The Aftermath of 11 September 2001: Liberty vs. Security before the Supreme Court of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The terrorist acts of 11 September 2001 and the war on terrorism that followed have induced a pervasive sense of insecurity in Canada, as elsewhere, and brought about a shift of public policy towards a confinement of security risks in a global era. In the polity, as in the legal sphere, there has been an obvious shift of paradigm, from liberty to security. In December 2001, Canada passed an Anti-Terrorism Act. As far as human rights and freedoms are concerned, the Anti-Terrorism Act is a far cry from the draconian measures of the American Patriot Act, with its military tribunals, incommunicado confinement, preventive detention without charge, and potentially expeditious application of the death penalty. Nevertheless, the Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act remains, in nature, an emergency legislation. In particular, as will be seen here, there has been a clear change of mind, within the Supreme Court of Canada, regarding the authority of international human rights law, at least where highly sensitive security matters are involved, such as deportation of political refugees suspected of being linked with terrorist organisations. To emphasize this shift in attitude, an analytical framework, allowing us to distinguish between various types of constitutional reasoning, is needed. This heuristic device must also be sophisticated enough to single out the emergency situation from the normal state of affairs. This may not be apparent in day-to-day life, but, since 11 September, the concept of emergency, and the notion that an exceptional state of affair exists, have been a major influence on our political world.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.049 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".