The tug-of-war between liberty and security has been in a constant state of battle since the design of a democratic society was first dreamt of by visionary philosophers and political history makers. Civil liberties and security, although seemingly at odds with one another, are nevertheless heavily dependent on the other for a society like ours to function as it should.
The equilibrium between the two is exceedingly fragile and therefore delicate care should be given due to the fact that a slight increase in one side can consequently lead to a disadvantageous fall or abrupt rise in the other. However despite the problems, finding the balance is an outstandingly imperative task.
So what is the driving force behind finding the balance between these two ideals? What causes our government to increase security at the expense of decreased civil liberties for all? There are many issues to this and this intricate question requires a multi-faceted approach. However this blog will focus on the aspect of fear and how it contributes to this ever-elusive balance.
Stanley Cohen and other renowned thinkers concede that security is a precondition for personal security, however at what point do we say that there is enough security (Cohen 1)? The balance is very convoluted because the level of security desired varies from person to person as does the amount of freedom one is willing to relinquish.
Recent events that have occurred have heightened fear of terrorist activities. From the terrorist attacks by the Front de Liberation du Quebec (FLQ) in 1970 to the events of 9/11, our government has been hasty in responding by putting together laws that have severely encroached upon civil liberties. After the terrorist activities by the FLQ in 1970, the government of Canada passed the War Measures Act which allowed for such actions as arrests and detentions without charge. In all, over 450 Canadians were arrested and eventually released under this act without a single charge ever being laid (Cohen 2). The events of 9/11 in 2001 have led to additional steps by the Canadian government to further restrict the freedom of Canadians and those living in Canada in the name of security. Rights to privacy, the right to silence, the right to be kept from unreasonable search and seizure are just a few of the basic civil and charter rights that anti-terrorism laws trample upon.
Fear of crime has provoked Canadian politicians to invoke anti-terrorism laws that has unjustly revoked the basic rights of some and choked the growth of civil liberties for others. In Canada, laws that allow things such as preventative arrests and compelled testimonies stand in stark contrast to the rights that we have in place to protect our liberties from the over-reaching arm of government. The events of an evening should not be the basis for the rewriting of our rights. Rights should be as innate to us as being and should not be something that can be so easily taken away.
The fear of crime leads to very real consequences for those living in Canada. The reactionary laws that are passed trample on the rights in the name of a greater good. An example is that of Liban Hussein. Hussein was a businessman who ran a store that allowed Somali-Canadians to send money back home. The government listed Hussein and his business as a terrorist body and so seized his assets and made it criminal for anyone to do business with him (Cohen 4). This destroyed his livelihood and created a wall of stigma around him. The effects of having been listed were detrimental to Hussein both financially and personally. It was later found that the charges against Hussein were unfounded and therefore he was de-listed (Department). This shows just one example of how the anti-terrorism laws of Canada are affecting people hastily and without just cause.
When promoting the fear of crime, no other entity is as influential as the media. According to MacLatchie, 95% of Canadians receive their information primarily from the media (MacLatchie 57). This comes to show the vast influence that the media holds over the creation of people’s thoughts. Due to the fact that the media is an industry, profit stands as the leading factor in deciding what stories to cover. Since sensationalism sells, sensationalistic news tends to be brought to the front and center in media coverage. Since terrorist acts are often very sensational, rarer than most crimes, and often cause harm, these events are given priority in the media. If one is consistently bombarded by pictures and stories of crime and terrorism, it will create an environment of fear which increases the overall fear of crime which in turn prompts our politicians to take a strong stance against it in the name of security for all (Howard). A study was undertaken in Canada that showed the severe disproportionality of violent crime portrayed in the media. In a study of over 800 newspaper articles, over half of the stories were on the topic of violent crime and half of those stories were about murder. In actuality violent crimes account for only 11% of all crimes reported in Canada with less than 1% overall being related to murder (Howard). This severely lopsided misrepresentation of violent crime in the media ultimately leads to the general population becoming more willing to relinquish rights to garner more security.
Some say that the measures taken by the government are appropriate because some believe that the dangers of terrorist activities are actually as dangerous to our free society as the media and government portray it to be (Posner 47). Although this is a stance taken by some, it is unsubstantiated. While terrorist attacks are frightening, the amount of lives it has taken pales in comparison to something as overlooked at traffic accidents. While the events of 9/11 took the lives of approximately 3,000 people, traffic accidents cause approximately 245,000 deaths every year in the United States (Easterbrook). In fact, there are more people dying by crossing the street each year then the total amount of people who died on 9/11 (Easterbrook). However the response by politicians and government and those with influence have been unarguably radically different. While terrorism is a large topic of discussion in our world today, the actual damage that it does in terms of lives is minute in comparison to other issues that kill so many more people on a yearly basis. While terrorism has been the basis and justification for wars, things such as traffic infrastructure rarely get looked at. Imagine if 245,000 Americans had die on 9/11 instead of 3,000; considering how thousands have fought and died in Afghanistan and Iraq over 9/11, if the number of those perished in 9/11 had been multiplied by almost a hundred, by today there would be a new world order in place.
