This argument unsettles me


August 6, 2005 11:38 AM


Police will have greater powers of arrest and detention / AP

Our PM just said this:

The most important civil liberty I have, and you have, is to stay alive and to be free from violence and death,’ he said. ‘I think when people talk about civil liberties they sometimes forget that action taken to protect the citizen against physical violence and physical attack is a blow in favour and not a blow against civil liberties.

I’ve said previously that I thought that radical Muslim clerics should be censored or reprimanded at the very least. And if they continually flout the decency accorded to them in a Western democracy they should be deported and put on a terror watchlist. This is being made into law in the UK as we speak. I can see the logic in the PM’s statement but what unsettles me is that how long or far down the track before it becomes, “You don’t know how dangerous the world is and we are going to tell you what you can do and where you can go. It’s for your own good.”

Big Brother? And, at what price personal safety? I’m a bit ambivalent about it. I have a nagging feeling that most ppl would accept strict controls if they can continue to work and get wealthy and go about their merry consuming ways. Civil liberties and freedom of speech? Nah, don’t need it.

PM strengthens terror laws | Top stories | Breaking News 24/7 – NEWS.com.au (06-08-2005)

3 thoughts on “This argument unsettles me

  1. mooiness

    curtis: good article – food for thought. Tricky issue this: claming down on the extremists vs. civil liberties for the rest of us. Who gets to say who is an extremist and will the lines ever get blurred? Let’s hope not.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *