Governments in Canada should be able to violate fundamental rights.

Countries rely on constitutions to define the individual rights that their citizens should have. The global community is facing numerous challenges, particularly in the areas of crime and terrorism. In many countries, the topic of interference with people's rights is raised based on how governments implement them. There are times when abuses of freedoms, rights, and liberties are necessary to defend a nation and its residents. Despite strong opposition, surveillance is a strategic plan for keeping governments informed of crime-related data. Because security is essential in any economy, Canada should embrace this concept. Furthermore, security should not be overlooked in the name of free expression and the right to privacy. Since the government is entrusted with the responsibility of protecting all people, violations can help eliminate the likelihood of threats. Also, the Canadian constitution offers clear insights into the circumstances in which rights can be violated, and through which procedure.

Canadian Governing Institutions Should Be Able To Violate Fundamental Rights
Human rights can be termed as moral norms and principles that set specific standards that should be emulated by people. In different countries, fundamental rights are protected as legal rights. As a result, governments serve the purpose of observing these rights for the well-being of their citizens. Just like in other countries, the Canadian government focuses on upholding the rights and freedoms affiliated to its citizens. Around the world, numerous states have been accused of interfering with their people's rights inappropriately. Thus, the infringement issue stands out as a controversial issue that occurs, while governments seek to offer exemplary leadership. Both Section 1 and Section 33 of the country's charter rights allow governing institutions to violate Canadian's fundamental rights. This move creates an environment that enhances national security to protect the people's rights and liberties. Precisely, Canadian government institutions can infringe the citizen's fundamental rights, especially when dealing with both domestic and foreign security threats.
Security Enhancement
The global community portrays heightened cases of insecurities that threaten numerous governments. As such, adequate efforts are needed by Canadian security forces to create an environment where any possible attacks are thwarted before they can be implemented. The relevant government security apparatus can infringe the citizen's rights, but only through Sections 1 and 33. With the high rate of terrorism across the world, all the necessary measures are sought to safeguard and protect the country (Monaghan & Walby, 2012). Domestic and foreign security threats cannot be taken lightly considering the adverse effects involved. The relevant government institutions should thus carry out extensive investigations even if they entail infringing individual rights. A higher focus should be channeled towards the nation's security. This measure targets Canadian citizens because a peaceful and secure country enhances their livelihood. The Canadian Security and Investigation Service (CSIS) has the role of ensuring that the country is well-protected from both internal and external attacks. The other relevant institution is the Canadian Security Establishment (CSE) which majors in telecommunication. These organizations should take stern measures to identify any potential threats capable of affecting Canadians (Walby & Anaïs, 2012). This action is essential in that the primary objective is to protect the country, and not to interfere with anyone's rights and privileges.
The issue of security is quite complicated, especially due to privacy rights. Many citizens from all over the world value their right to privacy. This aspect creates a scenario where most people utilize the right to privacy to cover their ill-motivated activities that threaten security stability. There exist a significant controversy between security and privacy. The bottom line is that security comes first before privacy. This outcome is influenced by the adverse effects of practices such as terrorism and threats to national peace. For example, September 11th attacks in the U.S. occurred due to lack of adequate information. The country's security systems were caught unaware. Considering the damages that were incurred, both the CSE and CSIS should embrace through the intrusion of privacy (Monaghan & Walby, 2012). This approach is capable of allowing the government to access private information whenever someone is suspected of participating in major crimes or terror activities (Walby & Anaïs, 2012). The only means through which the Canadian government can protect its interests from terrorism is by digging for information through modern technologies.
