forces et Democratic and the New Democratic Party all opposed the bill in which impede the Parliament to increase the time allocated to expert witness testimony on the bill. The bill provides safety and security for Canada. Bill C-51 defines security as not only public safety, but also preventing interference with various aspects of public life or “the economic or financial stability of Canada.” A separatist demonstration in Quebec that fails to get a proper permit, a peaceful logging blockade by First Nations, or environmentalists obstructing ay pipeline route could all be seen as threats to national security. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Bill C-51 The anti-terrorism Act is an Act of the Parliament of Canada that broadened the authority of Canadian government agencies to share information about individuals easily. It also expanded the mandate of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Bill C-51 was introduced and passed by the Conservative party, who held the majority seats in Parliament, with support from the Liberal Party, which promised to amend the bill to increase oversight if elected. The Green Party of Canada, the Bloc Quebecois, Forces et Democratic and the New Democratic Party all opposed the bill in which impede the Parliament to increase the time allocated to expert witness testimony on the bill. The bill provides safety and security for Canada. Bill C-51 defines security as not only public safety, but also preventing interference with various aspects of public life or “the economic or financial stability of Canada.” A separatist demonstration in Quebec that fails to get a proper permit, a peaceful logging blockade by First Nations, or environmentalists obstructing ay pipeline route could all be seen as threats to national security. 

# data[].attributes.body
Who: This has an impact on citizens of the United States as
well as the government in power of the citizens.

What: This law was passed in order to improve and increase
the trust between the government and the citizens when buying goods from
companies.

When: The law was passed in 1890.

Where: All across the United States.

Why: Was put in place in order to increase trust with people
so they can rely on businesses for what they need without fear of the business
failing.

1 FTC believes and supports the fact that the Sherman Act
restricts trade but only trade of prohibited material. (https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws)

2 WalterCoffey feels that even though this act protects “monopolistic,”
“anticompetitive,” or “predatory” business practices, it prevents foreign competition
between businesses which can have an impact on who, what and where people spend
their money. These trusts between businesses and the government are causing
less efficient production. (https://waltercoffey.wordpress.com/2013/06/15/damaging-effects-of-the-sherman-antitrust-act/)

ME: I feel the Sherman Act is a good way in protecting
society from failure of businesses by providing them with the information they
need to know, so everyone understands how our market is running. This keeps a non-competitive
price of goods and materials we buy.

# data[].attributes.body
Homosexuality Known as an Illness
Until 1999, Russia saw that people who present themselves as homosexuals are mentally ill, that being gay is known as an illness. Majority of citizens in Russia disagree with homosexuals, and are supporting the propaganda that goes against them. This propaganda is making sure that children don’t believe that being homosexual is normal. It refused multiple gay pride parades, and blamed western groups for spreading the fight for being gay. The anti-gay law lead to an increase in violence, and only made homosexuals angrier about the discrimination being sent their way. Anton Krasersky is a citizen in Russia, who is an anchor for the government run news channel. He was immediately fired after he on live TV, said that he was gay and that the propaganda is “disgusting”. This shows that a normal citizen who was perfectly fine, only had to admit that he was homosexual and he was fired from his job. Girls growing up, who dress as men, or ‘tomboys’ are only allowed to be like that until they are married. Just shortly ago in 2014, there was a road safety law passed, to make sure that gays are not allowed to get their driver's license as they are going through a mental illness, or a ‘sexual disorder’. Although in 2015, the law got changed to that it will not affect your driving, so they were able to get a drivers again. This shows how it could be able to start to become more ‘normal’ to be homosexual. Even Lady Gaga, and Madonna went against how Russia was being so discriminatory towards the way that Russia was treating one of their own. Madonna argued that gays are still people and disapproved with the government's movement of the propaganda. It seemed as if they didn’t want them representing their country. In 1994 to 2011, there was a law to make sure that people serving for the United States military army would not say anything about being gay, or homosexual. “Don’t Act, Don’t Tell” was to make sure that nobody said anything to make sure that it didn’t draw any extra risk to themselves. In 2011 it was dropped, and now people are allowed to say what they want and express themselves. In my personal opinion, I do not approve of the way that Russia is going against their citizens, even if they are gay. I feel that being homosexual is just apart of who you are. You are still a human being, you love what you love and people shouldn’t be able to tell you who to be. Being gay doesn’t mean that you are a second class citizen, but just makes you not like everyone around you.

# data[].attributes.body
Introduced and passed by the Conservative party when they had a majority, supported by the Liberals (though they said if elected they would amend the bill). The bill had it's first reading on January 30, 2015 and it's third on June 9, 2015. It received Royal Assent on June 18, 2015, officially passing it. The main goal of the act is to protect Canada from potential acts of terrorism and protect refugees immigrated from other countries. This was proposed after two acts of terrorism last October in 2014, one on the 20th and the other on the 22nd. The first was a man who purposely ran into two soldiers with his car, killing them. This man had recently converted to Islam, and it's believed he was influenced by ISIS to commit this crime. The second was a shooting at Parliament Hill and inside the Parliament Building in Ottawa, leaving both the shooter and a Canadian soldier dead. Amnesty International opposes the Bill, as they believe it could be used to target protesters and activists. Many FNMI do not support it because they feel it could be used to further oppress and demean them. Now-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau supports the bill, but he recognizes the public's concerns about it and wants to make significant amendments to meet the people's needs. I think this bill is for Safety and Security, but I agree with PM Trudeau that many amendments need to be made so the people still have their freedoms and feel safe voicing their opinions. It is important that we are protected from terrorists, but we do not want to falsely accuse or offend anyone who has done nothing wrong. In 2013, two men died while carrying out a terrorist act in Algeria. This could have been prevented if the government knew of their plans, they could have been jailed and punished instead of dying while committing terrorism.

# data[].attributes.body
TheIndian Act names registered First Nations people and gives them rights to
reserves and rights. They’ve been provided with land, healthcare, education and
are considered equal as anyone else. It was first introduced in 1876 due to
Canadian government trying to assimilate First Nations into their culture. The
Indian Act was a way for Canadian government to apologize for the mistakes
they’d made. Any Metis or First Nation groups would support this event as it
allowed them to be equal in society and have rights gave to them that they
deserved. There are many individuals in the Canada or US that believe that the
First Nations just get a free ride and get free money handed to them and do not
support the Indian Act. They’re incorrect because they are not just handed
everything, they are just given the rights that they were denied in the past. I
think that the Indian Act is a Safety and Security as it protects First Nation
rights and allows them to be seen as equal. I also think it is right that we
have it since Canadian government treated them so bad in the past

# data[].attributes.body
The War Measures Act was a Canadian statute adopted on August 4, 1914, it was passed unopposed. With this act it allowed the federal government to suspend civil liberties and by pass parliament to do things through order in council that it felt were necessary for the war. Factories were told to stop producing farm implements and start manufacturing arms and ammunition instead. any immigrants who had come from what were now enemy countries such as Germany, had their movements controlled and anyone thought to be an enemy sympathizer could be arrested and kept in internment camps without trial.

# data[].attributes.body
Who: The law will impact and have an effect on all smoking
citizens of Canada.

What: This Law/Regulation will prevent smokers from being
able to smoke where ever they want. This will be restricting people to smoke
away from public places, such as schools, workplaces and provincial parks.

When: Changes were being made late 2009 and by the time 2010 arrived the changes were permanent.

Where: All across Canada.

Why: This is being done in order to respect privacy of
people in public as well as to keep children from seeing this bad habit. This
will place restrictions on the people to keep and cleaner more respectable
environment for people.

1,Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation supports the Smoking
Ban. Because of health risks associated with smoking they agree with the
smoking ban and what it stands for.

2,Waterloo support the Smoking Ban. They agree that this is
good idea in order to help prevent youth from seeing and participating in this habit.

Me: I agree this is problem that needs to be dealt
with. There are to many younger and older Canadians participating in smoking.
If we limit and restrict the ability to smoke wherever you want this will
prevent youth from seeing smokers and wanting to partake in smoking. By having
a ban put in place this will help prevent youth from smoking as well as keep a
cleaner public environment for others. Based on the ITC survey“overall smoking among Canadian adults (aged 15
and older) has decreased dramatically from about 50%”(https://uwaterloo.ca/news/news/canadas-progress-tobacco-control-under-threat). This shows us that if we put these bans in place, change will occur.

# data[].attributes.body
This was the year of the prohibition of alcohol, on January 16, 1920 the laws where all alcohol beverages became illegal in the US. People could not manufacture, transport, import, export or sale any alcohol. The meaning of this was to lower the crime rate and corruption of man, reduce the social problems, lower taxes in order to support the prisons and poorhouses, and improve the hygiene of the people. A lady called Carry Nation was completely against the use of alcohol, she would walk into bars (or known then as saloons) and destroyed the bars. Most of the time she would do this alone but eventually others joined her. Once this law came into effect a group that went by the name as Women’s christian Temperance Union supported the law. The believed it would prevent the women and children from alcohol abuse from the men in the family or outside of the family. Soon after the law came into effect, places called ‘Speakeasies’ opened up as underground bars where they sold illegal alcohol to the people. More and more came up, and if one was shut down by the police another would just open up. Eventually wine and hard cider in the home could get you fined as well if you had to much of it.

In 1933 this law was repealed and removed, making smaller laws to protect the people. The removal of alcohol from an entire state is ridiculous because many people enjoy alcohol in both the good and bad ways. Alcoholic beverages are great money makers as well, many well known industries are very wealthy and bring in the money from their products. The government makes money off the drinks as well with taxes. So during the 1920's prohibition the removal of alcohol is seen as a good idea for safety but it removes a great way for the state to make money and the freedom of the people.

# data[].attributes.body
Once Germany was under the rule of the powerful dictator Hitler in 1933, campaigns were created to win the support of the Germans. Censorship ensured that Germans could only see what the Nazi hierarchy wanted people to see, hear what they wanted them to hear and read only what the Nazis deemed acceptable. The prime mover in censorship was the Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels. Radios, newspapers, movies and music were some of the forms of media that influenced blind obedience to the party and anti-Semitism. The party enforced censorship through secret police, serious penalties for disobeying the norms and making it mandatory for citizens to report each other, otherwise they would be just as guilty of the crime. If you were to disobey the Nazi party in any way the consequences constituted being sent to a concentration camp or death. One of the specific censorship acts Hitler took was ordering all books that “should not be read by Germans” to be burned. Around 25 00 books were burned and schools received new books to teach children early on to love Hitler.

Stakeholders:

The Nazi Party is the main stakeholder as they are using censorship to attempt to win over the love and support of the Germans. Against the censorship at the time was the United States. Hundreds of thousands of people protested the book burnings in public rallies in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and St. Louis. They said it was a clear violation of freedom of speech.

