[ql06] Re: PUBLIC: Civil liberties (Was CRIMINAL: U.S. Uses Terror Law...)
- From: mark bumstead <2mab8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: ql06@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 22:13:42 -0400
In answer to your last question first, I was doing a tongue-in-cheek poke
at the wandering Liberal and Conservative platforms over the last several
decades. They have "gone where the vote is" as opposed to where true
ideology leads. I was also alluding to the fact that you can buy extra
large, and extra small, but not extra medium: where is the "middle" of
Canada's political Spectrum - liberal-conservativism or
conservative-liberalism?
I was not implying that, as enunciated, the charter rights are silly. I
was implying that some have been extrapolated into silly concepts:
Zundel's refugee claim being one of them. His claim to free speech being
another.
While I may have missed Dawn's e-mail that started this, I am reluctant to
support your contention that "Locking up people and suspending civil
liberties is a [b] issue." Long term, I agree. Short term and in
exceptional circumstances - reasonable belief that a particular individual
is a clear and present danger to society - I am not so quick to cleave
blindly to due process: better safe than sorry. That is not to declare
"open season" and "indefinite incarceration without representation." Yes,
it is a slippery slope once one opens the door, but we already have an
arrest procedure that involves an impartial trier of fact. If the
government can justify it, albeit behind closed doors & ex-parte to protect
national secrets, to an impartial trier of facts that a particular
individual is a clear and present danger to society, they should have the
right to detention. Due process is in fact preserved.
There comes a time when the good of the many has to take primacy over the
good of the one. Maslow's hierarchy of needs dictates individual security
before security of others: if I am not safe, I care little about your
safety; until society is not safe, I care little about the offending
individual. When a terrorist releases a general threat, my safety - and
the safety of society as a whole - comes before his rights. Sorry if that
offends, but when someone purposely steps outside of societies accepted
boundaries - thereby explicitly rejecting its values and safeguards - it is
silly to exstend those rights to him and he cannot (should not be able to)
claim protections under those safeguards.
As for "minority against majority rule," the extreme (and thereby silliest
instance) of this is protection and thereby making obligatory whatever the
individual, as the ultimate manifestation of a minority, chooses to spout:
again, see Zundel. The effect is dominance of the majority by the
minority. Again, at its reasonable middle point it is manifested as
"tolerance" which I have no problem with. It is when it moves to imposing
the minority view on the majority, that I object. Society should be a
consensus, not a dictatorship from either extreme. If the minority of one
can build public support for "painting your legs purple," then that becomes
a consensus among society at large as acceptable behaviour. If they
cannot, then it remains extreme behaviour.
Not a popular opinion maybe, but sometimes I play devils advocate for fun.
Mark Bumstead
>Mark writes:
>
> >You raise an interesting, although unintended, question: Which civil
> >liberties are worth protecting...
>
>For what my opinion is worth, I'd say the ones covered by the Charter.
>(Which is what led Dawn to make her original comment, the willful
>negation of a Charter right due to "emergency".)
>
> > ... and which have become downright silly?
>
>I don't think any Charter liberties are silly. So let's forget any
>"extra legal" ones...
>
>Take the ACLU: Exactly what have they done that's silly? In general,
>they have supported a couple broad things:
>
> [a] Minorities against majority rule
> [b] Due process
> [c] Freedom of expression (including publishing)
>
>Locking up people and suspending civil liberties is a [b] issue. That
>was Dawn's first point.
>
>Minorities are well protected in Canada [a] -- unlike the USA, which has
>a massive black population imported for purposes of economic slavery.
>Canada is well ahead of the US also because of our heavy reliance on
>federalism -- which is anti-majoritarianism by nature. (Funny how things
>work: Canada was intended to be this strong centralized government, and
>the USA was designed to be a decentralized, federal government... both
>are the opposites of what was intended.)
>
>Welllllll... I think the "left-right" thing falls down in civil
>liberties arguments. It gets everyone off topic. "Non-legal."
>
>But, if you are looking for a "non-lefty" example, a Canadian ACLU would
>support Zundel's right to spout his stuff. I'd say Canada is weak on
>[c].
>
> >Would the QCLU be left wing, right wing, moderate
> >(liberal-conservative or conservative-liberal)...
>
>Liberal-conservative... do you mean the Yankee terms? (They have
>reversed the original meaning of the terms.)
>
>In Canada, and the U.K., liberal usually means "libertarian" --
>generally, against the conservative desire to rule through government
>intervention.
>
>Which do you mean, Mark?
>
>Ken.
>
>--
>The understanding of the greater part of men are
>necessarily formed by their ordinary employments.
> -- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
Other related posts:
