Charter Issue
According to Richmond (2022), those who took part in the convoy had the freedom of peaceful assembly and free expression. But their automobiles do not have freedoms. These freedoms do not permit Canadian citizens to illegitimately occupy and hold the city under siege for more than twenty-one days. They are also not allowed to park heavy vehicles, propane, and fuel in dense residential areas and next to the buildings of the government, whilst law enforcement officers tell the citizens they can’t remove them from fear of demonstrating and violence. Lastly, Richmond (2022) explains that the demonstrators are not allowed to blockage Canada’s intercontinental borders and interrupt trade for prolonged periods till their demands are met. The central issue is thus whether a national-scale emergency significantly threatened the state’s primary rules.
This is because the Canadian Charter of Freedoms and Rights is to strike a balance between collective interests and individual freedoms. According to Richmond (2022), it is not open for Canadian citizens to do whatever they want. Their rights are subject to reasonable limitations as long as such limitations are proportional and necessary. As such, they can’t supersede other people’s constitutional rights, including the rights of Ottawa residents to equal protection, security, and benefit of the law and individual liberty (Epp, 1996). All those protections were debatably invaded by the predicament and provincial and local authorities’ initial lack of satisfactory rejoinder.
Impact of the Government Legislation, on the Charter Section
In response, Richmond (2022) states that the federal government briefly prompted the Emergencies Act for the first time because it replaced the 1988 warfare measures Act. This drastic decision mirrored crisis manifestations of the crisis across the nation and the regions’ apparent unwillingness and incapability to solve the circumstance with prevailing laws (Richmond, 2022). Both history and law support the supplication. As the Emergency Act preamble makes it clear, the security and safety of the citizens, the preservation of security, sovereignty as well as territorial integrity, and protection of body politics of the nation are basic duties of government.
Richmond (2022) explains that if meeting these duties was utterly threatened by national emergencies, the government ought to have been sanctioned, subject to the Parliament’s supervision, to take special provisional measures to measure to make sure security and safety is guaranteed. There is adequate evidence publicly available that the national government had justifiable bases to construe that they were. Whereas meeting either description would be sufficient, both were debatably fulfilled (Richmond, 2022). Since the legislation had not been utilized beforehand the crisis of convoy, it is not clear how the courts shall construe its requirements.
Unlike other peace emergencies, the government desisted from organizing its militaries to bring back order during the truck drivers’ remonstration, despite calls from numerous upset Canadians to do that (Epp, 1996).
Agreement with the Current State of The Law Described in The Article
I agree with the current state of law described in the article. According to international and Canadian law, the rights to passive remonstration as well as freedom of expression can momentarily be constrained or even postponed during the moments of declared public emergency. Therefore, the main issue is certainly whether the demonstrations constituted an emergency. With local law enforcement officers not able to maintain the rule of law and restore order, Ottawa city and Ontario province declared a state of emergency at that moment (Richmond, 2022). Ottawa police chief and politicians are justified to seek police reinforcement and federal assistance.
The situation is considered to have been worse because the police officers were unable to contain despite using the right means. Thus, the government could call for reinforcement to alleviate the situation. In other words, if national emergencies utterly threatened city peace, the government ought to have been sanctioned, subject to the Parliament’s supervision, to take special provisional measures to measure to make sure security and safety are restored (Richmond, 2022).
Future Legal Recommendations
The Canadian Charter of Freedoms and Rights guarantees the freedom and rights stipulated in subject to justifiable limitations prescribed by law as can be justified in a democratic and free society. All citizens in Canada are free to associate peacefully with others (Justice Law Website, 1982). Freedom of association and expression are basic rights that form the base of any democratic society. They are at the heart of a free and active civilized community, and they permit the citizens to engage in matters affecting them. However, materially grave injustices garnered less police tolerance and public sympathy (Justice Law Website, 1982). Most excellent legal clarity is needed in the future to clarify these duties and rights.
In the future, citizens should be allowed to express themselves as part of a collective, comprising participating in public demonstrations, pickets, and marches (Morton, 1987). Assemblies should be legal platforms that citizens can advocate for their grievances and change in order to raise awareness regarding issues that affect them. Such assemblies should mostly have symbolic significance like commemorating specific events or making substantial anniversaries.
The government has to ensure that rights and freedoms of assembly are safeguarded, comprising people who coalesce to protest against government policies to challenge the state. The government should thus avoid interfering with the right to peaceful assembly just because it does not agree with protesters’ views and should make sure that requests are enjoyed without any form of discrimination (La Forest, 1983).
References
Justice Law Website. (1982). Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Retrieved from Government of Canada: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page 12.html#:~:text=1%20The%20Canadian%20Charter%20of,a%20free%20and%20democratic%20society.
Epp, C. R. (1996). Do bills of rights matter? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. American Political Science Review, 90(4), 765-779.
La Forest, G. V. (1983). The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: An Overview. Can. B. Rev., 61, 19.
Morton, F. L. (1987). The political impact of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 20(1), 31-55.
Richmond, S. (2022). What every Canadian should remember about the ‘freedom convoy’ crisis. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/what-every-canadian-should-remember-about-the-freedom-convoy-crisis-178296
write