I believe that the Nazi censorship was an abuse of their freedoms. Hitler was not protecting the German citizens, he was trying to brainwash them into loving and supporting him. The Nazi’s specifically burned the books of Helen Keller who overcame her blindness and deafness and became a well-known writer. There was no reason for this other than that Hitler was intimidated by others ideas and wanted his own to be predominate.

# data[].attributes.body
The No Fly List was created by the United States government’s
Terrorist Screening Centre. The list provides screening and inspections on
anybody who is a suspected terrorist at airports. The list was created after
the 9/11 Twin Towers attacks in 2001. It is meant to keep people safe from
terrorism and prevent high jacking of aircrafts. Tuesday, September 11th,
2001 the Islamic terrorist group Al-Quaeda high jacked 4 air planes and crashed
2 of them into the World Trade Centre in New York. The No Fly List was then
created to prevent any possible terrorists from doing any more harm. President Obama would be a stakeholder who would support the No Fly list as he believes and in stopping terrorism and was the one to find Osama Bin Laden and have him killed,
who was the leader of Al-Quaeda. Many Muslim and Pakistan people don’t like the
No Fly list because they are often discriminated on because of the list. At
airports they are often racially profiled just because the way they look or
because of their ethnic background. I believe that the list is more of a Safety
and Security than an Abuse of our Freedoms. Although many people feel like they
are being discriminated by getting randomly chosen, it does eliminate the
chance of terrorists being able to board planes and cause another attack such
as 9/11. The list has worked successfully for over 10 years, so I believe that it
has worked very efficiently.

# data[].attributes.body
Emergencies Act

The Emergencies act was put into place in1988 on July 21st; this act allows government to take control in any situation that is a national threat. They are allowed to take special actions to protect citizens and the country. The Emergencies act was put in place and replaced the War Measures act. The only thing that is different is that everything has to be reviewed by parliament and any temporary laws made under the act are subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. John Locke would disapprove of this act because he doesn’t want to lose individual rights no matter what is happening. Another person that would not agree with this act is John Stuart Mill. Neither of them would want their rights taken. In my point of view this act is a good thing. The government should try and protect us when there is a national disaster. I even think that the government should be putting more money into the oil industry and protect it if the prices drop as low as they are right now. Therefore the government intervention is a good thing to have in our country.

# data[].attributes.body
The US decided to go to war and stop communism in vietnam. They conscripted people because it was for the safety and security of the people of Vietnam. It started in 1969 and went to 1973 and was known as the draft. Men that weren't married were picked first and men that were married and had children were at the bottom of the list. They did this to help fight over in vietnam because they didn't have enough soldiers in the army. So they drafted people to go fight. JFK proposed this act to do the draft. The US government would support this because it makes their army bigger and it helps stop communism. The people of north vietnam supported this because it was stopping the war and stopping the communist from taking over.  I think that it is an abuse to their freedom because the war did not threaten the US or any other countries. The US wanted to stop communism in the world. Taking people from their homes to go fight someone else's battle is not right. This isn't like wwii or the war in afghanistan where they were fighting to protect their country.

# data[].attributes.body
In Quebec, relatively discrete items such as, rings, earrings or pendants representing a religious symbol are allowed to be wore. However, if you are wearing a kippah, turban, hijab, niqab or any large crosses representing the person's religious beliefs will be forbidden. The minister who is in charge of the this charter, Bernard Drainville, expresses that these religious items will be banned from work sites or while the person is on the job. “People need to be identifiable, mainly for security purposes,” said Drainville. I agree with Drainville about this charter, but I am also against the discrimination they are forcing upon these people who are entitled to these religious customs. People need to be identified, yes, but they don’t have to go as far as saying they are not allowed to show their religious values outside of their homes.

# data[].attributes.body
Bill C-51

Bill c-51 is an anti-terrorism bill to try and increase the security of citizens in Canada, it lets the government get a hold of our information more easily and monitor what people are doing to try and crack down on terrorism. In January 2015 the bill was proposed for the first time, the conservative party who was in power at the time wanted a way to increase the security of citizens because between 2013 and 2014 there was twelve reported threats to VIP. On February 17th, 2015, Elizabeth Mayfrom theGreen Party said that she had a number of concerns with the proposed legislation and wanted it scrapped entirely. Therefore Elisabeth wouldn’t want to give up individual rights.  Lots of individual citizens would also disapprove of Bill c-51 because people don’t want to be monitored and enjoy having freedom. In my opinion I don’t think this act would be beneficial because if someone wants to harm Canadians they are going to find a way to do it without the government finding out. There is no way that the government can keep us one hundred percent safe so why should they limit our freedoms.

# data[].attributes.body
The US wants to propose a gun law to put higher restrictions on having and using guns. This is after all of the mass shootings in the US. President obama want to have background checks on the buyer's, bands military style guns, provides training to the gun user, puts gun safety programs into place etc. People that would support this would be the US government because they are putting better safety into place. The family and friends of the victims of mass shootings in the US. They would like this because schools and other public places would be safer. I think it is a good idea because it is for the safety of the people. Yes your rights to have a gun get restricted but your overall safety is better.

# data[].attributes.body
In the US firearm owners are subject to the firearm laws of the state they are in. These gun laws vary significantly in strength, content and level of restriction. Only in some American states does a citizen require a license or permit to buy and carry a firearm and many of these states do not regulate where they can be used, as many allow open carry of an unconcealed firearm in public on one's person or in a vehicle. Then after the Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting in 2012 many citizens began to take notice to their country’s current gun regulations. During the horrific shooting, 20 children and 6 adults were killed by a single person. Only hours after, a petition asking the White House to immediately address the issue of gun control through the introduction of legislation in Congress. This sparked conflict towards some very patriotic Americans who are hesitant to losing the rights of bearing an arm whenever, wherever. However many Americans feel that the strengthening of gun legislation will enhance their safety by preventing unauthorized people to carry a weapon. I feel that the strengthening of gun legislation is an excellent way to protect the citizens as they should leave their security upon the hands of the armed forces and their local police departments.