Earlier in 2017, a legislation was made, paving the way for CSE to collect publicly available information about Canadian citizens. Bill C-59 allows CSE to gather information from the public realm. However, the Department of Justice analyzed the bill and concluded that CSE is not barred from accessing information acquired from both data companies and online platforms. Based on the significance of maintaining security in Canada, government institutions dealing with security should limit the right to privacy (Walby & Anaïs, 2012). For CSE can employ the use of databases to obtain the required internet protocol addresses. One reason why this move is essential is that public information may be limited and unable to help security personnel in curbing crime. As such, the utmost cooperation is needed between CSE and CSIS to utilize the acquired information appropriately to create a crime-free environment. Precisely, violating a person's privacy and their protection from searches is beneficial to the government. Such a strategy is capable of helping governmental security organizations to note and eliminate criminal plans before they get launched.
Infringing individual rights will enable government organizations to fight radicalization effectively. Thus, encroaching on people's private information, especially online and through data companies is a major step towards securing the country. These measures will help the government in stopping any planned attacks that can cause tremendous harm to Canadians. For example, tracking suspicious online communication can easily expose the perpetrators and their connections, as well as the subject plans (Walby & Anaïs, 2012). In this case, violating various rights is a perfect way of preventing terror groups from recruiting other people and traveling across the country. Although many people may disagree with the surveillance concept, it is the right approach to follow for a nation that despises crimes against humanity. Instead of concentrating only on individual freedoms and privacy rights, Canadians should look at the benefits of surveillance (Monaghan & Walby, 2012). For example, cases of terror in Canada are minimal compared to other countries. This positive aspect is influenced by the CSE's spy programs that have been collecting and analyzing private information. Thus, the CSE, CSIS, and other relevant forms should embrace infringement of various rights to protect the country appropriately.
Section 1 Reasonable Limitations
The Canadian governance bodies can violate fundamental rights based on Section 1's guidelines. Reasonable limitations are allowed to grant governing institutions the chance of offering efficient services to the entire country. To be precise, section 1 argues that reasonable limiting of human rights and freedoms can be applied justifiably. The subject issue is that the government's focus is on upholding every individual's rights on all occasions, while at the same time promoting security operations (Murphy, 2007). The limiting factor is allowed in the charter to address all the challenges that are likely to occur. In 1982, the Charter of Human Freedoms and Rights was drafted by Canadian politicians. They included the reasonable limit clause, a privilege that is non-existent in the U.S. In cases of limited rights and freedoms attract lawsuits, governing institutions have the task of highlighting the reasonability of the practice.
The general meaning of section 1 is that the Canadian government should easily demonstrate its valid objective in regards to security issues. Another requirement that is brought forth by this section is that the infringement of freedoms and rights ought to be as minimum as possible. This section also asserts that government institutions should be in a better place to demonstrate the benefits of the infringement. This idea can be achieved by enlightening juries or the society on the benefits of stable security systems (Monaghan & Walby, 2012). An individual's rights and freedoms can enable them to endanger other people's lives, especially through radicalization. The additional requirement of section 1 is that all limitations should be prescribed by law. As such, all limits ought to be written either in regulations or legislation. This requirement presents the Canadian Constitution as a framework that eliminates unnecessary or ill-motivated human practices for the well-being of residents' rights. Due to this aspect, the government's limitations cannot be generated by an official arbitrarily. Also, it cannot be ingrained in rules that do not qualify to be laws (Roach, 2006). Based on all these requirements, it is evident that Canada showcases one of the best-drafted constitutions globally. The reason or this facet is that although infringements are allowed, they cannot be conducted anyhow.
All the set guidelines are concise enough for government organizations to avoid making unnecessary mistakes that can end up initiating legal battles. The bottom line is that both the Charter and Judiciary recognize that the Canadian government can create infringement laws to achieve broader public security interests. The most important aspect of Section 1 is that it is applicable when the government's infringements are based on written law (Murphy, 2007). Any breaches conducted in the absence of written law can be termed as unconstitutional. Both the Canadian provincial legislature and the parliament make limiting statutes that allow government institutions to infringe the citizen's privileges in regards to freedoms and right. Evidently, the concept behind Section 1 is unique in that it embraces the utmost professionalism and discipline in pursuit of the people's interests.
