The document discusses when and how governments can justifiably reject liberalism and restrict citizens' rights and freedoms in order to preserve democracy during times of crisis. It argues that rights can be suspended temporarily if doing so is necessary to address threats like war, terrorism, or pandemics. However, any restrictions must be limited in scope and duration to actually benefit society and citizens. Long-term or overly broad limitations that undermine democracy should be avoided. Examples from Canada and Germany illustrate how temporary, focused measures can preserve democracy, while open-ended power grabs cannot.

1. qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmRejecting Liberalism in Order to Preserve ItHumanities 30-1Mr. Kabachia6/10/2010Lacey Pilgrim<br />In times of national crisis, there have been occasions where the government suppresses their citizen’s rights and freedoms in order to protect their democratic ways. The question many citizens ask themselves is if the government is making the appropriate decision, and if it is a necessity to protect the democratic system that is such value to them. People need to be willing to sacrifice their rights and freedoms temporarily in order to sustain the principles of liberalism that democracy is based on. In the source, it is stating that rights and freedoms are an essential aspect of democracy, however, in certain times of crisis, these rights and freedoms may have to be temporarily suspended in order to recover and preserve democracy. The keyword that catches my attention is temporary; the source states that this suspension of rights and freedoms must be that of a temporary one in order to appropriately maintain democracy. The different situations the nation faces, the government is faced with a choice to decide to suppress people’s rights are not an easy task, and these situations are those of a breach in national security: war, terrorism, or a pandemic. This must be thought out, considering each consequence of their action, and if it is a necessity in preserving democracy. Suppressing the rights must be beneficial all of the society, and all of the citizens within the democracy. If these conditions are met, then the outcome will resort in the preservation of liberal democracy and the reinstating of the citizen’s individual rights and freedoms. <br />A suitable example of the suppression of citizen’s rights and freedoms in such a way that violates the conditions is the Enabling Act Hitler and the Nazi Party issued in 1933, prior to World War II. This act was initially supposed to be a four-year plan; however soon after it was put into play, Hitler quickly took advantage of it. Hitler opposed any other party from coming into power, making Germany a one-party state. Hitler was now allowed to pass legislation without the approval of the Reichstag- the now powerless group that represented the citizens of Germany. With the loss of power from the citizens, Hitler was now a dictatorship, extending the act past its original four year period. This not only violated the temporary clause, but also demoralized the rights and freedoms of all German citizens, and also gave no rights to the people he claimed to be “undesirable”. This inappropriate use of suppressing the rights and freedoms of the people resulted in a tragic World War. An example of an appropriate occasion where the conditions were followed was the Canadian War Measures Act. The War Measures Act was put into play a three times in the government’s history, and each time was a temporary and necessary suppression of the citizen’s rights, which successfully preserved liberal democracy.<br />The Canadian War Measures Act was an act to enable the government to suppress the rights and freedoms of individuals in order to protect them from potential danger in times of crisis. The third and final time the War Measures Act was invoked was in October 1970, otherwise known as the October Crisis. During the 1960’s the global community underwent considerable political, social, and cultural changes. This occurrence prompted more individualist ideologies, therefore the FLQ (Quebec Liberation Front) spoke out and demanded independence of Quebec. This group felt change was needed in order to protect their language and culture, and also to have equal opportunities for the participation in the economy of Quebec. The FLQ was a group that was willing to resort to terrorism and caught the attention of the public on October 5, 1970. On this day, the group abducted British trades commissioner James Cross, and kidnapped and later murdered Pierre Laporte, a popular Quebec cabinet minister, only five days later. The Canadian government quickly invoked the War Measures Act in order to protect the citizens and preserve the liberal democracy. The actions that were taken by the government succeeded and democracy was maintained, however the government began to realize that this act was too broad for occurrences such as the October Crisis. The government realized that a new plan was a necessity, therefore creating the Emergencies Act. <br />The Emergencies Act was introduced to Canadians shortly after the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was introduced. The government devised a plan to correspond with the articles of the Charter. They created a list of public welfare emergencies that could be a potential high risk; natural catastrophes, pandemic, and accident of pollution resulting in danger or disruption to society. Under this act the government is obligated to specify to which part or parts of the country the emergency procedures apply. These safeguards prevented people from taking advantage of the suppression of the people’s rights and freedoms and at the same time, protecting the citizens from any potential danger. The Emergencies Act follows the conditions and has successfully worked in times of need. The Act is temporary and when the government deems the situation safe for the nation, the act is disabled. <br />The rejection of liberalism can be justified when it is temporary and when it is necessary for a nation to preserve the liberal democracy in a time of national crisis. It should also be rejected in order to sustain a stable democracy, and in this case the people should be willing to temporarily sacrifice their rights in order to do so. In times of crisis, the government should carefully consider which situations they should apply this act towards and if applying this act would benefit all of society and the citizens of liberal democracy. Although the rejection of liberalism is not considered democratic, the only reason for rejecting liberalism should be to sustain liberalism in the future, or when the high-risked situation is deemed safe by the government. Preserving democracy should be the essential focus when temporarily rejecting liberalism. <br />