# data[].attributes.body
Starting in 1969 the US government enlisted a conscription system in order to gain troops for the interference of the Northern vs Southern Vietnam war. Men born between the ages of 1944 to 1950 had an intensely chance of receiving a draft notice that informed them on their upcoming requirements as military service. President Kennedy at the time felt that this was an excellent way to increase the troop strength as they fought alongside the South Vietnamese government. However, many of the conscripted men opposed the ideas of the war as they felt the US would receive no benefit for their contributions. Therefore, over 100 000 men fled the country in order to escaped the fight. Due to how they also felt that their rights and freedoms were being infringed upon with the countries forceful engagement into the war. I feel that the use of conscription improves our safety and security when in times of danger and uncertainty. However I believe the circumstances present in the Vietnam War did abuse the freedoms of American citizens as this was not their war to fight, nor did it benefit the country, it actually put the country in higher debt than they originally were.

# data[].attributes.body
After the tragedy of 9 11 the Canadian and US government began to restrict their citizens from persuading to countries where acts of terror are being committed. The no fly list is when your become an immediate threat to security of the people, in Canada you are not knowledgeable of being on the list until you attempt to board a plane. Later you will receive a letter stating that you are suspected and forbidden to fly. The no fly list prevents an individual from leaving or entering the country to perform acts of terror. But without being suspected or restricted by the government one hundred and thirty Canadian citizen have left to join terrorist groups. Canadian laws were once more relaxed regarding flying after 9 11 than the United States were, but once a Canadian soldier was murdered, Harper Conservative fought to harden the ability to access flying. In regards to Canadian actions to restrict terror from happening, more has evolved.

Canadians have worked tremendously to become the safe, multicultural society we live in, but when accessing our country becomes simply our citizens face harm. The no fly list will protect our citizens and individuals around the world, because we are such an involved country when something happens it affects us as a whole. When the soldier was murdered all of Canada came together to remorse the loss our country has had, it affected all Canadians. The government acting on this is an act towards the safety and security of the country, because the only rights being taken away are the ones of those who want to take away right of life from other individuals.

# data[].attributes.body
Many people are up in arms about Stephen Harper's proposal of banning the niqab from citizenship ceremonies, and rightly so. The niqab is an essential part of muslim tradition as well as arabic tradition. Canada, being multicultural, should not be forcing people to disregard their traditions and beliefs simply because people are islamophobic. There is no real threat to wearing a niqab, some stated that it conceals them at the ceremony and we would not know who they really were, but as people who have immigrated have told reporters, they take it off to show officials before filling out there test, therefore they are established already as who they are. Another way of telling who they are would be to run fingerprints when they do the written part and before the ceremony, that way it would be certain who they were. Since ISIS has made threats towards Canada and the rest of the world, everyone has become very islamophobic, which is really terrible for the society we live in today. This discrimination should be destroyed immediately as it is falsely accusing anyone who identifies as muslim or arabic as being a terrorist, which goes against the rule of law that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, as well as it infringes on the the multicultural rights established in Canada's constitution charter of rights and freedoms. I strongly believe that people should be allowed to wear the niqab and any other traditional or religious artifact when taking part in a citizenship ceremony or anywhere for that matter.

# data[].attributes.body
Omar Ahmed Algredr Khadr is a Canadian citizen who was captured in Afghanistan in July, 2002 at age 15 and held for 10 years at Guantanamo Bay detention camp. He pleaded guilty in October, 2010 to several purported war crimes prior to being tried by a United States military commission. Omar Khadr was convicted of killing Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer, an American medic in the U.S. army, with a hand grenade. In an interview with the CBC's The National, Abdurahman Khadr says his family has ties to al-Qaeda and he was trained to become a suicide bomber. But he says he does not share the views of some members of his family. Most Canadians oppose Omar Khadr's relaxed bail conditions, “On removing the tracking bracelet on Khadr’s ankle, 67% of Canadians disagree. On removing the police software on his computer to allow them to monitor what he’s doing, 71% of Canadians disagree. And 60% of Canadians oppose his right to fly on jets.” In my point of view I believe that Omar should be charged as a terrorist and should be locked away for a lifetime. I understand he was only 15 years old but in the interview stating he was “trained to become a suicide bomber” that's what he knows best and he isn't afraid to carry out with these acts.

http://www.therebel.media/poll_most_canadians_oppose_omar

# data[].attributes.body
Bill 101 is the main reason why French is commonly spoken in Quebec, Canada. The Charter of the French Language is what it is also known as, it was passed on August 26, 1977. The issue of language was brought up when English speaking people, also known as the British, gained parts of New France after the seven year war. It was after the quiet Revolution in the 1960’s where the issue came up to the province. The believed this would intrude on the population of French speaking people. Most people in Quebec welcomed Bill 101, except for anglophones, allophones and some francophone parents when it came to the enrolment of their children to some schools. In my opinion, I understand that they want their language to stay strong and not fade like some languages have. They want to keep their language like a child wants to keep their security blanket. It abuses everyone’s freedom to speak freely.