Oakes Test
The Canadian legal system should rely on Oakes ideology to explain its violation of human rights to promote security. The country's Supreme Court created this test in R v Oakes. Oakes granted the Supreme Court a chance to interpret the contents of Section 1. The Oakes test argues that infringement laws should be pressing and substantial. The other requirement is that a proportionality test should be carried out majoring on three sub-tests. The first step entails establishing whether the limit is rationally linked to the law's purpose. The second phase implies that the provisions should pose a minimal impairment to the subject charter right (Grimm, 2007). Lastly, a court should examine the proportionate effects of the infringement law. Using this concept, numerous cases regarding infringement of human rights and freedoms have been carried out. For instance, in R v Keegstra, it was decided that laws against hate speech are not only justifiable, but also reasonable (Russell, 2007). In this case, the Oakes test is significant in Canada in that it enables courts to weigh charter limitations.
Canadian courts can now utilize this ideology to create a balance between the government's focus on accomplishing security goals and protecting individual freedoms and rights. With this framework in place, Canadian security agencies do not have to worry about personal rights in instances where limitations are necessary. For example, if one's rights allow them to engage in violent actions that threaten the country or other individuals, violations are deemed appropriate (Murphy, 2007). Precisely, Canadian hate speech laws are recognized as reasonable limitations on the people's freedom of expression. In as much as one has to express themselves, spreading hate or instigating violence is unacceptable. The combination of these elements proves that for the right reasons, infringement of charter rights can be applied without significant challenges. For example, the case of adverts aimed at youngsters is limitable based on the negative outcomes involved. In regards to hate speech, the outcomes portray adverse consequences that ought to be avoided by all possible means (Grimm, 2007). For government agencies to infringe people's rights, all they need is to be backed by already written law. The primary objective is to engage in operations that are constituted for credibility purposes. Although Canadians are granted numerous rights and freedoms, they ought to enjoy them in the right manner to avoid facing the infringement laws that have been enacted. As it stands, Canada has a government that is sensitive in handling rights and freedoms in pursuit of the vast majority's well-being.
Section 33 Notwithstanding
Canadian government agencies are allowed by section 33 to violate a person's liberty in cases where security is jeopardized. This approach is referred to as either the override or the notwithstanding clause. This section allows the Canadian parliament to create laws that override section 2. To be precise, Section 2 lists all the fundamental freedoms that should be respected by all government institutions and individuals (Roach, 2005). As such, the notwithstanding ideology allows the government through legislators to create laws that override the requirements of Section 2. Through this approach, infringing on people's rights becomes a constitutional practice based on its necessity. Just like in section 1, laws made under section 33 should be justifiable and reasonable. This requirement is usually aimed at eliminating the possibility of irregularities (Monaghan & Walby, 2012). The infringement of citizens' rights has been executed several times in Alberta, Quebec, and Saskatchewan provinces. This aspect implies that provided a limitation is justifiable; then infringement becomes a necessary action plan. The details of Section 33 majors on the operations of government institutions (Russell, 2007). Thus, the public sector is not included in the notwithstanding clause. In this case, for a citizen to file a lawsuit for their violated fundamental rights, the perpetrator should be the government.
The notwithstanding clause encourages the creation of laws to override rights such as privacy and speech. The other targeted fundamental right is protection from any unreasonable search and seizure. The aspects of Section 33 empower government-related institutions to pursue higher security measures. For example, an individual cannot be allowed to enjoy their protection police searches to conceal or distribute weapons and other harmful products. The notwithstanding approach is a security measure that prevents the government from being helpless when things are getting out of control (Roach, 2005). Parliamentary sovereignty is enhanced through the use of Section 33 since parliamentarians are entrusted with creating the necessary laws.
