# data[].attributes.body
9/11 in many ways pushed the would in a new direction. This direction involved lots of money, resources, and most importantly a shift in how we see our freedom compared to our security. After a “terrorist attack” of this scale took so many lives the government decided to buckle down on security in america. Improved border security, fighting terror, and passing an act of anti-terrorism that all greatly reduced people's freedoms. However one of the most conflicted pieces of legislation the government passed was the no-fly list. This list does what is sounds like it would do and bans select personnel from being allowed to fly US airlines. The list contains more than 21,000 names. The no fly list is different than the terrorist watch list however which contains more than 875,000 names. Which leads us to a conclusion that the no fly list isn't used to combat terrorism like is was made to. Instead it suppresses the rights of registered (or suspected) sex offenders and drug traffickers. Because of this the no fly list has come under fire from civil rights activists as it appears to be used as an excuse to get away with the mistreatment of people's rights. It has also been suspected of potential abuse for ethnic, religious, economic, political, and racial groups. In my opinion the no fly list has abused its power and should be republished as a new more relevant bill as it is obviously not not being used for its intended purpose anymore. To keep this list is to act as a threat on your own people to incorrectly labeled a terrorist. Its another piece of propaganda to let the government tell you what to do because of the threat of terror. With all the safety measures now in place to prevent enemies of peace from boarding are airlines the no fly list is a glass cannon. With over 40X the amount of names on the terrorist watch list then that are on the no fly list this legislation is too easy to doge. If the list isn’t updated and reinforced to protect the people then there is no use for it and is just taking up space so there is less room for our freedoms

# data[].attributes.body
Quebec Bill 101 is also called the Charter of the French Language, passed August 26, 1977 in Quebec. Quebec goes from a bilingual province to a unilingual French speaking province. The Bill gives more French speaking families a chance to stay the same, and not having others choose what language that they have to speak.  French is now the official language of the government and courts within the province of Quebec.  The Anglophones felt uncomfortable and unwanted, many Anglophones fled the province. They were unhappy with the change. However, the Francophones were the minority and were not receiving the same rights as the Anglophones. Francophones protested to gain more rights and to be equal. Education was the major conflict,  there were hardly any French speaking schools that French students could attend. The Quebec Bill is liberal for the reason that they are making new changes that affect a lot of individuals in a positive way. I believe that it is a great change for Canada considering that we have many citizens that speak French. Everyone deserves the right to speak and to have education in their language. It gives individuals an opportunity to express their true identity. As well as that Canada is a civil country for the fact that we have many cultures and two official languages.  Restaurant owners now have menus in French, and people that drive, all signs are now French. It benefits people for the fact that individuals can now read menus, road signs, advertisements as examples. Therefore it is a positive change for our country.

# data[].attributes.body
“The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit.” - Martin Luther King, Jr.

The United States of America used the draft lottery during the Vietnam War to fill vacancies in the armed forces by drafting men ages 19 - 25. It was done by randomly picking numbers from 1 - 366 which corresponds to a person’s birthday, and all men within the said age that shares the same picked out birthday was called to serve in the military. Patriotic people would completely be fine with the idea of conscription as it would really help their country’s armed forces in wars. On the other hand, young educated adults would be a group that would go against it as it infringe on the rights of the people and because a lot of the people who are forced to serve has other plans with their life and serving for a couple of years would delay their pursuit of it.

In my opinion, conscription is something that is unnecessary especially if your country decided to be involved in a war they’re not needed in. Vietnam War is pretty much just a battle between the ideas of communism and democracy, in a way it is part of the Cold War, a battle between the ideals of the USSR and the US. Conscripting people to fight for you in a battle you shouldn’t be in at the first place is simply unjust and it violates those people’s human rights. The Vietnam War costed the US a lot, by November 1967, 15,058 were killed and 109,527 were wounded which came in with the $25 billion expenses per year. It is also important to take note that majority of the people sent were poor and were part of the minorities. Conscription is sometimes justifiable when done right at the right situation but the Vietnam War is not one of those.