# data[].attributes.headline
Conscription in the U.S (Vietnam War) a.k.a "The Draft"

# data[].attributes.subject
Conscription in the U.S (Vietnam War) a.k.a "The Draft"

# data[].attributes.body
In 1961 President John F. Kennedy signed a military and economic treaty with democratic South Vietnam. In the view of the United States’s safety and security, communism needed to be abolished. The USA had used conscription and fought in World War II, as well as fighting in the Cold War and the Korean War against communism and had a long standing rivalry with communist USSR. At this time, North Vietnam wanted to become a communist country, potentially aligning with the USSR so the United States Government, as a stakeholder thought that it was worth providing some of their troops to stop the spread of communism. However, the United States had a volunteer based military system which did not provide enough soldiers to fill the quotas needed by the ally South vietnam so the USA government needed to reinstate “The Draft”. This meant that all single men in America were at the top of the list to be drafted to be conscripted to go to fight, after them were married men and then married men with children at the bottom of the draw. During this time period a lot of things were going on that opposed the Conscription such as the Anti-War/”Hippie” movement as well as civil rights movements. African American men thought it was wrong that they were not given the same rights as the other men in their country but were expected to go to war and kill for the US government. Therefore they tried to become conscientious objectors. Also many white men objected to the fighting due to the fact that they had just been through a aimless war without gaining anything but casualties and did not understand why their country was involved in another pointless war. To avoid the draft, there were so many quick marriages to get lower on the draft list that in 1965 the stipulations changed and it no longer mattered whether you were married or not. Many men eliminated the risk of being drafted by volunteering to the cause to ensure that they would get a better position. Only some occupations such as a doctor or college student prevented men from being conscripted. So for the average uneducated American, being forced to fight or go to jail were not the two options they wanted to have. From a pool of 3 403 000 eligible men, 2 215 000 were drafted towards the cause. The Vietnam War was a brutal war that no one wanted to fight in due to harsh chemical warfare as well as the atrocities they had to commit and the PTSD soldiers almost always had when they returned. US troops fought for about 12 years and finally withdrew from the war in 1971 without anything to show for it because of cost and mass casualties. Another stakeholder in this event was South Vietnam who, without the help of the US Army would not have been able to protect themselves from communist North Vietnam.

I believe that the use of conscription by the United States in the Vietnam war was an abuse of freedoms and not in the best interest of the US citizen’s safety and security. This is because the US citizens had already just been through wars like the Korean war wherein the United States Citizens had no gain.  People did not understand or agree what they were forced to fight for. The Vietnam War was long and brutal and life changing. People’s sons, husbands, and friends were forced to go to a land and kill people or go to jail. They should not have been forced to fight for something they did not believe in and continue to fight for so many years. 60 000 United States Soldiers died and Vietnam remains a communist country to this day. The US government did not listen to what it people wanted and took advantage of the power they had.

# data[].attributes.headline
Banning of Niqab at citizenship ceremonies

# data[].attributes.subject
Banning of Niqab at citizenship ceremonies

# data[].attributes.body
Wearing the Niqab at the citizenship ceremonies have been at battle since 2011 for muslims who believe in their religion, in the Federal Court reviewings of this issue Judge Keith Boswell says that the government policy violates the Citizenship Act. It states that “citizenship judges must allow the greatest possible religious freedom when administering the oath.” Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says that his government’s Niqab ban were reflected by the views of the "overwhelming majority" of Canadians, including moderate Muslims. Conservative candidate and Defence Minister Jason Kenney says he made the decision to underline the public nature of the oath because the citizenship ceremony defines who Canadians are, “that's why we believe that everyone taking the oath of citizenship, a public act, should do so openly, on equal terms, and without covering their face.” In my point of view I believe if you are becoming a Canadian citizen you must reveal your face and take off your Niqab, you are becoming a Canadian citizen and therefore must make some changes to what you believe in. For example in some parts of the world it is customary for tribes to go naked with only a very small thong worn if even that, as apart of their tradition. It wouldn’t be appropriate for naked people to show up to take their oath of citizenship. Everyone believes in something different and has different values but that doesn't make it right to try and change laws to fit your religion.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/niqab-ruling-federal-court-government-challenge-citizenship-ceremonies-1.3229206

# data[].attributes.body
Picture 1950s America. Quiet and idyllic with girls wearing poodle skirts and boys dressed like greasers. Every teenager was a rebel without a cause. However, the reds were rebels WITH a cause...1950s America was plagued by the constant threats of the Cold War - the 'fight' between the American capitalists and the Russian communists. McCarthyism was created out of fear that there were communists and communist sympathizers living in America! (oh no). Republican senator, Joseph McCarthy, created a "Second Red Scare" to drive the 'enemy within out.' He conducted a witch hunt to find all communists living in the United States from 1950-1956 America and prosecute them through law. Joseph McCarthy lead the crusade against the enemies within America for several years, charging people both within and outside the government with communism, communism sympathies, disloyalty, and homosexuality.

In my opinion, McCarthyism's modern definition says my feelings about the ideology perfectly:

"the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism"

How were they to know if someone was a communist or not? It was 1950s America. It's not like they could hack into their computers and cell phones to see what they were looking up online. These allegations were based purely on suspicions that were most often not rooted in fact. His ideology was a means of pursuing his personal hate agenda, as he not only charged people he suspected of being a communist, he also charged homosexuals as a means of destroying the enemy within.

