Social 30-1 · Related Issue 3
Is liberalism viable?
To what extent are the principles of liberalism viable? This issue tests liberalism under pressure — the moments when liberal democracies, including Canada, set their own principles aside.
What makes something illiberal
The idea: an illiberal action restricts the rights and freedoms liberalism is supposed to protect — and the uncomfortable part is that liberal democracies do it too.
The usual trigger is a perceived threat: war, terrorism, unrest, a public-health emergency. A government argues that protecting the country requires limiting some rights for a while. The central tension of this issue is security against liberty.
Illiberal measures tend to look like: detention without charge, restrictions on assembly or expression, expanded surveillance, or treating a group differently because of who they are rather than what they have done.
A modern example beyond Canada is the USA PATRIOT Act (2001), passed after the September 11 attacks, which expanded surveillance and detention powers.
Canadian cases
The idea: Canada has a long record of illiberal actions, often followed years later by an apology or redress. Know the case, the principle it violated, and how it was answered.
| Case | What happened | Later response |
|---|---|---|
| Chinese Head Tax (1885) | A fee charged only to Chinese immigrants | Federal apology, 2006 |
| WWI internment (1914–1920) | Thousands of "enemy aliens," many Ukrainian Canadians, interned under the War Measures Act | Later formally recognized |
| Japanese Canadian internment (from 1942) | Over 20 000 people removed from the B.C. coast; property seized and sold | Redress Agreement, 1988 |
| Residential schools | Indigenous children removed from families; languages and cultures suppressed | Federal apology, 2008 |
| October Crisis (1970) | War Measures Act invoked after FLQ kidnappings; hundreds arrested without charge | Replaced by the Emergencies Act, 1988 |
| Convoy protests (2022) | Emergencies Act invoked for the first time | Reviewed by a public inquiry |
Using a case as evidence
Not a single Japanese Canadian was charged with an act of disloyalty during the Second World War. That one fact makes internment powerful evidence: rights were removed because of ancestry, not because of any proven threat — which undercuts the claim that it made the country safer.
Watch out: mixing up the two acts. The War Measures Act was used in both World Wars and in 1970. The Emergencies Act replaced it in 1988 and was first used in 2022.
Rights and their limits
The idea: the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) protects rights, but it also builds in two ways to limit them.
| Section | What it does |
|---|---|
| Section 1 reasonable limits | Rights are guaranteed subject to reasonable limits, prescribed by law, that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Courts decide whether a limit passes. |
| Section 33 notwithstanding clause | A government can pass a law that overrides fundamental freedoms, legal rights or equality rights. It expires after five years unless renewed. Democratic and language rights cannot be overridden. |
Limiting a right to protect others
Hate speech laws limit freedom of expression. Liberals can still defend them using Mill's harm principle: freedom stops where it harms others. Liberal democracies constantly balance one person's rights against another's — no right is treated as absolute.
Watch out: saying the notwithstanding clause lets governments ignore the whole Charter permanently. It covers only certain sections, and only for five years at a time.
Making the argument
The idea: "to what extent" never wants a yes or no. It wants a position, the strongest evidence for it, and an honest answer to the other side.
| Liberalism is viable | Liberalism is struggling |
|---|---|
| Liberal democracies admit mistakes and offer redress — the 1988 agreement, the 2006 and 2008 apologies | Those same democracies repeatedly abandoned rights under pressure |
| The Charter and courts now limit government power far more than in 1942 or 1970 | The notwithstanding clause still lets governments override rights |
| Rights are balanced, not abandoned — reasonable limits have to be justified | Problems like climate change need collective action that individual freedom resists |
| People around the world keep choosing liberal democracy | Illiberal governments have gained ground in many countries |
The strongest liberal objection to emergency powers
Rights exist to protect individuals from the state — so they matter most exactly when a government feels justified in removing them. If rights disappear whenever a government is under pressure, they only protect people when nobody needs protecting.
Liberalism and the environment
When every person and company acts in their own interest, shared resources like clean air and a stable climate can be overused. Fixing that usually means limiting economic freedom — a real test of whether liberal principles can handle collective problems.
Watch out: only listing examples. Every case you mention needs one sentence explaining which liberal principle it tests, and what it shows.