# data[].attributes.body
The Indian Act was a way for the government to subjugate the indigenous people that lived in Canada from 1876 until late 1900s.  Although in the present, it has had these discriminatory regulations removed.  This act has restricted aboriginal cultural practices, introduced residential schools, created reserves, denied voting rights in political system and etc. in the past.  It has restricted cultural practices through laws such as the Potlatch Ban enacted in 1855 to 1951.  This ban prevents indigenous people of the northwest coast from holding a ceremonial feast in their culture.  It also created reserves for indigenous people to live on but with this came residential schools where their children would be forcefully sent to and assimilated in the mainstream society which was Euro-Canadian at the time.  At these schools, indigenous children would become educated and converted through the segregation of the children isolated in a Euro-Canadian environment and their culture which only their parents can pass down in this case of assimilation.  It also prevent indigenous people from voting unless they gave up their Indian status meaning they loss all the benefits that came with being a status ‘Indian’.  The Euro-Canadian Population at the time would support this as it would still be coming out of their taxes to pay for their benefits.

I believe that this was an illiberal act as it unreasonably restricted their right of expression to the point of isolation between parents and children.  A restriction that was unjust was the Potlatch Ban (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/potlatch/) which was to prevent a ceremonial feast on the northwest coast primarily.  At these Potlatches, functioned to bestow status or rank upon someone.  This kind of ceremony could not do harm to anyone.  There is also the goal of the Indian act which was assimilation.  Through these reasons, I believe that the Indian Act was an abuse of our freedoms.

# data[].attributes.body
“Russia needs to cleanse itself of
homosexuality if it wants to
increase its birth rate” – Vladimir Putin

In Russian on June 11, 2013 the Russian gay propaganda law and anti gay law were  unanimously approved by the State Duma. Was then  later signed by President Putin on June 30, 2013. This law allows for discrimination towards the LGBT community. The law was created and passed to protect children from recognizing homosexuality as the norm in society. The distribution of non traditional sexual relationships to children punishable by fine. People who would support this law would be very traditional people. They would agree with it because they believe that marriage is and should be between a man and a woman. A person who disagrees with this law is someone who thinks that any person should be free to live their life with their own beliefs and ways. I agree with the law but it does infringe upon many peoples rights. I do also agree with the traditional point of view how being gay almost seems unnatural and does seem to becoming the norm.

# data[].attributes.body
"I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and I build them very inexpensively." "I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall." - Donald Trump

On June 16th 2015, Donald Trump announced his candidacy as well as his end goal of building an impenetrable wall between the USA and Mexico.  The idea behind this, is based upon immigration controls, to increase wages and offer jobs to American citizens first. Trump said he wants to protect the economic well being of immigrants already living in the United States by inhibiting uncontrolled foreign work admissions. Donald Trump’s most crucial immigration laws he would like to implement as President are:  enforcing the immigration laws of the United States and reinstate the entrenched rule of law with which America’s prosperity and security depend. Choose immigrants based on their success in the United States and their capability to be financially stable.  Lastly, screen applicants to ensure they support America’s values, and temporarily suspend immigration from areas that encourage terrorism, and where safe screening can’t immediately be protected.  Consequently, not only did Trump say this wall with cost between 8 billion and 12 billion dollars, but has assured the public that United States will not be paying for this, but Mexico. To which Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto responded with “No way”.  Groups or individuals that stand for Trump’s wall are the republicans of the United States, especially those who hold traditional values and believe that the illegal immigration is only harming Americans by taking away jobs that citizens of the United States should be entitled to. Along with Republican Americans, conservative parties such as American Freedom Party and the Conservative Party of New York State agree with these goals, simply because their economic and political views of immigration fall into line with those of Trump.

In my opinion the views that Donald Trump has towards immigration policy are unrealistic and borderline racist. The ramifications go beyond affecting just Mexican citizens, but affect the wildlife and environment in and around the area as well. Thousands of habitats will be destroyed in the process just to establish a boundary for the prevention of illegal immigration. Trump claims that he is doing this for the safety and security for the millions of Americans, but in all reality deems undocumented immigrants as “unlawful amnesties”. Another point to justify my reasoning is the ridiculous amount of money it will cost. Instead you could use that money to implement positive change, such as building schools, installing renewable energy, or using that money to send veterans to college/university. This wall will deplete the critical relationship with Mexico as allies, ultimately ruining trade and national security aspirations. The wall that Donald Trump seeks to construct if elected is that of an illiberal action, and only outrage and negative repercussions will follow.

