Security, Liberty, and the Denial of Life

Uncategorized 104 Comments

Benjamin Franklin: “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.”
Germaine Greer: Security is when everything is settled. When nothing can happen to you. Security is the denial of life.
So, how far are you willing to go?
The National Post looks at a new poll and how Canadians feel about security.
A new poll on attitudes toward terrorism suggests many Canadians think preserving national security is more important than protecting civil liberties. And the feeling is strongest amongst the sizeable minority who fear that they themselves could be victims of terrorism.

104 Replies to “Security, Liberty, and the Denial of Life”

  1. Perhaps the RCMP arrests of the Islamofascist terrorist cell in Toronto and the (thanks to Liberal idiot Comrade McGuinty) successful Indian extremist terrorism in Caledonia is helping many Canadians see more clearly on the subject of terrorism and the necessity of protecting freedom by force when necessary.

  2. well, I might be a tad more supportive if it didnt take 20 friggin years for the air india enquiry to happen for instance.
    we peg the terrorists and the canadian officialdom habit of DOING NOTHING kicks in.

  3. Having traveled in the Great White North quite a bit, I find it difficult to believe that Canada as a whole is getting so wussified. Can Canada be so far gone that it forgets what it took to tame that endless wild country? I don’t think so.
    Much like Australia, I think the wild men of the north just need a little wakeup call…maybe this terrorist cell is it. I hope your wakeup call isn’t as violent as ours was. Then you can limit your homegrown moonbats to latte enclaves and the Media as we have.

  4. What was the context of Franklin’s statement? Greer’s statement is, not surprisingly, hyperbolic.
    At some point, of course, freedom and security are competeing values. A terrorist’s freedom to operate conflicts with our right to security-and not just theoretically. Given the potential magnitude of the havoc they can wreak there ought to be a lower standard of proof required before the state can invade the privacy of suspected terrorists vis a vis ordinary
    criminals.
    Security is the result when the state employs rational, principled and vigilant use of the state’s authority to investigate and arrest those who are planning to terrorize the citizens of the state.

  5. The Franklin quote is a little garbled.
    “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
    I like “latte enclaves,” though. Very much. I shall save that one for a rainy day.

  6. “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue.”
    – Anonymous (sometimes mis-attributed to Barry Goldwater)

  7. I find it ironic that the very thing we absolutly detested and despised a few short years ago, we are now demanding for our “protection”. I am of course talking about the removal of our liberties and a larger police and security presence in various aspects of our lives and society. This is the early stages of the establishment of Orwell’s “Big Brother”.
    We see in North America how monitoring of email and phone conversations is now routine and accepted. We see how camera presences in all public places is becoming commonplace and probably many private places as well. Technology is only going to improve these methods with time.
    Don’t get me wrong, I am glad that they are agressively fighting the war on terror on many fronts and I hope we win.
    If we “win”, however we define that in the end, we will have this enormous “police state” presence set up that we demanded. This kind of surveilance network has to be busying itself doing something to continue to justify the funding to keep it going so who becomes the targets in the gunsights of the security apparatus at that time? Christians? Jews? Unions? Some ethnic entity? You? Me?
    Just food for thought.
    Daniel

  8. I know I’m not willing to give up any freedoms for the perceived sense of securtity. Particularly when you consider that being in the majority (white male) my group has plotted 0 terrorist attacks here in Canada.
    I am all for profiling, the nonsense of pulling little old white ladies out of the line for screening in the airport is moronic to say the least.
    Canadians are already sacrificing many of their rights to freedom. The average Canadian serf now works almost half of his life to contribute to the “State”. We no longer have the right to self protection in our own homes or businesses (Shand King). It is part of a greater problem of people no longer wanting to take responsibilty for their own lives.
    If someone is raping your wife…”just call 911″
    Lost your job…”call the government”
    No work in your area …”call the government”
    Got a tummy ache…”call the gov’t”
    Need the news…”watch the gov’t news station”
    (except on tuesdays)
    Anyway, this is the classic way that governments take freedom away from people. They create or take advantage of an existing fear and promise increased security in exchange for a decrease in freedom. Inevitably it fails.
    The english have traded away an amazing amount of freedom (and I might add common sense) and have only gained an increase in violent crime. Their homicide rate is about 1.5 per 100,000 while in the USA it is about 3.2 per 100,000. Big difference right? In England they don’t call it a homicide if the case was pleaded down to manslaughter or whatever, or if the body is not found, or if the case is not solved. So in England, if they find a bullet ridden body in the street but don’t prosecute anyone (for murder) then it is not a homicide. Neat trick huh?