The fear of crime stirs action by government because people are willing to allow the government to extend their powers because of a short look at history. Rights are our only real protection against the government and so should not be easily relinquished. If we surrender rights in a time of uncertainty, getting them back is not an easy task to accomplish. If we can reduce our fear of terrorism and violent crime, we can make a more reasoned and informed decision when assessing whether certain rights need to be given up in the name of overall security. However when looking at statistics like the one of 9/11 vs. traffic accident deaths, it’s hard to imagine a situation where rights become imperative to resign.
-------
Works Cited
Department of Justice. “Canada Halts Extradition Process, Liban Hussein De-Listed” Government of Canada 2002. 9 Feb. 2008 <http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2002/doc_30513.html>
Easterbook, Gregg. “Road Kill.” Los Angeles Times 5 Aug. 2007. 10, Feb. 2008
<http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-easterbrook5aug05,0,1379980.story?coll=la-opinion-center>
Howard, John. “Fear of Crime” John Edward Society of Alberta. 1999. 9 Feb. 2008 <http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/PUB/C49.htm#role>
MacLatchie, J. M. Insights into violence in contemporary Canadian society. Ottawa: The John Howard Society of Canada, 1987.
Richard A. Posner, "Security Versus Civil Liberties," Atlantic Monthly, vol. 288, no. 5. December 2001. pp. 46-8.
Stanley A. Cohen,"Liberty and Security - Can We Have Both?" A paper prepared for the conference of the International Society for the Reform of the Criminal Law on “Technology and Its Effects on Criminal Responsibility, Security and Criminal Justice”, Charleston, South Carolina, December 10, 2002
Tamar Meisels, "How Terrorism Upsets Liberty", Political Studies, vol. 53, no. 1. 2005. pp. 162-181.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I find it hard to understand the quantitative similarities in the different sources of death Team China Awesome! proposes. There is a vast difference in the public’s perceptions of a death based around traffic deaths, and those based around the culture-altering zeitgeist of terrorism. In fact, the response to a rash of pedestrian deaths and to a terrorist attack by the greater public can sometimes result in similar promulgations of the restrictions of civil liberties by those very citizens the legislature ratifies laws for. Those protective measures, by enforcing speed limits to the limitations on torture, all extend to a Lockean liberal understanding of what the government’s purpose is: to restrict certain movements in order to make more eligible the inalienable rights of its citizenry. For example, most people in any given free society would be willing to restrict the maximum speed of their cars to protect the right to ride them wherever and whenever they want. Terrorist activities seek to disrupt this positive freedom of movement and expression by engendering a sustained atmosphere of fear and restraint. The attack, while only killing perhaps a small number of people, if any at all, in fact does most of its damage after the act, when the understanding insecurity of movement permeates into the greater consciousness.
Meisels emphasizes that Waldron’s point (Meisels 2) that the ‘real diminution in liberty may affect some people more than others,’ and, in the result of a terrorist attack, the insecurity felt by those who necessarily must remain in the public sphere, such as government officials or public workers, would be far more potent than someone who has the choice to stay home for the duration of the turmoil. People want strong, involved electorates in times of fear because they want the least amount of disruption to their routines. Meisels again cites Waldron in saying that the temporary reductions in civil liberties are meant to enhance security, and thus preserve the way of life, rather than lower public hysteria (10). She emphasizes this because, as one knows, terrorism will inevitably rouse massive hysteria, and because of this an abrogation of civil liberties is not only justified, but encouraged, even in a Lockean liberal environment where a low-intervention sovereign is expected. I agree with the poster that ‘rights are our only real protection against the government and so should not be easily relinquished,’ but if done cautiously, these rights are not relinquished but limited in their infallibility. Meaning that the right of free association or freedom of religion cannot under a liberal democracy be removed so much as more assiduously monitored, and for the greater good of all its citizenry, some people are necessarily going to be more closely scrutinized than others. It is inevitable that to curtail a public hysteria the rights of some are going to be more vehemently limited than others. But the government needs to make clear that it is not this specific minority or that specific group that is being targeted arbitrarily but because by reasonable assertions of a competent executive and judicial body these people, at this time, are more culpable and suspicious than others. Only when the curtailment of freedoms are extended past the point of immediate danger should the freely-elected government be questioned about abuse of power. Public fear is a temporary reaction made permanent by the subversive and media-centric psychological manipulations of terrorism. That is could be compared to a localized catastrophe like a traffic death is missing the point of fear as a means of influence by the perpetrators, and the limited means of a liberal democracy in maintaining order and ensuring the short- and long-term security of its citizens.
Works Cited:
Tamar Meisels, "How Terrorism Upsets Liberty", Political Studies, vol. 53, no. 1. 2005. pp. 162-181.
Post a Comment