The question of sacrificing traditional liberties in order to defeat terrorism is a polarising one. On the one hand, terrorism is one of the most prominent social issues in today’s world, whilst on the other hand, traditional liberties form the basis of our most fundamental human rights. Some critics may argue that we should put the collective needs of our society above our selfish desires. An example of this is the USA, which implemented its controversial Patriot Act following the September 11th attack on the Twin Towers. Others argue that traditional liberties are sacred and thus should always be respected, no matter the context. Therefore this essay will discuss the opinion that we should never sacrifice traditional liberties to defeat terrorism.
Traditional liberties are undeniably intertwined with daily life. Every individual carries out the freedom of speech, the freedom of expression and many more, and these rights are protected under the ECHR. If we start legalising the infringement of these rights, what is the purpose of their existence in the first place? Moreover, these rights and our absolute right to them are what renders our society a democracy. Ultimately, if we choose to allow the cessation of these rights when fighting terrorism, we turn our backs on living in a democratic system. Taking away this democratic system leads us into a place of political uncertainty, one that is, ironically, more likely to spur terrorism. Another significant impact is the fact that taking away these liberties may lead to censorship by the state as there is no way to set a limit on what rights are infringed upon. Instead of this, there is a plethora of better alternatives, from increased education on terrorism to research on the causes of radicalism, none of which infringe upon the absolute rights set upon the ECHR.This policy does not reduce terrorism but rather aligns itself with its aims, naming it entirely counterproductive and unuseful. Thus cementing the notion that we should not sacrifice our traditional liberties to stop terrorism.
However, up to now, there has been no effective answer to the issue of terrorism, sacrificing traditional liberties could be it. All of the world’s most powerful leaders have had their fair share of tackling the issue of terrorism, all of whom were for the most part unsuccessful. What unifies these failed politicians is: that they never sought to sacrifice traditional liberties. The USA's patriot act is the closest attempt of such. Instead of focusing on our personal comfort, we should take the utilitarian view put the needs of our society above our own and sacrifice our traditional liberty. If we do not, we can never know the potential lives and cities that were saved, the possible peace it may have brought continents, all for our comfort. If this sacrifice is really that uncomfortable, these policies can be temporary, just until terrorism subsides, which would increase the quality of life for the entire community and the individual sacrificing his liberties in question. This possibility shows an undeniable reason why we should sacrifice our traditional liberties to protect ourselves from terrorism, as the consequences may be even more harmful if we do not.
To conclude, we should not sacrifice our traditional liberties to defeat terrorism as it places strain on our most fundamental human rights. These rights form the basis of our modern-day society and infringing them would disrupt our democratic society. However, some critics stress the idea that we must try any solution to counter-terrorism, including the sacrifice of liberties. This is undermined by the fact that the solution to terrorism should not hinder the lives of civilians and that there are plenty of alternatives which do not do so. It is the job of terrorists to disrupt the lives of civilians, not one of the policies stopping it. Thus this essay reaffirms the fact that traditional liberties surpass protection from terrorism and must be respected absolutely.
Written by Aurore
Comments