Liberty vs. Security
Jeff Jarvis is on his high horse once again — that’s kind of what make his site fun to visit. He’s taking the "pc opposition" to "Islamic fascists" to task for not realizing what a real threat they are. He quotes someone by the name of Harold Evans, who Jarvis seems to think is preaching the gospel about terrorists. Overall, I see nothing wrong with what Mr. Evans says, but these paragraphs beg a response:
Speaking personally of challenges to human rights, I’d rather be photographed by a hidden surveillance camera than travel on a train or bus with killers carrying bombs in their backpacks.
Speaking personally, I’d regard being blowing to bits on the street as more of an intrusion on my privacy than having an identity card. I have only one identity; the terrorists hide behind multiple identities that require time to unravel.
Speaking personally, I’d rather have my phone subject to monitoring than know that terror plotting is going undetected.
There can be no security without freedom - but no freedom without security.
Firstly, that last paragraph is complete sophistry (yes, I know big words). No one is saying we don’t want to be secure. I don’t have a problem with surveillance cameras, hell we’re used to dealing with that in every mall. I do, however, have a problem with my phone being monitored without a legal reason for doing so, I have a problem with any government bypassing tested laws in the name of national security. It’s one thing to be "subject" to monitoring; it’s another thing altogether to have your government invading your privacy because they can with no real proof to back it up. No one is saying governments shouldn’t do everything in their power to keep us safe, but they should work within established laws to do so. I mean, the hallmark of Britain’s ability to foil the recent terrorist plot is the way in which they stayed within the legal system of their country to do it.
Mr. Jarvis is a good one to defend everyone’s right to say fuck, shit, and dammit whenever we want, wherever we want, but it’s only a hop, skip, and jump to totalitarianism when we don’t make our governments work within the letter of the law. When that happens, our inability to say curse words will be the least of our problems. Does that make me a lefty lover of terrorists like so many like to say? Well, fuck no! I believe strongly in our country’s freedoms; too many people have died to make sure we remain free and I won’t allow a chicken shit government who spends more time and effort on gay marriage, stem cells, and abortion take away my freedoms because they don’t know what the hell they’re doing. People like to trot out the old Benjamin Franklin quote that says, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." I will be the first to say I’m sick of hearing it, but the essential meaning holds. If we allow government to indiscriminately remove our freedoms in the name of security we are fools. It may slow down terrorism for awhile, but it will not stop it. These "Islamic fascists" are not stupid; a breakdown of our government, the removal of our basic freedoms is exactly what they want — what they crave. There are totalitarian regimes all over the Islamic world; have they stopped terrorism in their own countries? No.
Of course, there’s the quandary: what do we do? As Mr. Evans says, we can’t put our heads in the sand and hope the terrorists will go away, or that they will abide by such silly things as U.N. cease-fires. However, giving up everything is not the answer either. If anyone has a better solution, please let me know.