# data[].attributes.body
Winston Churchill was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1940-1945. Churchill, throughout his life, was experienced in both military and politics. It was because of this that he was appointed to be Prime Minister in Britain’s state of emergency. He led the British resistance against Hitler during WW2, and continued to do so until the Nazis were defeated. His actions during the war were key in the survival of the British Empire, but many of them involved illiberal acts. For example, during the war, Churchill imposed a curfew on the British people and said that all citizens must have blackout curtains drawn during the night. This restricted their freedoms, but it ensured that German pilots wouldn’t know where populated areas and homes were when they attacked during the night. The implementation of a blackout undoubtedly saved thousands of lives during the war. Despite enacting restrictions, Churchill was still considered an ‘empathically democratic’ leader. In other words, in order to get through war, he did restrict the rights and freedoms of his people, but he tried his best to do so within reason.

I believe that Churchill’s actions during the war were completely justifiable. In such times of emergency, the people must have someone to unify around and to believe in, and Churchill was exactly that. He gave rousing speeches and inspired the people to stay strong during the war. He made them understand that restricting rights and freedoms are essential for the British resistance. The majority of citizens were in full support of Churchill. In fact, public opinion polls show that never less than 78% of citizens said that they approved of Churchill as minister. This in itself shows that Churchill’s actions were not an abuse of the people’s freedoms, but instead, a pivotal part of the safety and security of the British Empire. Those against Churchill’s policies were, of course, the Germans who were eventually defeated by the allies.

# data[].attributes.body
Due to the widespread issue that is distracted driving, all provinces and territories (excluding Nunavut) have some form of legislation/ law in place to punish those that drive distractedly. Newfoundland and Labrador was the first province to issue a distracted driving law in the year 2003. Other provinces followed this trend, starting with New Brunswick and Yukon in 2011, and ending with British Colombia adopting the law in June of 2016. To drive distracted means to have your attention occupied by something other than the task that is driving. Distractors include using your phone to talk/ communicate, play games, watch videos; looking after your children, eating/ drinking, smoking, and reading. If one is doing these things, it can take their attention away from their primary goal, which is driving/ paying attention to the road around them. Fines can range from $80 to $1200 depending on the amount of times you were caught driving distractedly. This law was put in place to prevent avoidable collisions, accidents, injuries and fatalities. Over a period of time, it was the majority of Canada that put these laws in place. These distracted driving laws vary from province to province as the amount of demerits given and the fine issued change in amount.

Those that support these laws are individuals that wish to drive in a safe environment. PADD (People against Distracted Driving) is a prominent group that supports these laws. Their reason being the need to prevent the loss of life that would heavily impact families and friends. Another Group, Mothers against Drunk/ Distracted Driving support these laws due to similarly mentioned reasons.

In one's opinion, it is a brilliant idea to have these laws in place. While it may put a limit on our freedoms, it ultimately keeps our safety in mind. Everyone is entitled to their own actions until they either directly or indirectly cause harm to another. If these laws weren’t in place, potential threats would go unchecked/ unpunished. According to the statistics on CAA Distracted Driving, 80% of collisions and 65% of near crashes are due to some form of distractor. Well over half of theses instances are caused by a distracted driver. The distracted driving laws are put in place to limit the amount of people toying with others’ lives.

# data[].attributes.body
In the 1950’s the US was going through a period in which they referred to as the red scare. The red scare was a time in which fear of communism and the soviet union over powered Americans. This fear influenced everything from their actions to the media that was broadcasted. Joseph McCarthy created a movement to protect Americans from communist and the soviet. This movement was the anyone that was suspected of supporting communist or the soviet could be accused without facts or evidence to support the accusation made. These false accusations would have horrible effects on citizens. These effects included how their peers viewed them, being able to get a job, losing their businesses, and how they were treated. The red scare was started because of the hydrogen bomb the was dropped in Japan and all the repercussions that followed because of that. After the idea of this mass destruction bomb was noticed in created an arms race of countries. This produced arms deals, treason, espionage, and conflict between the US and Soviet. The US government gave its citizens the idea that the Soviet was going to attack them and the communis was going to take control of America. In my perspective McCarthyism was a violation of the citizens rights and freedoms. The concept of McCarthyism treats citizens with unfair just cause and violates the individual's right to be presumed innocent before proven guilty. Also in some cases it falsely accuses people causing negative impacts. Also conformation that would support my idea is the American senate in 1954. The members found McCarthy guilty for unjust accusation and rebuked his position as a republican senator. Karl Marx is an example of someone who would disagree with McCarthyism. Marx was the creator of communism so people going against and punishing others for supporting communism would be denying all of Karl Marx’s ideals. An individual that would support Joseph McCarthy is someone who shares the ideals that people's rights need to be limited in order to protect the public.

# data[].attributes.body
In 1917, the Canadian federal government made the vicious choice to conscript young males into an oversea firefight since volunteer service was failing to maintain troop numbers. Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden, firm believer of military value, was the one who called the shots. Borden was a firm believer in Canadian contribution to the war and was looking for an improved post-war influence for Canadians, meaning they were aiming for a strong and independent persona away from Britain's shadow. English-speaking Canadians, led by the Prime Minister and senior members of his Cabinet, as well as British immigrants, the families of soldiers, and older Canadians, generally supported it. This implies that the supporters felt a strong connection to their homeland or a dedication to their Prime Minister.

The conscription debate reigned terror through most of 1917 and into 1918. It was named the Military Service Act, and it worked its way through Parliament during the summer to be passed in late August. It made all male citizens between the ages of 20 and 45 subject to military service, if called for, for the duration of the war.

French-Canadians wanting language education rights, farmers wanting agriculture freedoms, unionized workers, non-British immigrants, and most Canadian citizens, generally opposed this act. This debate caused other public debates to arise such as religion and the political rights of women and immigrants.

Again in 1939 Prime Minister Mackenzie King, aware of the opposition of French-speaking Quebec to conscription in WWI, promised that there would be no conscription. By mid-1940, there was enormous pressure from English Canada for the increase of soldier numbers. King introduced the National Resources Mobilization Act (NRMA), which called for a national registration of eligible men and authorized conscription to defend Canada. From April 1941 the young men called up were required to serve for the rest of the war in Canada on 'home defence duties'.

With the entry of Japan into the war in December 1941 came further demands for overseas conscription. In April 1942, King asked Canadians to release him from his 1939 promise of no conscription. Overall, the "Yes's" won, with 64%, but 73% of French Canadians voted against, as well as non-English-Canadians were also opposed. The NRMA was amended to allow conscription for overseas service, but for now King went no further because there were sufficient volunteers still available.

Fighting in Normandy after D-Day led to high casualty rates among the infantry. The Minister of National Defence, was convinced that it was essential to send conscripts overseas as reinforcements. When his Cabinet colleagues couldn't agree, King forced him to resign and turned to General McNaughton as the new Minister in his last effort to avoid conscription. But McNaughton too, despite his great effort he was also unable to find enough NRMA men willing to volunteer. On November 22, 1944, King was forced to revoke his promise and order conscripts overseas.

Conscription during time of war is a decision to be made by people in power to protect their nation and it's allies to prevent a war entering their homeland by having no 'home defence'.

# data[].attributes.body
“Omar Khadr has problems with arthritis in his knees. So they sit him on a stool so he has to bend his knees. “Anything that makes you uncomfortable, Guantanamo Bay will come up with it. … They keep the place freezing. Omar Khadr reminded me of a broken little bird. … When I see Omar on July 3, he will be on a chair. Things have become much more humanitarian at Guantanamo, he gets a chair. And he is always, always chained from the waist to the floor. I have never seen him walk other than the few occasions that we’ve been in court. In all those years, I have never seen him walk. He has fought for close to eight years to get a pair of protective glasses to preserve the amount of sight remaining in Omar’s one eye with vision. He received them in November of last year. That is the extent of the help Omar has received from the Canadian government, they can’t even get him a pair of glasses.” – Dennis Edney, Omar Khadr’s Lawyer speaks on Fear, Injustice and his Guantanamo visits

Omar Khadr, a 15 year old child soldier was interrogated and accused  for throwing a grenade that resulted in killing an American soldier. He continued to be tortured and abused to the point where he confessed to killing this soldier even though he had no memory of the fire flight as he was severely wounded. It was first thought that Khadr was tried as an adult by the U.S government for war crimes and killing the American soldier,  but the Canadian government stated that if he would of been charged as an adult he would of been given a life sentence not 8 years. He pleaded guilty to attempted murder in violation of the law of war, spying on the U.S. forces, providing material that would support terrorism and conspiring with al Qaeda. Omar forcefully admitted to killing the soldier because of the fear of being sent back to Guantanamo Bay as he was tortured, threatened, and mistreated daily. Throughout his trial, he was continuously called a terrorist and a murderer to the press as well as in court. Omar Khadr's case would go against the Universal Declaration of Rights as human is entitled their own rights. With the torture Omar experienced, his human rights were not followed. A group that supported Omar is the King's University in Edmonton. They supported him with long distance curriculums for him to follow and began to tutor him. After he was in Edmonton, they tutored him personally and offered him a placement after he was released from prison. This university has helped him become educated after the abuse he went through.

In my opinion, Omar Khadr was not treated properly by the american soldiers due to the killing of Christopher Speer. As Omar was continuously tortured, it went against the Universal declaration of rights. Every person is entitled to their own rights no matter what their race, culture, or ethnicity is. No human deserves to be tortured to the point of admitting to killing another soldier. Through the fear, torture, and disrespect that Omar received, the audacity of government to purposely hurt a young boy with absolutely no evidence put them in the wrong. No 15 year old child, should ever be mistreated the way Omar was in America. If he was in Canada, he would have been given different options to uphold his punishments. No child should be forced to be a child soldier and be a person they don't want to be because of the influences of their parents. I find it terrible that one child had to go through this and experience this at such a young age let alone ever.

# data[].attributes.body
"We’re working with advocates to protect victims of domestic abuse from gun violence, when too often, people are not getting the protection that they need." -Barack Obama

In the United States, individuals who posses firearms must follow and practice the gun laws that are set in the state they live in.  Some states have different laws, which allow the bearing of firearms at all times. Gun laws are based on the states jurisdiction and restrictions. A very limited amount of states require registration or a license for the purchase of a firearm. This allows for ultimate protection for citizens. As the rest of the states that do not regulate the purchasing of firearms, allows for citizens to carry an unconcealed weapon on themselves or have with them at all time. In June 2016, a 29 year old security guard deliberately murdered 49 people, and wounded 59 in a hate crime inside a gay night club in Orlando, Florida. After this tragic event many people saw that gun laws needed to be re looked at. People saw the regulations as a means as an "easier way to commit a crime". After the gun regulations were questioned by the government. Conflict broke out about human rights being abused or taken away, which guns allowed citizens to feel a sense of safety and security being brought into their own hands. Many citizens also felt that their safety and security was at risk, but unauthorized individuals were allowed to purchase and bear firearms without any question.  Obama was questioned about the regulation of gun control 11 days before the shooting in Orlando. “This massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or in a house of worship, or a movie theater, or in a nightclub.” he begin to say, "there is a way to have common sense gun laws, there is a way for us to make sure that lawful, responsible gun owners like yourselves for sporting and hunting, protecting yourself. But the only way we are going to do that is if we don have a situation in anything that is proposed is viewed as some tyrannical destruction of the second amendment" Barack Obama continued to protest the gun control as this marks the 15th time since the Orlando shooting, that gun regulations have been brought up, he decided it was time for a change. On the opposing view, citizens would wouldn't support the change would argue the means of not being safe, and ultimately being a target. Citizens support having guns whenever they would like due to the events and terrors that the US has developed over time. Its safety for themselves, and they wont have to rely on the cops.

In my opinion, States that fail to uphold gun laws and regulations should reestablish new gun laws that provide the safety and security for citizens without taking away the human rights that individuals are entitled to. Citizens need to put their trust into their local police and armed forces to keep them safe at all times.  The limitation of gun rights is justifiable due to the safety and security of citizens being put at risk. Guns should be banned from private ownership, this makes accomplishing crimes more difficult to achieve.  Based on all shootings in the United States 13,286 people have been killed in the US by a firearm in 2015, and 26,819 were injured. This just proves of the regulations and gun laws that should be strictly in place to protect the lives of citizens.