  9. OFF TOPIC HERE: Did any Ontario bloggers see the article in the Star: “McGuinty Quietly Changes Ontario Trillium Symbol”
    Total waste of taxpayer money 219,000+, Contract of course went to a Liberal freindly Ad Agency(sound familiar) & here is the topper wait for it, The symbol will now look very similar to the Ontario Liberal Symbol(The trillium in the letter I).
    The Star has a reader feedback go & look 99% respondents total disgust.
    thanks everyone for allowing the interuption & have a great weekend
    Bryanr

  10. Actually, dawg, I’ve seen this as well:
    “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
    Columbia Encyclopedia.
    Trivialities aside, the point remains.
    TerryGain – I agree, freedom and security are competing values. This is natural. But both are necessary, not optional, and especially in the more complex realm of our species.
    In all of life, there are systems that necessarily promote symmetry or continuity. This provides security. If we didn’t have this, then our world would be pure randomness. Symmetry ensures that the new kittens will be genetically similar to the old cats.
    But, freedom or asymmetry is an equal necessity, for it enables the whole system (made up of both processes of symmetry and asymmetry)to divert from the norm, to adapt to new environmental realities. Without that capacity to innovate, to be ‘asymmetrical’, we’d rapidly become extinct.
    So, a robust society has to ensure that it can provide systems that enable both these processes, security or continuity, and freedom or discontinuity. The fact that these are ‘opposite’ processes is part of their reality.
    Muslim tribalism, for example, is focused only on symmetry. No change. It has no capacity to adapt or change. That’s why it hasn’t had a scientific thought for 1,000 years.
    Postmodern relativism focuses only on asymmetry, only on differences. It has no capacity to evaluate these differences, for life is purely random. Postmodern relativism is a superifical world; the latte drinkers can’t exist without the infrastructure which they deride, that infrastructure than provides them with the security of a job, of a safe environment where they can drink their lattes and so on.
    But, in times when the env’t pressures increase and are harmful pressures, such as Islamic terrorism, then, the system must focus on maintaining its integrity. Bears hibernate when the env’t pressures increase; some plants go into a no-growth mode; a society must maintain its capacity for symmetry, its sense of its values, to enable its own continuity.

  11. Daniel
    Food for thought? The meal you served up was not edible. What freedoms and liberties are we demanding be given up for security? You speak of “gunsights of the security apparatus” in a country where officialdom can’t bear to describe 17 Muslim suspected terrorists as other than “coming from a broad strata of society”.
    We have universes, not miles, to go before we reach that slippery slope you are worrying about.

  12. Daniel – I agree with Terry Gain. Exactly what freedoms and liberties have been lost? You refer to ‘removal of our liberties’. Please explain.
    You refer to monitoring of our email and phone. How does that affect your freedom and liberty? If the security forces capture a terrorist cell before the bomb goes off, doesn’t this enable your freedom and liberty to continue?
    You refer to camera presences. How does that affect your freedom and liberty? The camera captures the thief who robs the corner store and brutally beats up the owner.
    You are ignoring that a certain percentage of our population are, and always will be, criminal. To protect ourselves from being robbed, from thugs taking over our streets, we need security. And, since we can’t have a ‘cop on every block’, we require a different data gathering source: email and phone surveillance, and cameras.
    johnboy – I fully agree with you about the loss of security that goes along with the loss of the freedom to self-protect oneself. That’s socialism; that’s the Liberal/NDP agenda.

