Social 30-1 · Related Issue 4
Citizenship and ideology
To what extent should my actions as a citizen be shaped by an ideology? This is the issue that turns the whole course back on you — what you owe, what you are owed, and how far you should go to change things.
Rights and responsibilities
The idea: citizenship is a two-way relationship. The state protects your rights; you take on responsibilities in return. Your ideology shapes which side you emphasize.
| Rights (what citizens are owed) | Responsibilities (what citizens owe) |
|---|---|
| Fundamental freedoms: expression, religion, assembly, association | Obeying the law |
| Democratic rights: voting, running for office | Serving on a jury when called |
| Mobility, legal and equality rights | Paying taxes |
| Language rights in English and French | Staying informed and taking part |
Two views of a good citizen
- Individualist: a good citizen protects their own rights and freedoms, and expects the government to stay out of their way.
- Collectivist: a good citizen has a duty to contribute to the community's well-being, even at some personal cost.
Most real citizens mix both, and that mix is exactly what "to what extent" questions ask you to weigh.
Why turnout matters
Governments tend to respond to the people who elect them. When young people vote less, their priorities can be underrepresented, which weakens the idea of government by all the people.
Ways citizens act
The idea: there is a range of ways to push for change, from voting to breaking the law on purpose. Knowing where an action sits on that range is half the question.
- Lobbying: directly persuading decision-makers, such as writing to or meeting an elected representative.
- Boycott: refusing to buy from a company or country to pressure it.
- Online activism: can organize real movements, but critics call low-effort sharing "slacktivism" when it replaces action.
Civil disobedience
The idea: deliberately and peacefully breaking a law you believe is unjust — openly, and accepting the consequences to show that the law is wrong.
| Who | What |
|---|---|
| Henry David Thoreau (1849) | Refused to pay a tax that supported slavery and war; wrote the essay "Civil Disobedience" |
| Mohandas Gandhi (1930) | Led the Salt March to make salt in defiance of British salt laws in India |
| Rosa Parks (1955) | Refused to give up her bus seat under segregation laws in Montgomery, Alabama |
| Martin Luther King Jr. (1963) | Jailed for protesting segregation; argued in his Letter from Birmingham Jail that there is a moral duty to disobey unjust laws |
Is it justified in a democracy?
- For: democracies still pass unjust laws, and the majority can override minorities. Peaceful disobedience has ended real injustices.
- Against: if everyone breaks the laws they dislike, the rule of law collapses. Democracies offer legal routes — courts, elections, protest.
Watch out: calling every protest civil disobedience. A permitted march is lawful protest. Only breaking a law, openly and peacefully, counts.
Citizenship issues in Canada
The idea: many Canadian citizenship debates come down to collective identity against individual rights — especially for Indigenous peoples and Quebec.
| Case | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Persons Case (1929) | Alberta's Famous Five won recognition that women were legally "persons" and could sit in the Senate |
| Bill 101 (1977) | Made French Quebec's official language, protecting a collective identity by limiting some individual language choices |
| Quebec referendums (1980, 1995) | Both rejected sovereignty; 1995 was lost by a margin of about one percentage point |
| Nunavut (1999) | A territory created from the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, with an Inuit majority |
| Nisga'a Final Agreement (2000) | British Columbia's first modern treaty, including Nisga'a self-government |
| Idle No More (2012–) | An Indigenous-led grassroots movement for Indigenous rights, sovereignty and protection of land and water |
Protecting minorities from the majority
If a popular law restricts a minority's rights, a citizen guided by liberal principles would challenge it in court under the Charter — because rights exist precisely to protect people from what the majority wants. Mill warned about this "tyranny of the majority".
Watch out: treating collective rights and individual rights as simply good or bad. The exam wants you to explain the tension between them and take a reasoned position.