Limiting individual freedoms in Canada today is necessary in order for Canadians to remain safe from terrorism
The limitations of individual freedoms in present-day Canada are not necessary for protecting its citizens from terrorism since the threat is of external nature. It is primarily posed by the violence of Islamist extremist groups on the territory of the country rather than the actions of its population as such. Therefore, in order to adequately address the threat, it is feasible to take measures to timely detect and prevent it. For example, investigations and intelligence operations should be continuously reassessed and readjusted in accordance with the change in this regard. This method seems more efficient than limiting individual freedoms.
In addition, the intention to take action against Canadian people might evoke concerns regarding their basic rights as citizens. In this case, such an approach can be viewed as a mere violation of corresponding legal provisions. The affected persons might feel that the government does not make any attempts to protect their interests. This outcome can be complemented by the fact that the source of the threat will be completely neglected. Thus, it is better to focus on the potentially dangerous groups rather than civilians.
Is it true that if living in Canada, a person would have enjoyed peace and prosperity since the early twentieth century (1900s)?
In the early twentieth century, life in Canada started to change rapidly due to the shift in the country’s economy. One of the principal circumstances, which defined the transformation of the field, was the transition from agriculture to industry (“A demand for change,” n.d.). Its outcomes were beneficial on a global scale; however, the impact of this process on citizens was not positive. The ongoing urbanization of the population adversely affected the well-being of farmers (“A demand for change,” n.d.). The described events posed a threat to their prosperity as such, and their situation could not be viewed as favorable.
Two other factors contradicting the claim that one could enjoy peace and prosperity since the early twentieth century are poverty and working conditions. The former was explained by the lack of legal protections of poor citizens and bad living standards due to the migration of people from agricultural areas (“A demand for change,” n.d.). In turn, the latter included the common practice of child labor, low wages of both children and adults, and exploitation in the workplace (“A demand for change,” n.d.). Therefore, living in Canada in the 1900s would not be a positive experience from the point of view of people’s well-being.
Is it true that since Confederation, Canada has been defined more by compromise, rather than conflict?
Since Confederation, Canada has been defined more by compromise rather than conflict because it was essential for the country’s unity. First, the lack of centralization of the colonies of the time could have prevented the coordination of the region’s conducted policy. In combination with cultural difficulties, it led to the need to find a peaceful way to resolve disagreements, which was beneficial for the prosperity of Canadians in the long run.
Second, the creation of the Dominion of Canada was also conditional upon a series of negotiations and conferences. Due to the initial attempts to come to an agreement, the following development of the country cannot be described as the resolution of issues through conflicts. These events implied the acceptance of the need to act together and, consequently, indicated the necessity to discuss matters instead of developing confrontation.
Third, the external reasons for finding a compromise were sufficient for avoiding conflicts on the Canadian territory. At the time of Confederation, the most significant problems were a threat to its economy and the well-being of citizens due to the possibility of interference of the United States and complications in trade (“A demand for change,” n.d.). Considering the continuous expansion, the peaceful way of managing issues among the regions was feasible.
Reference
A demand for change. (n.d.). CBC Learning. Web.