  14. Perhaps my mind is a bit muddled, but I’m not sure we’ve gotten to the core of the issue yet. IMO, are the posts by johnboy and Daniel in agreement or opposing?
    Using an analogy of cockroaches to represent “the bad guys” and light to represent “privacy”, I would note…because cockroaches skulk about in the dark, it is necessary to shine a bit of light on them to find them; does this violate everyone’s right to darkness?
    To obtain security and help the law enforcement officials to locate/track/capture the “bad guys”, it would be so much more efficient/effective if we all give up some of our privacy. Personally, I have nothing to hide, so I am not terribly concerned…as long as the motives are pure. The trouble is, motives may not always be pure.
    Some processes are in place to protect against loss of privacy for less than pure motives, but it is not yet watertight (nor will it ever be, unfortunately). As an example, additional processes such as the appointment of “impartial” advocates for those whose privacy may be violated (in addition to just a judge) may be appropriate in relation to the issuance of security certificates…and with the added advocacy perhaps we could permit greater intrusion.
    This is a slippery slope. Although Ben Franklin is a respected person and the quote is “attractive” and logical, should we necessarily run scared of giving up rights for security?

  15. 1. The meaning and ramifications of the “extremism” phrase have caused much debate. It had been thought Karl Hess was the author of the speech and the extremism phrase had been suggested by Harry Jaffa, a professor of political science at Claremont College. In a letter to F. Clifton White, Jaffa attempts to clear up the confusion about both the authorship of the acceptance speech and the origin of the extremism phrase.
    Jaffa points out Hess had written the draft of a speech “which no one liked.” When Goldwater made it known he wanted the extremism phrase worked into the middle of the speech, it was recommended that the author of the phrase “might know best how to produce the beginning and the ending!” Warren Nutter was to assist Jaffa, but Jaffa maintains “it was my work from beginning to end.”
    As for the “extremism phrase,” the “famous couplet was not from Burke, Cicero, or any one else.” It is in fact a passage from Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man: “A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice.” Jaffa goes on to write, “Neither I nor Aristotle could have said it any better.” Letter to F. Clifton White from Harry V. Jaffa, August 16, 1992, papers of F. Clifton White, Box 9, Ashland University Archives. Return to text.
    http://www.ashbrook.org/articles/hartz-draftgoldwater.html

  16. To clarify now that additional comments have been added…the “rights” we would be giving up would be primarily the “right to privacy” (is this a constitutional right or just one of those “fundamental” rights that SCOC judges get to apply?).

  17. The thing about freedoms, is you have to be alive to exercise them.
    If you are looking at the cemetary from the bottom up, this impinges on your freedoms; at least in this world.
    The terrorists are of the opinion that your life and theirs don’t matter much in the grand scheme of things.
    Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.
    Thomas Paine
    Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.
    Gilbert K. Chesterton
    War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
    John Stuart Mill
    And lastly for those who engage in anti-Americanisms:
    The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.
    Thomas Jefferson

  18. The problem with having the government of Canada protect us from terrorists is that the largest terrorist organization in Canada is the government of Canada. Don’t believe me? Think about it. I’d be willing to bet that there are more people in Canada that are afraid of government than any “terriorest” which makes them #1.

  19. hassle – I’m not sure what you mean by ‘rights to privacy’.
    Is the robber, being photographed as he beats up and robs the store-owner, deprived of his rights to privacy by that camera?
    My credit cards are scrutinized, and for that I am very grateful. I recall once being phoned in my office by the Credit Card Company, that they had stopped a purchase (by me supposedly) for $4,000 worth of jewelery from S. Korea.
    The credit cards scrutinize every purchase, as it is being made; if it’s ‘out of normal pattern’, they are immediately alert.
    So, I’m not sure what you mean by loss of privacy. I think that in our modern world, where so much of our interactions are electronically networked, we require surveillance of these electronic interactions.
    In our modern world, where so many commercial interactions take place ‘out of the neighbourhood’ where people are known – we require surveillance cameras. These cameras catch the thief, the attacker and the person doing 160 km on a 60 km road.
    Surveillance of electronic media catches the terrorists, and the gangs and the drug runners.

