You're viewing a single thread.
Is Martial law ever declared in a non-corrupt, power-grabbing way?
Canada invoked the Emergencies Act in 2022 when the national capital was occupied by a convoy of antivaxers who shut down the city for days. There was some debate as to whether it was necessary and there was an inquiry afterward. The main reason for invoking it was to allow the federal government to use law enforcement since the Ottawa municipal police mostly sat on its hands during the whole debacle.
Also in Canada, the War Measures Act was used during the FLQ Crisis in 1970. While some may disagree with using martial law, I don't think many would say it was used in a corrupt, power-grabbing way.
As a Canadian, I can assure you everyone on the right considered it a corrupt, powergrab. Whether or not you agree is of course up to you, but it's not a clear sky case
Of course everyone on the right didn't like it, because "Fuck Trudeau" is the extent of their political understanding. It was overkill in hindsight, but in the moment, with the capital paralyzed and armed terrorists in Coutts, some benefit of the doubt must be given.
but they'll say that no matter what won't they? Like the only way to convince the right something is not a powergrab is to let them have their way.
Occasionally in response to things like floods and other disasters. Though then it's usually local and short lived.
I think the only time martial law can be seen as reasonable is in an outright state of war. And even then, only when it's existential.
It's kind of inherently the antithesis of democratic values.
Strictly speaking, the war with the North never formally ended, but that's a whole problem in itself.
In response to full civil war rebellion. This is not that.