Essay Sample on War Measures Act

Introduction

The War Measures Act was implored by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in order to deal with the 1970 crisis in Canada. The Act terminated and stopped all the basic civil privileges and liberties. Moreover, the Act gave the police force the rights to carry out searches and initiate arrests in absence of warrants. Also, the time of detention was increased without any available charges and the detainees were prohibited from accessing and getting contact with any lawyer (Clemente, 2008). The Act was a drastic measure by the Prime Minister where 405 people were arrested in the wake of the next morning. The main aim of the implementation of the Act was to counter the security issue that had been presented by the FLQ against the government and their supporters.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Apparently, the War Measures Act was backed by many Canadians who wanted calm in the country. On the other hand, the Act was faulted since it interfered with the civil rights and liberties of the people. However, the Act highly significant as it marked the end of the crisis being faced. A day after the first arrests, the body of the Minister of Labor was found dead in the trunk of the car by the police. As a result, many people who were supporting the radical FLQ condemned their actions and shifted their support to the government. FLQ became weaker and they were soon arrested and peace was restored.

Generally, lack of attention has been claimed to be laying different from speech act theory, post-structuralism, and realism through which the securitization aspect is framed. In this regard, securitization from Copenhagen school is conceptualized as a process where securitizing actors begin securitizing moves through speech acts by bringing a presentation of an issue as one of the existing threats (Aradau,2004). However, it is also identified that the role of the audience is significant for securitizing to be successful to the extent of making security to be intersubjectively constructed.

One of the serious appeals of securitization theory and some of the reason why the theory has been successful is that its usefulness has created a tool for empirical research. However, the development of securitization has to lead to the development of various criticisms, with the most significant relating to the concern of securitization theory (Nyman,2016). Conclusively, an aspect of securitization offers an emancipatory purpose as well as theoretical downfalls. However, the paradigm established fail to tackle the relationship that is existing between IR scholars and securitizing. Notably, securitization paradigm, provide more difficult understanding on the definition of security issues and security by deconstructing some of the traditionalist aspects on matters through considering audience, threat and states as intersubjectively socially constructed structures.

Reference

Aradau, C.2004. Security and the democratic scene: Desecuritization and emancipation. Journal of International Relations and Development, 7(4), 388-413.

Buzan, B., & Hansen, L. 2009. The evolution of international security studies. Cambridge University Press.

Buzan, B., & Waever, O.2009. Macrosecuritisation and security constellations: reconsidering scale in securitization theory. Review of international studies, 35(2), 253-276.

Clement, D.2008. The October Crisis of 1970: Human rights abuses under the war measures act. Journal of Canadian Studies, 42(2), 160-186.

Pelletier, G.1971. The October Crisis. McClelland and Stewart.

Nyman, J.2016. What is the value of security? Contextualising the negative/positive debate. Review of International Studies, 42(5), 821-839.

Waever, O.1989. Security, the speech act: Analysing the politics of a word. In the Research Training Seminar, Sostrup Manor.

Waever, O.1993. Securitization and desecuritization (p. 48). Copenhagen: Centre for Peace and Conflict Research.

Wilkinson, C. 2007. The Copenhagen School on tour in Kyrgyzstan: Is securitization theory useable outside Europe?. Security Dialogue, 38(1), 5-25.

Williams, M. C. 2003. Words, images, Enemies: Securitization and international politics. International studies quarterly, 47(4), 511-531.