  21. I think many people don’t really belive, down deep inside, that there could be a credible threat here in Canada The Good. Therefore it must all be some kind of misunderstanding.
    People in Caledonia and Ipperwash understand that there IS a threat, and that it comes primarily from the government. A couple hundred armed knobs with crazy demands isn’t much of a threat, but a couple hundred riot cops guarding the knobs and using our money to do it, now that’s a problem.
    So I think we are going to see some interesting politics coming out of the terrorist threat, the criminal threat in Toronto/Montreal/Vancouver and the emerging Native campaign of bad behaviour. If you call the cops and they either don’t come or they come and arrest YOU because you fended off an attack, government has ceased to be the solution and has become the problem. Then what the hell do you do?
    That is where we are right now. Some people are smelling the coffee early, a large minority are still sleeping.

  22. dawg – so what? Your reference says x; another reference says y. So?
    CAW- that has to be the dumbest form of definition I’ve seen. The definition of a terrorist organization is not that the ‘recipient’ is afraid of it. I’m afraid of venemous spiders. Does that mean that spiders are terrorists? I’m afraid of poisonous mushrooms. Are mushrooms terrorist organizations?
    The gov’t of Canada is not a terrorist organization. It is an elected gov’t, constrained by the constitution and the rule of law. Terrorism, in case you are interested and I am presuming you aren’t – has no constitution or rules of law.
    Do you know the valid meaning of terrorism? It’s a civilian group engaged in subverting the legal infrastructure of a society, by means of violent personal attacks on civilians.
    The agenda is to change the power base of the society and put that base within their control. That is, they are attempting to snatch control of a country, not by election but by force, and govern a country, not by the will of the people, but by holding the population hostage to their force.
    Caledonia was a terrorist act; and McGuinty is a spineless fool.

  23. You must have had a late night CAW. Have a strong cup of coffee and wake up, get the juices going, and think. You have absolutely nothing to base your statement on, so prove it. “More people in Canada are afraid of government than any ‘terrorist'”. You did watch the TV coverage of 9/11 and the underground bombings in London, I suppose, (as did everyone else in the world) so back up your ridiculous statement. I’ll gladly take your bet.

  24. ET, excellent post! I wish I could have said it as well.
    Re: National Post: “without national security all other individual rights become theoretical”
    I would be curious what the residents of Caledonia who have been informed that policing by the OPP (which is paid for through their taxes and a separate contract for which they paid more than $8,000,000) have to say about this.
    Their rights (starting with security) have been removed NOT eroded. Do you think the native police force is going to be even handed in their dealings or that these people will trust them to be so?
    Although the situation there is smaller and the tactics are less violent, the similarity between it and national security are very real. I see it as a very poignant lesson.

  25. vieux loup – I agree. The natives in Caledonia acted as terrorists. They rejected the rule of law, they attempted to achieve their goal, of control of the property, via holding the citizens of Caledonia hostage, and by violent acts (burning of bridge), by physical attacks against both civilians and police.
    And what did our gov’t do? It gave in to these terrorists; it actually bought the land from the developer, using taxpayer money, and is holding it ‘for the natives’.
    It refused to uphold the law, it refused to hold natives as citizens of Canada and therefore, obliged to uphold the law, it didn’t charge them for their violent actions.
    McGuinty should be impeached.

  26. This is some interesting info about the American flag known as the Gadston flag.
    In December 1775, “An American Guesser” anonymously wrote to the Pennsylvania Journal:
    “I observed on one of the drums belonging to the marines now raising, there was painted a Rattle-Snake, with this modest motto under it, ‘Don’t tread on me.’ As I know it is the custom to have some device on the arms of every country, I supposed this may have been intended for the arms of America.”
    This anonymous writer, having “nothing to do with public affairs” and “in order to divert an idle hour,” speculated on why a snake might be chosen as a symbol for America.
    First, it occurred to him that “the Rattle-Snake is found in no other quarter of the world besides America.”
    The rattlesnake also has sharp eyes, and “may therefore be esteemed an emblem of vigilance.”
    Furthermore,
    “She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders: She is therefore an emblem of magnanimity and true courage. … she never wounds ’till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of treading on her.”
    Finally,
    “I confess I was wholly at a loss what to make of the rattles, ’till I went back and counted them and found them just thirteen, exactly the number of the Colonies united in America; and I recollected too that this was the only part of the Snake which increased in numbers. …
    “‘Tis curious and amazing to observe how distinct and independent of each other the rattles of this animal are, and yet how firmly they are united together, so as never to be separated but by breaking them to pieces. One of those rattles singly, is incapable of producing sound, but the ringing of thirteen together, is sufficient to alarm the boldest man living.”
    Many scholars now think that this “American Guesser” was Benjamin Franklin.

  27. ET & gellen
    Sorry to take so long but I had to check the atlas and I was right. Neither New York nor London have been moved to Canada.
    My woording may need amplifacation but I stand by my description that the Canadian government is the largest terriorest group in Canada. There may be 301 ellected turkeys there but the real power is the un-elected bureaucracy that has un-limmited powers.
    The joke you refer to as the rule of law is in reality a legal system made up by laywers to service the laywers and the legal profession. If thats not so how come not one politican has gone to jail over adscam?
    McGuinty is probably all you say, but even though what the Indians did “are still doing?” is a terriorest act, what the Ontario and Canadian government are doing is a bigger terriorest act.
    Who are the people of Caledonia more afraid of. The Indians or the government? If they’re not afraid of government why haven’t they moved to protect themselves?

  28. Correction: It is the Gadsden Flag.
    Geez, I had it right in front of me and still spelled it wrong.
    Sorry.

  29. In addition to Mr. Franklin’s observation, it is also the case that: They that can give up essential safety to obtain a little temporary liberty deserve neither liberty nor safety.

  30. The gov’t of Canada is not a terrorist organization. It is an elected gov’t, constrained by the constitution and the rule of law. Terrorism, in case you are interested and I am presuming you aren’t – has no constitution or rules of law.

    Nonsense [to the second part] All kinds of organizations we describe as “terrorist” have their own “constitution” (manifesto, whatever you want to call it), and every group of people more than 2 establishes some form of law, written or otherwise, to govern their relative behavior. In an extreme case: Hamas. Duly elected, and a terrorist org in most western countries view.
    the Canadian government, at least under the liberals, was barely constrained by either the constitution or law, if you actually get to watch them at work. Terrorism is tyranny by a minority. Tyranny by the majority is just plain tryanny 🙂

  31. Rubbish, CAW.
    The Liberal gov’t in Ottawa was corrupt, and is corrupt in Ontario, but neither gov’t is a terrorist organization. Kindly get your terms straight.
    Terrorism. Corruption. Two bad things. But two dissimilar things.
    I agree that some of our politicans, notably, Chretien, should be charged in court. I think that McGuinty should be impeached.
    A major problem in Canadian gov’t is that the majority of governance is appointed rather than elected. Canada is an oligarchy rather than a democracy. The judges on the Supreme Court are appointed by the PMO, without vetting or accountability. All judges are appointed, without vetting or accountability. Deputy Ministers, Chiefs of public corporations, heads of funding, on and on and on and on; they are all appointed by the gov’t. The ratio of appointed to elected is ten to one.
    Bilingualism, a disastrous mistake, narrowed the field of possible appointees to a clique within the Ottawa-Montreal corridor. This clique has become self-defined, closed to outsiders and incestuous. It has become the governing oligarchy.
    I will say that Harper is restoring the relevance of the elected House to importance.
    The Liberals had effectively destroyed the House as a forum of governance and had concentrated all their power in their inelected appointees. The House was irrelevant, and it is interesting, the House is still irrelevant to the Liberals! They are rarely there; they are invisible as the ‘official opposition’. The Liberals also effectively ignored the rules and motions of the House.
    The problem, CAW, with our gov’t and I agree strongly that there is a problem, is the massive reduction of potential gov’t appointees by the insistence on bilingualism (this has cost us 80% of the electorate). Then, the overwhelming ratio of appointed to elected members of gov’t, and the fact that these are unvetted by the House. And, the near-destruction of the elected House by the Liberals.