The Canadian government can generate numerous overriding laws to alter charter freedoms. This aspect is enhanced by parliament's authority to create laws that last for five years. After the lapse of this period, the same laws can be passed again if necessary. Also, this flexibility paves the way for the enactment of many laws as complex situations arise about the Charter's rights and freedoms. This culture is essential in that the society is changing at a tremendous rate, hence the need for relevant laws as different issues continue to emerge (Grimm, 2007). The most important realization is that the overriding aspect is not aimed at discrediting or demeaning individual rights and freedoms. Instead, it establishes a stable legal environment. The infringement of liberties is only done in instances where a justifiable cause is realized. Also, the Canadian parliament cannot enact overriding laws that cause harm to the people. For example, this intervention is crucial in situations where people conceal themselves in the charter to conduct unlawful activities. By infringing the rights of one individual, government institutions end up protecting the rights of the other Canadian residents. On a broader perspective, new developments that are likely to affect the nation's well-being call for legislators to take the most appropriate measures (Murphy, 2007). The utmost credibility is also portrayed by the Canadian court's decisions regarding rights violation cases. Justice and fairness are evident in these cases as the judgments are made based on the usage of either Section 1 or 33. Thus, the requirements upheld by this section are vital in that they help the government in addressing issues that can easily affect its credibility.
Governing institutions operate under the objective of addressing security concerns of all citizens. For example, the Charter treats all people residing in Canada equally, regardless of whether they are nationals or immigrants. In this perspective, adequate measures are needed to ensure that the overriding clause is used appropriately. Any unrealistic usage of this phrase results in courts making decisions in favor of the victims. This aspect is well-portrayed by Quebec in the use of the notwithstanding provision (Roach, 2006). In 1988, the Supreme Court handled a case in which a law was enacted to bar the use of other dialects apart from French on commercial signs. The court found the code to be unconstitutional and saw it as an infringement of freedom of expression. After the stipulated five-year period, the bill was not enacted again by the parliament (Murphy, 2007). If it met the needs of the overriding cat, it could have been supported by the jurors. This outcome implies that parliamentarians should ensure that the limiting laws they create are justifiable and realistic in all aspects. Governing institutions should not watch as challenges affect the country as a whole or even some residents. It is necessary to take all the necessary measures to create laws that promote the well-being of all the involved parties. Through this concept, Canada can be termed as a prosperous nation in regards to imposing fairness in supporting both the law and human rights.
Conclusion
Individual rights and freedoms are highly recognized and valued in many countries. Canada showcases numerous rights that are aimed at enhancing the well-being of the residents. The violation of rights is a disputed issue in many countries. However, Canadian government institutions should infringe their citizen's rights to achieve the countries' best interests. For instance, this action plan can help them identify and avert terror attacks. Also, section 1 of the Charter rights allows rights to be infringed through reasonable limitations. Section 33 brings forth the notwithstanding clause that grants violation of rights to address justifiable issues. With all these measures in place, the government can violate rights to achieve the common good of all people.

References
Grimm, D. (2007). Proportionality in Canadian and German constitutional jurisprudence. University of Toronto Law Journal, 57(2), 383-397.
Monaghan, J., & Walby, K. (2012). Making up 'Terror identities': security intelligence, Canada's integrated threat assessment center and social movement suppression. Policing and Society, 22(2), 133-151.
Murphy, C. (2007). "Securitizing" Canadian policing: a new policing paradigm for the post 9/11 security state?. The Canadian Journal of Sociology, 32(4), 449-475.
Roach, K. (2006). Dialogue or defiance: Legislative reversals of Supreme Court decisions in Canada and the United States. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 4(2), 347-370.
Roach, K. (2005). Must we trade rights for security-the choice between smart, harsh, or proportionate security strategies in Canada and Britain. Cardozo L. Rev., 27, 2151.
Russell, P. H. (2007). The notwithstanding clause: The Charter's homage to parliamentary democracy. Policy Options, 28(2).
Walby, K., & Anaïs, S. (2012). Communications security establishment Canada (CSEC), structures of secrecy, and ministerial authorization after September 11. Canadian Journal of Law and Society, 27(3), 363-380.