A convoy, an emergencies act, and a state of exception

How Canada’s Emergencies Act contradicts Carl Schmitt’s critiques of deliberative democracy

Bibliographic Data

ID12929807
AuthorsPiers Eaton (corresponding author), Valere Gaspard (0000-0003-1460-2881)
Year2024
Volume36
Issue2
Pages133-156
Publication date2024-09-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueBritish Journal of Canadian Studies (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1757-8078 • E-ISSN: 0269-9222
PublisherLiverpool University Press (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.3828/bjcs.2024.10
OpenAlexW4403599187
LanguageEN
References cited10

As a liberal and parliamentary democracy, Canada should be a prime target for Carl Schmitt’s critiques about determining the ‘state of exception’. Yet, Canada’s Emergencies Act, which permits ‘special temporary measures that may not be appropriate in normal times’ immediately after the declaration of an emergency, brings forth an interesting research puzzle: can a liberal or parliamentary democracy have both the practices of deliberative democracy and still fulfil Schmitt’s criteria of the sovereign both determining when and deciding on what occurs during the state of exception? By examining the events of the 2022 Freedom Convoy, we find that Canada’s use of the Emergencies Act meets Schmitt’s criteria of the -*sovereign determining when, and deciding on what occurs during the state of exception, but ultimately escapes Schmitt’s critiques of liberal and parliamentary democracies

Deliberative democracy · Democracy · Political science · Politics · State (computer science · State of emergency · Computer Science · Foucault, Power, and Ethics · History · Law · Marxism and Critical Theory · Political Theology and Sovereignty

Tools

Open DOI