  32. 1)I’m with Franklin. Liberty first.
    2) Isn’t it tyranny/terrorism when the government by force makes it impossible for the people to get the healthcare they need, thus resulting in thousands of preventable deaths?
    3) Not to mention massive theft going on (aka redistribution via excessive taxation) which has nothing to do with democracy or management of the common good.

  33. skip – I suggest you clear up your terms.
    Tyranny by a minority is not the definition of a terrorist group.
    And a terrorist group does not have a constitution nor a set of laws. It has a mandate and a set of rules. Gosh, golly, am I just obfuscating and mixing up terms? No. There’s a difference.
    Terrorism is the unlawful use of violence against persons and/or property to intimidate a people and/or gov’t to fufil the wishes of that group.
    Note ‘unlawful’, which means the terrorists are civilians.
    And I repeat, the Caledonian natives were acting as terrorists. And McGuinty ought to be impeached for his actions.
    The terrorist group will have a mandate, an oral or written ‘agenda’, set of beliefs. This mandate has nothing to do with governance but with agenda.
    A constitution, for a nation, is a written set of axioms and principles which define the governing infrastructure of the country. All legal statutes and decisions must conform to these basic axioms.
    A set of laws are statutes that define valid and invalid behaviour within that society. As law, they are upheld by the courts and the lawyers. In a democracy, laws are made by the legislature, the elected body of representatives.
    A set of rules is just that; a set of rules of behaviour that may have nothing to do with the terrorist mandate (let’s take over the Caledonia land), but is based within and only within that group of operatives (Big Billy is the Boss; we only wear blue bandanas).
    Again, our Liberal gov’t in the federal and provincial area was and is corrupt. Chretien ought to be charged for fraud and money-laundering. McGuinty ought to be impeached for gross dereliction of duty and misuse of the taxpayer money. None of this was terrorism. And none of it was ‘tyranny’.

  34. dawg – so what? Your reference says x; another reference says y. So?
    Do you know what a screenshot is? Give it up, ET. Your intellectual honesty is in peril, and over such a trivial matter….

  35. If forced to pick I’d put Libery first too, Johann. But Mr. Franklin did not put Liberty first, he put Essential Liberty first. Similarly, he did not contrast with security, he contrasted with Temporary Security. That’s why I brought it up. People who denigrate Mr. Franklin’s genius by attributing to him some mindless comment about unqualified liberty and security, when he was clearly explicitly comparing Essential Liberty to Temporary Security, are a pet peeve of mine.
    Just to be clear: Mr. Franklin said nothing about non-essential liberty, and nothing about permanent security. I think the tradeoffs are probably clear to a reasonable man, although it does seem to me that a lot of people do like to hang around on web logs with the express purpose of exercising their unreasonableness, so perhaps that explains it.

  37. When you stop one person or a group of persons from protecting themselves by an implied threat of force are you not terrorising them? If you are terrorising them are you not a terrorist?
    It may be nit-picking but the end results are the same.

  38. There are three substantive differences between Mr. Franklin’s original wording and today’s colloquial aphorism: (1) Those who would => They that can; (2) purchase => obtain; and (3) safety => security.
    Did you have a particular point you wanted to make about one or more of those differences Dawg, or were you just trying to be gratuitously unreasonable?

  39. Gotta disagree ET. If you consider certain rights to be inalienable to use the American term, and the government actively moves against you and supports a small group bent on destroying those rights, that is oppression.
    Oppression is not something a legitimate, elected government of a free nation does. It is something tyrants do.
    Canadians are -finally- waking up to the fact that they do not have inalienable rights under the law. Not to property, not to privacy, not to self defense.
    What they are waking up to is that we live in a tyranny disguised as a free country. You are free so long as it remains convenient for the ruling regime, and should it become inconvenient you are NOT free.
    Henco just discovered that the deed to that land they paid hard money for isn’t worth the paper its printed on. Dalton finds it inconvenient, therefore it is null and void.
    The poor bastards on the Sixth Line in Caledonia just discovered that their right to be secure in their property and person does not exist. Cops will not come when called. Furthermore should they act in the defense of their persons or property, even against armed attack, the cops will take THEM away.
    The difference between that and some banana republic junta is one of degree, not kind.
    As for the Warrior Society, they are flying the flag of Palestine today and I’ve got photos of it. Tells me all I need to know about that lot.
    So let us not mince words here. The question is not what are we facing, its what are we going to do about it. Defeating the Liberals and discrediting their assinine ideology is a start.

