No Fly List: The No Fly List, also called the Passenger Protect Program in Canada; is the system the Canadian government uses to protect air passengers from terrorist attacks. It does this by barring certain passengers who have been deemed dangerous through Canada's intelligence agencies. The problem with this system is the ability for the airports to get wrong information regarding passengers. Such is the case of Maher Arar, who was going to take a flight from John F. Kennedy International Airport back to his home in Canada; but was detained by U.S officials for being a suspected terrorist. This wasn't the case, Arar had been a Canadian citizen for over 10 years and the information given to U.S intelligence officials has been wrong. Despite this, Arar was deported to Syria after two weeks in captivity. Upon arrival in Syria Arar was tortured by Syrian officials, something that he had feared upon hearing that he was being deported. One of the biggest issues with the implementation of no fly lists is the tendency to produce false positives. Where the name of someone on the no fly list will match an innocent citizen, leading to delays; or at worst, false imprisonment. This is a case where your opinion will differ on the issue of no fly lists based on what you value more; the individual principle of civil liberties, or the collectivist principle of collective security. Even though I would describe myself as more of a collectivist thinker, I personally believe that individual rights and freedoms are more important than group security. For that reason I think that no fly lists in Canada and the United States should be toned down in there capabilities.
Anti-Apartheid Movement: The Anti-Apartheid movement is a broad term describing the resistance to the Apartheid in South Africa. The Apartheid was an example of systematic discrimination based on race; whites and nonwhites were both considered classes of citizens. Being white had many benefits over being nonwhite including having better job opportunities, housing, and having more rights. The Apartheid in South Africa lasted from the 1950's to the 1990's with the election of Nelson Mandela, South Africa's first black president. Just like in the United States with it's discriminatory laws (former); South Africa's Apartheid comes from the countries lengthy history with the slave trade. Even after slavery was banned from all British colonies, the sentiment among the wealthy and powerful white minority was one of superiority; informal segregation was the norm. The Anti-Apartheid movement was a movement from the majority Bantu population in South Africa, many protests and strikes took place; both violent and nonviolent. The ideology behind the Anti-Apartheid Movement can't really be pinned down to a specific ideology, as the number of protesters was so great and varied. The one principle that all protesters valued was the individualist principle of individual rights and freedoms. Despite valuing an individualist principle, the ideology of most protesters would likely be more left leaning. Because the political left values change over the status quo. My opinion supports the movement, because why wouldn't I. Also I strongly believe in the importance of human rights and the Apartheid took those rights away from the majority of people in South Africa.
October Crisis: The October Crisis of 1970 was the conflict between FLQ separatists and the Canadian Government. The FLQ organization was gaining support in Quebec and called for Quebec sovereignty. The actions of radical FLQ members gradually progressed over the years. In the beginning the FLQ attackers would bomb buildings, bombing over 200 total. Later, as tensions rose in Quebec the attacks worsened. On October 5th 1970 FLQ attackers kidnapped British trade commissioner Richard Cross from his Montreal home. The group of FLQ had demands to the government to release previously imprisoned FLQ attackers. Additionally, they demanded that their FLQ manifesto be read live on television. The government obliged in the request of having the manifesto be read on television but were firm in keeping the prisoners. Later, on Deputy Premier Pierre Laporte was also kidnapped and later killed. During the crisis the War Measures Act was invoked. Giving the state enormous power to detain without warrant based on suspicion to commit crime or association with the FLQ. Previously the War Measures Act had been limited to only being invoked during times of war, such as WWI and WWII. As many as 497 people were detained during the crisis. The crisis eventually reached an end as the body of Richard Cross was discovered and Pierre Laporte was released; with his captors being exiled to Cuba. Following the October Crisis the War Measures Act was never invoked in peacetime again and was later replaced by the Emergencies Act which restricted the states power as opposed to the War Measures Act. The underlying ideologies behind the government's actions follow the collectivist principle of collective security. Which makes perfect sense based on the party who invoked the act being the Liberal Party (left leaning). In my opinion I disagree with the governments actions in invoking the War Measures Act. Even if it being invoked leads to ten criminals being detained at the cost of one innocent person being detained; their rights thrown out the window. Then in my opinion it would not be worth it. That is simply because I value civil liberties greatly in society so the potential to harm those rights for law abiding citizens causes me to disagree.