My understanding is that international law requires nation have some form of martial law.
The idea is that if your nation is “hosting” a battle field, and the police start arresting belligerents and charging them with civilian crimes, the military can override them and say “you can’t charge invading soldiers with a crime for honorably doing their duty” - they must be treated as POWs, not criminals.
For example, if Russia is attacking Toronto, and a Toronto Police Officer comes across a wounded Russian soldier with an AK-47, she can’t charge the soldier for possessing an illegal weapon. The soldier would have to be treated as a POW.
This means the military must - must! - be able to say “this area is under martial law”.
I doubt this applies to the current situation.
But if Canada is as diligent as they claim to be about International law, they need to have the ability to declare martial law.
The idea is that if your nation is “hosting” a battle field, and the police start arresting belligerents and charging them with civilian crimes, the military can override them and say “you can’t charge invading soldiers with a crime for honorably doing their duty” - they must be treated as POWs, not criminals.
For example, if Russia is attacking Toronto, and a Toronto Police Officer comes across a wounded Russian soldier with an AK-47, she can’t charge the soldier for possessing an illegal weapon. The soldier would have to be treated as a POW.
This means the military must - must! - be able to say “this area is under martial law”.
I doubt this applies to the current situation.
But if Canada is as diligent as they claim to be about International law, they need to have the ability to declare martial law.