I was covering what would end up becoming the Wildrose Alliance’s victory party in the spring election, and speaking to a few people who were explaining why they were so happy to see the former Conservative government ousted.
One referenced a quote that has stuck in my head since that night, which I later learned is attributed to Benjamin Franklin. “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
I’ve had some heated debates over this issue recently, as a fear of terrorism and the anger over threatened terrorism has made some people ready to throw away their liberties blindly trusting the powers-that-be to prevent them from any threat.
I recently finished reading British author Ken Follett’s century trilogy, three books of historical fiction that trace the course of the 20th century from the folly of the European nations that commenced the Great War, to the rise of Nazi Germany, Communism and the Second World War, and finally, to the last half of the century, the Berlin Wall, the Cold War and the fight for civil rights.
In each of the books, Follett uses his customary riveting storytelling married with fantastic historic detail to create a spell-binding and informative tale. Each time the world tottered up to the brink of destruction, right to the razor-edge of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Follett describes how reasonable people must have sounded an alarm bell against radical action and yet how hot-headed nationalism, a dogmatic obedience to ideology and the desire of humans and countries to be the winner, to be right, sometimes prevails, with devastating consequences.
I thought a lot about the book and Franklin’s quote when reading more about the now passed Bill C-51, which gave sweeping new powers to police and Canada’s spy agency and again when I heard about the federal Conservative party’s campaign promise to ban travel to terrorist hot spots, unless fighting against ISIS or “enemies of Canada.”
There are already laws in place to prevent people from travelling to commit terrorist acts abroad; this proposal seems like it would put the onus on travelers to prove their innocence, rather than authorities to prove their guilt, and clearly would target certain people, from certain countries of origin, to see their family or friends. Details are still sparse, but this could also affect journalists or people traveling to deliver humanitarian efforts in certain countries.
However, there are people that seem to think this kind of action is necessary.
‘Look through my phone, listen to my conversations, I have no fear. Heck, shut all global borders down,’ cry some people. ‘But please, let us be safe!’
Safety is such an elusive concept – it exists in our mindset, as much as our surroundings. But I fear that to sacrifice the rights enshrined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is to unwind the clock over all the advances of the 20th century and to repeat the past failures of history.
In the supposed name of the collective good and for safety, are we really willing to give up our rights and liberties so hard-fought for by those that came before us? If so, perhaps Franklin is right, and we deserve neither.