# data[].attributes.body
The ban of smoking was introduced to protect people from the effects of second-hand smoke. Most countries started implementing smoking bans in the twentieth century indoor most public buildings and services. Smoking is not only a harm to the smokers themselves, but also affects everyone around as they inhale the second-hand smoke. Majority of the population (all non-smokers) would be in support of smoking bans as they would not want to get lung cancer by simply being forced standing next to somebody smoking while waiting for the bus. Smokers would be against smoking bans as it would prohibit them to designated areas and become a nuisance. Research has shown that second-hand smoke causes the exact same problems such as lung cancer, asthma, bronchitis and other diseases. Statistics show that living with a smoker can increase your chances of lung cancer by up to 30%. I personally agree that smoking should be illegal completely, but obviously that would be too much of an outrage to the ones addicted. Smoking bans are fitting and do provide a sense of safety to non-smokers and especially children, as second-hand smoke is dangerous and can pose the same threats.

# data[].attributes.body
Bill 101, or “The Charter of the French Language” was proposed by the Parti Quebecois government, led by Premier René Lévesque and was passed into law on August 26, 1977. Bill 101 was created to make French the commonly used language across all of Quebec. The introduction and passing of Bill 101 brought much conflict between Anglophone and Francophone cultures within Quebec, for it began taking away rights from the english speaking communities. All forms of advertisement, documentation, and conversation must be handled entirely in French due to Bill 101. Someone who would entirely disagree with this Bill would be John Locke, who stated that everyone has a right to their property, including language, and they should never be taken away from you. Anglophone communities within Quebec would also be against this Bill for it takes away their rights for absolutely no reason other than the fact they are a minority, which is not what a democracy is supposed to be. I believe that Bill 101 is a idiotic and pointless law to incorporate into Canada, for it takes away the rights of the people for no purpose other than to promote a culture. The fact that citizens who do not speak french lose their “freedom of speech” makes Bill 101 entirely an Abuse of our Freedoms.

# data[].attributes.body
Once the Germans ended democracy and converted to a one party dictatorship. The Nazis orchestrated a propaganda to win over the rest of the citizens. They  took control of all forms of communication in Germany including newspapers, magazines, books, public meetings, and rallies, art, music, movies, and radio. Viewpoints in any way threatening to Nazi beliefs or to the regime were censored or eliminated from all media. This took place in 1933, the year they also decided to burn all hard copies of media the people were not eligible to read. The media that was allowed was Nazi proofed so it was not in any way, shape or form contradicting to the Nazi belief. Censorship was enforced by a number of methods. First, the secret police or the ‘normal’ police ensured that the rules were kept to. Secondly, anyone who wanted to go outside of the desired party norm faced the most serious of consequences. Third, people in general were expected to report anything unacceptable to their local party chief. Those who knew something but did not report it were deemed as guilty as those who went against the system. Censorship ensured that the Nazis had the German public in their grip as they bombarded them on a daily basis on how their lives had been improved from the day Hitler became Germany’s leader.

Joseph Goebells was the man the was given power to uphold these laws. He received incredible benefits therefore he was happy the situation turned out as it had.

Once war was declared, many of the people may not like the idea of the restriction of the media. It could be a possibility that people wanted to know what was happening outside their empire as well as the nations willing to go up against Hitler The Man.

I personally would not want media censored even if it was to protect my country. My perspective is that this was the abuse of rights and freedoms since people were restricted on what they had access to opposed to others outside of Germany. Aside from all the rights tugged away from the Jews, now the rights of natal citizens were being sacrificed for the utopian goal of Hitler.

# data[].attributes.body
In Russia, homosexuality was seen as criminal offence until 1917, was recriminalized in 1933, and is has now been legal since 1993. Russia has also put an age of consent at the age of 16 as of 2003. Homosexuality was seen and listed as a mental illness in Russia until 1999. To this day ten regions in Russia have banned any from of promotion for homsosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism, as well as groups who hunt down, torture and kill anyone who is, talks about or if they believe to be associated with LGBT rights or actions. In terms of what the population thinks, around 85% of Russian citizens are against gay rights, many of whom feel that they do not belong in society and in some views, do not deserve to live. Another issue facing the LGBT community in Russia is that they cannot start a family. Same sex marriages or civil unions are banned and a child can only be adopted by a single homosexual, and only to heterosexual couples. A few of the groups or people involved in these barbaric and inhumane principles are President Vladimir Putin, a biker group that is associated with him called “Night Wolves” who terrorise the LGBT and hunt them down like animals. I strongly believe against these laws and feel that it the LGBT community should be allowed equal rights without discrimination. There is absolutely no threat to safety and security in Russia and should not be treated like a plague. They are just people.

# data[].attributes.body
Assisted suicide is the act of where a physician aids a person with suicide, commonly known as PAS. They provide the counselling, prescription and the supply of the lethal drugs in order for the person to die, but the physician does not encourage that act to take the drugs. Everything they do is just so that patient can commit suicide by their own choice. There are many names for this situation such as; “aid in dying”, “dying with dignity”, “end-of-life choice”, “right to die”, etc. Many people who choose this are in great pain that they just want it to go away, which follows by ending their lives. This is called ‘euthanasia’, sometimes call ‘mercy killing’. The pain that some patients are in come to this conclusion of death, they look towards this because they believe it is them dying on their own terms. They want to do it, so it is seen to them as a good idea. Physicians are meant to protect and preserve life, so when a patient wishes to die it goes against that oath. Until 1948 the oath was changed to "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life."So that when situations like PAS comes they really can’t turn it down because it is the will of the patient. 77% of Canadians support PAS, they believe that if a person is terminally ill and wants to end their life, they should be allowed to do so. It states in an article of  ‘The Star’ by a French teacher that “it’s my life, it should be my choice.”