  40. Did you have a particular point you wanted to make about one or more of those differences Dawg, or were you just trying to be gratuitously unreasonable?
    Precisely why am I “gratuitously unreasonable” for providing an accurate quotation from (or probably from) Benjamin Franklin? What on earth is wrong with you?
    In any case, it’s not a trivial distinction. If peoiple are going to forward aphorisms to back up their positions–a form of argument from authority–then they should at least get the damned things right.
    The only crux here is what Franklin meant by “essential” in the phrase “essential liberty.” I believe a case can be made that, for Ben F., ALL liberty is “essential.” I have seen no evidence that he made a distinction between “essential” and “non-essential” liberty. Liberty, for Franklin, was one indivisible notion. He was saying, in other words, that liberty is essential and should not be traded away for immediate “safety.”
    Now it happens that I agree with him in the current context. Civil liberties are always fragile when a population is terrorized–by its own leaders.

  41. Thanks, vitruvius. Dawg is just doing his usual, which is to assert his superiority (as is his self-definition of ‘Dr’).
    CAW- I’ll continue to disagree. I think that definitions are important, and your definition of terrorist is unique to you.
    The Phantom – I certainly agree that the McGuinty Liberals have disastrously failed the people of Caledonia. They did not protect the rights of the people; they did not act on the terrorist actions of the natives. That’s why I suggest McGuinty should be impeached. The gov’t should actually fall, now, on this issue. So, I fully agree with all of your outline of what McGuinty and the Liberals did. It is an outrage.
    I think it’s more than defeating the Liberals; yes, they have to be defeated. But the whole leftist ideology of multiculturalism, of ‘victim rights’, of payments for past suffering, of political correctness – has to be dropped.
    Margaret Wente has a great column in today’s G&M. She is claiming that her ancestors were Americans and so, she ought to be compensated now, for past sufferings (hey, you guys, aka the Brits, burned the White House) and current sufferings (always blaming the Evil USA).
    As she points out, any and all groups can fictionalize themselves as having endured ‘past suffering’ in coming to Canada. Of course, their forefathers and ancient generations probably inflicted ‘past sufferings’ on other groups way back in the old country as well.
    We can go on and on, in our regressive textual wanderings, digging up past grievances, and expect the current taxpayer to unload the money into our eager hands.

  42. I would withdraw one comment–the “argument from authority” one. Franklin’s aphorism was not used in that capacity, but only as a talking-point. Apologies all round.
    That being said, I do not happen to believe that the case has been made for encroachments on civil liberties. The latest revelations* about the chief witness against Harkat, for example–erupting after the Globe and Mail‘s smug assurances that security certificates are just ducky (except for Ernst Zundel, for some reason–maybe his name didn’t sound Arabic enough)–should give thinking people pause.
    *http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20060622222111556

  43. Say you had a life-threatening condition. Say that taking a dose of a drug every day would ensure your security/safety against the condition. Say you had to eat before taking the drug. Would you give up the liberty of eating whenever you want in favour of the security of your life?

  44. I would withdraw one comment–the “argument from authority” one. Franklin’s aphorism was not used in that capacity, but only as a talking-point. Apologies all round.
    That being said, I do not happen to believe that the case has been made for encroachments on civil liberties. The latest revelations about the chief witness against Harkat, for example–erupting after the Globe and Mail‘s smug assurances that security certificates are just ducky (except for Ernst Zundel, for some reason–maybe his name didn’t sound Arabic enough)–should give thinking people pause.
    As for ET’s blatherings, after his display of egregious ignorance about the writings of Sir Karl Popper, and his ridiculous insistence that his Franklin quote is as good as mine, I can no longer take him very seriously. If that’s “superiority,” then in this case, with regret, I must plead guilty.
    I sent an earlier version of this with a URL for the Harkat revelations, but I don’t want to have to wait until Kate returns.