PAS should be the choice of the people no matter what anyone else says. If a person is constantly in pain and is terminally ill, lying in a hospital bed just waiting for nature to take its course but the process is to slow. The choice for them to die seems reasonable, the physician isn't the one who is killing you, all they are doing is providing you the knowledge and the drugs in order for you to do what you wish with them.
It is not legal in Canada until February 5, 2016. It is right now seen as an offence under the Criminal Code.

# data[].attributes.body
The Indian Act, first passed in 1876, is the primary document that governs how the Canadian state interacts with all the 614 First Nation Bands within Canada. It lets the Canadian Government control who is defined as an Indian and restricts membership or Indian status. The Indian act is often mistaken for a treaty, but it is actually the government’s response to the treaties. It is a leading cause of discontent among the aboriginal population. The government would be in favor of the Indian Act as it allows them to control who is legally identified as an Indian and who is not. While the First Nations themselves are against it, as it doesn’t provide them with the freedoms they deserve. To me this clearly looks like an abuse of the First Nations freedoms. Although some First Nations agree it is corrupt, they do not want to see something that defines who they are abolished, but would rather it be revised to a point where they have more power over themselves then the Canadian Legislation.

# data[].attributes.body
Winston Churchill served as Prime Minister of Britain from 1940-1945; the bulk of World War II. He incorporated many policies during the war to best serve the people of Britain, despite them infringing on the rights of the people. Some of these policies include the mandatory evacuation of children during the blitz, forced blackouts at night, and all round defiance against Nazism. He undertook actions that would likely be supported by people such as John Locke, due to his recognition towards the importance of rights amongst his citizens, yet also the need to take them away in order to keep the whole safe. Modern democracies would likely disagree with the way Churchill handled these situations, but yet at the same time recognise that they were far from the worst actions that could have been undertaken. I believe that Winston Churchill's actions during WWII were an essential and important part of why Britain never fell to Germany. An example of this would be the forced evacuation of citizens in which nearly1,474,000 people were evacuated. This likely saved more than half of that population from dying during the blitz attacks. Winston Churchill's actions are a much stronger example of Safety and Security rather than Abuse of Freedoms

# data[].attributes.body
When the war ignited in Germany, the only man available to the British Empire was Churchill. Churchill made planning and decision-making - both political and military - simpler and more efficient. Churchill towered above all contemporaries as a statesman of international renown. He was known as the champion of freedom and civilisation, and the victorious leader of the British nation and empire at war. He was also the one that kept the people together in a grievous time. Part of his military strategies was to create blackouts in the big cities so they could not be Nazi aerial targets. He moved the younger generations out into the countryside to preserve the future of the nation.

Churchill’s personality allowed him to get many people on his side and support his hatred for the Deutschmen. He allied with all other nations that thrived from British roots as well as other European powers such as France, Netherlands, Poland and large nations from abroad like China and Brazil. Most of these nations feared that the Nazis had and superior motive of conquering the whole world.

I believe that Churchill’s intentions were pure and led to safety and security. All of the citizens’ rights were returned once the war was over. The blackout evacuations were a very smart tactical way of dealing with the situation. I feel as most people trusted him due to the honors he received for dedication to his natal land.

# data[].attributes.body
For the first two years of war, Canada relied on a voluntary system but in the latter part of World War I, Canada had a great number of casualties on the battlefield. At the time Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden believed in military value and having a strong Canadian contribution to the war and the only way to prevent such atrocities was to institute the conscription system. In 1917 the federal government send out conscriptions young men between the ages of 20 and 45 fulfil military service overseas, 401,882 men were registered.

The action taken by Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden were for the best interest of Canadian citizens. I believe the conscription system was the best way to get soldiers to make sure we didn’t lose the war, Sir Robert Borden was looking out for Canada’s Safety and Security.

# data[].attributes.body
During World War II Hitler and his army would not allow any source of media to be shown to the public if it in any way went against his beliefs or made him and his actions look bad. Hitler controlled the media so it only endorsed him by using propaganda in all forms of media such as newspapers, books, art, music, radio, and rallies. He did this so the people living in Germany would not be aware of the real negative impact his actions were having on the world. Without knowledge of all the negative things Hitler was doing people could not make an informed decision when following him and acting the way Hitler wanted his people to act. The Nazi following in Germany at the time believed this was the best thing for the people, if there was no differing opinions then there would be no conflict just allegiance to Hitler. It was not fair to the people however because they should of had the right to know what was going on in the world and see how their actions and influence was affecting other countries and people. In the spring of 1933 Nazis gathered any and all books they felt the Germans should not be reading. Any book with a Jewish author or any messages or ideas that the Nazi did not like or agree with was burned so that the people could not have an influence other then Hitler and his ideals. I think this intense censorship of media was an abuse of rights towards the German people. They only heard one side which altered their perception of what was happening in their world and were controlled by the media they were allowed to see. This lack of control and awareness of their own opinions was their government abusing their rights to make up their own opinions and ideas. Since the government was spoon feeding the public their ideas the people never had a chance to really understand the magnitude of the events happening around them.

# data[].attributes.body
In 1988, the War Measures Act was replaced by the Emergencies Act due to the many flaws that were found within the way in which emergencies were to be responded to. The War Measures Act had no real way of maintaining the quantity of power that the government could hold over the people once it was given to them, which lead to severe breaches of human rights and freedoms. Although the War Measures act made it so taking away these human rights and freedoms was acceptable in the name of security, often times this was taken advantage of. When the FLQ Crisis erupted in 1970, Pierre Trudeau put the War Measures Act into place and abused it greatly. For starters, the War Measures Act was only supposed to be used in times of War, which was not taking place during the FLQ crisis. He also had citizens incarcerated without tangible sources of evidence, as a whole took away the rights of humans unfairly, and neglected to be consistent in granting back the rights that were taken away once the crisis was over. This was essentially a major event that sparked the idea of replacing the War Measures Act. The Emergencies Act differs from the War Measures act in that there are specified situations and settings in which the Act can only be put into place, a proposal for going into a state of emergency must be reviewed by the Parliament prior, all rights and freedoms taken away from individuals will be tested to see if it is "reasonable and justified" under the first section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and all citizens are entitled to regain all rights taken away once the state of emergency is called off.

After the installation of the Emergencies Act in Canada, the majority of individuals were huge advocates of this new law and it's presidence over the War Measures Act, their main reason being that the new Act protects their rights and freedoms more effectively. As well, many politicians supported the new Act's stronger allegiance to the Charter. However, others felt that it was comparable to "Fighting threat with one hand behind [our] back.", meaning that they need more power to successfully combat the danger causing the state of emergency. Some citizens also disagreed with the Emergencies Act being used as a temporary measure when terrorism has become a social norm.

I believe that the Emergencies Act is a policy that provides safety and security to Canadian citizens and that it has corrected the inadequacy of the War Measures act by eliminating as much freedom abuses as possible. Since 1988, when the new Act was put into place, there have been no recorded crisis's where the ability to take away rights by the government was taken advantage of, as opposed to the numerous accounts of freedom violation prior to the Emergencies act where the War Measures Act was in place. Now, the Act is called into order for the sheer purpose of protecting citizens and only taking away rights if it is in the name of safety and if it is absolutely necessary, and I believe that that is what they are doing due to the lack of any evidence against that.

# data[].attributes.body
A 15 year old boy who was taken away from a safe sanctuary in Canada by his father to fight alongside Taliban forces. During a fire-fight in 2002, he is severely injured. Before he can realize what is happening, he is captured by American troops and declared a terrorist. He ends up being detained at the notorious Guantanamo Bay for over ten years.

At 15 years old, Omar Khadr was being tortured to the point of confessing to have killed an American soldier, Christopher Speer, in an effort to get the abuse to cease. This is the despite the fact that he claims to have no recollection of the fire-fight ever happening. Khadr was taken back to The USA and tried as an adult for his crimes. The reasoning for his adult charge was that his father was closely involved in al-Qaeda and Khadr had personally met Osama bin Laden - briefly five years earlier. Throughout his time at Guantanamo, he was regularly spat it, had his hair torn out, threatened to be sent to 'Egyptian Soldier Number Nine" who would rape him, forced to soil himself, short-shackled, and denied medical treatment (including a surgery that would have saved his eyesight after his eyes were injured in the initial fire-fight). Khadr was tried as an adult in 2005. He was charged with murder by an unprivileged belligerent, attempted murder by an unprivileged belligerent, and aiding the enemy and conspiracy with Usama bin Laden and other members of al-Qaeda. The prosecuter in the case, Morris Davis, extensively referred to Khadr as a terrorist and murder both in court as well as in press conferences.

In my opinion, the treatment of Khadr by the American forces was a barbaric abuse of human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights decrees that every human has the right to be free from torture. However, apparently to the Americans involved in the Khadr case, that right doesn't apply to young child soldiers. American's would never allow an American soldier who killed a Afghan citizen in war to be tried for murder, yet they try a 15 year old boy for several benevolent charges all because they tortured him to the point that he confessed to murder. Torture doesn't bring out the truth. Torture brings out fear. As a youth and a Canadian, Khadr should have in the very least been returned to Canada where he would have been protected by the Young Offender's Act and rehabilitated. He was a child brainwashed by his father, not a mass murderer. Should Ethan Couch, the sixteen year old who was not charged with driving while under the influence, and four accounts of murder because he was affected by 'affluenza', get away with murder in daylight in America, why should Omar Khadr have been threatened with life in Guantanamo for allegedly killing an American soldier while in war - where death is just around the corner at all times? It is gross and inhuman to have treated a fifteen year old as a hardened terrorist, murderer, and war criminal all because of his family ties.

# data[].attributes.body
As of 2014 18.1% of Canadians smoke which is a large number of people to have such a costly habit. Smoking is currently banned in indoor public places and workplaces by the federal government in all provinces. To smoke outside a building the person must be 5 meters away from any windows, doors, or air intakes. People who smoke are more likely to get lung cancer and other respiratory diseases. Second hand smoke affects people by increasing their risk of heart disease by 25-30%. Over 43 trillion cigarettes have been smoked in the last decade which means a large profit for cigarette companies. If there was a ban to limit the use of tobacco products or limit the places and people who have access to them this would diminish the industries profit by a large amount. People who are avid smokers and are no longer aloud to smoke may turn to other more detrimental drugs in place of their usual cigarettes. Out of all deaths caused by cancer 30% are caused by smoking and our of all the lung cancer deaths 87% of those are caused my smoking. With these statistics it is purely for the safety of the people that they ban smoking and discourage it so it affects less peoples health. Treating these diseases and illness costs money so we should do everything we can to limit the number of smoking related deaths as they can be prevented. Smoking also affects those around the smoke and will affect their right to life which is not fair as well as the butts left on the ground can damage the environment or any animals that may eat them. The smoking ban is attempting to help protect the peoples chance to a safe and secrue long life.