  45. Say you had a life-threatening condition. Say that taking a dose of a drug every day would ensure your security/safety against the condition. Say you had to eat before taking the drug. Would you give up the liberty of eating whenever you want in favour of the security of your life?
    That’s a false analogy. Canada is not a body, and our collective lives are not at stake.
    www. cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/falseanalogy.asp

  46. The American Heritage Dictionary defined terrorism as “The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.”
    The Thomson Gale legal encyclopedia defines terrorism as “The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property in order to coerce or intimidate a government or the civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
    So, to an anarchist, the approach preferred by CAW is, I believe, appropriate. However, since I am a minarchist, I would say it is a matter of degree.
    In the vernacular, I don’t see an insurmountable problem if a free and fairly elected government enforces, say, a flat ten per-cent tax on all purchases in order to fund its operation of the commons.
    On the other hand, I do think that if the government tortures me for not turning over one-hundred percent of my income, then that’s definately terrorism, no bones about it.

  47. ET and Terry Gain
    Sorry for the delay, I have been out at work for a few hours.
    I think if you went back a few years ago, most people would have thought it reprehensible or unthinkable that private communications would be monitored with sanction from the government.
    The liberties that are being eroded away are things like the “expectation of privacy” on the part of the average law biding citizen. I have nothing to hide but I am not so sure that I want more and more government agencies having access to my life. Banking records, health records, private communications, like where does it end. All of this information that gets stored in a CSIS data bank is only secure until someone steals a hard drive or hacks into the system… I know, extreme paranoia, my therapist is working on me! What I see being built is an ever more robust security system in western societies. At the present time we all endorse the increased spending on security because of the extremist threat.
    My point was this, once we get this robust network in place and the threat is eliminated, then what. It has been a fact that beaurocratic institutions continue to increase in size or at least hold their own. Downsizing is not the norm, unless of course you are the Canadian military under the Liberal regime.
    As I said, it was just a thought, perhaps mixed with a mistrust of future political intentions, but a robust security network could be a threat to the freedoms of us all. Todays gain may be tomorrows pain. Universes away? At the speed things are moving these days, decades perhaps, hopefully never.
    Daniel

  48. Sorry I wan’t more clear, Dawg. I wasn’t trying to make an analogy, I was trying to introduce a thought-provoking contrapuntal. The details aren’t relevent here, at Kate’s blog, for this is not a freshman logic course; suffice to say that it is dangerous to confuse rhetoric per se and dialectics as a whole.

  49. Gollee ET, you are doing just that, obfusticating. And contradicting yourself:

    Tyranny by a minority is not the definition of a terrorist group.
    And I repeat, the Caledonian natives were acting as terrorists.

    Of course it is, you’ve just illustrated it. As regard to law, not unlawful according to them.
    When I was a young’un, many decades ago, we had a saying at school; you may have heard it: “those that can, do; those that can’t, teach”.
    It really is not necessary to offer me your interpretation of what civilization is, since I get paid to be the pointy end of the stick for the Feds. Enjoy your fantasy of how the world works, because, it really is a fantasy. What you’ve spouted is what we say when we want to believe that we really do respect the rule of law. What I am occasionally expected to do is much closer to the truth: biggest stick wins.

  50. My display of ignorance about the writings of Popper??? Sure. I know his works, all of them, far better than you do, dawg; in fact, his Open Society was the major textbook that I, yes I, assigned in my upper level class on ‘Social Architectures’.
    No, I didn’t assert that ‘my’ Franklin quote was ‘as good as yours’, dawg. I’m not into juvenile ‘Mine is better than yours’. What I did, after you posted your one-upmanship reference of the original rather than common wording of the quote – was to refer you to other sources of that same reference. Why? Because the CONTENT was the issue, not your posturing your self-defined superiority to everyone.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation