Civil Liberties and Security can Temporarily Coexist

What will it take for people to grasp that laws are human constructs from the minds of human beings based on humanity's experiences? We frame laws as we go along and learn. In this way, humans have learned to be rather realistic and pragmatic when it comes to legislating, formulating and changing laws. It is a highly flexible human endeavour because humans are in an ever constant state of change and progress. Laws enacted in the 19th century don't always make sense to a contemporary mind and we have no issues with amending the law.

Since 9/11, have civil libertarians learned to adjust? They see any measures to secure the American people as an overreaction. Is it? History will show that the problem with surprise attacks is that it is borne out of the fact that we underestimate what enemies plot.

9/11 was an act of war by a camouflaged enemy that has made clear they will strike again - an enemy that skillfully uses the concept of freedom against the people. They walk among us all. It only takes one. The precedent has been set.

Where is the overreaction in this? It seems to me that the government of the United States is progressing prudently in this matter. What did people expect: That all begins and ends with intelligence? That the cops and various public security officials somehow figure out who the enemy is with their thumbs stuck up their noses?

Time and again democracies have proven to be remarkably considerate when it comes to balancing liberties and security. That doesn't mean that we haven't been wrong or indeed have not overreacted in the past. Civil liberties can be curtailed temporarily if security is threatened. They may not comprehend that the terrorist threat is real but the American government and a significant portion of its people think it is. Why would any government go through the trouble of such measures if they did not feel the threat was real?

In any event, those civil liberties lost in times of war are usually restored in a democracy.

That's the beauty of law. It knows it is not about values. People value their security before they do their freedom. Freedom is a precious commodity that must be protected. No pain, no gain.

Enter the fabulously, fanatical Gordon Johnson and his flippant case against the people who run Raymond James Stadium -home of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. In his mind, because a security guard dutifully does his job to check his bag, his civil liberties are infringed. In normal times, he would be right. I myself tend to trust the individual over government. If I had to choose between the two that is. I understand what libertarians are saying in its abstract form but Mr.Johnson's grievance seems a little much.

However, in a world that is still trying to figure out the new rules of the international system, he is wrong and he must be outright dismissed. It can also be put forth that he is immoral. He is not thinking about the collective benefit rewards of security but rather is hiding behind a document to push an individual motive. Suppose there is an attack on that very stadium? Let us suppose further that tens of thousands die but he survives? What was the price of freedom? What was it worth to him?

In both Canada with the Charter and the United States with the Constitution we have allowed these documents - however enlightened or important - to consume our notions of what defines us. We no longer strive towards a free-flowing society in search of a just path while using these documents as mere guides along the way. Rather, we allow them to define our national DNA. With it a whole pack of myths and empty promises we can't possibly hold. By adhering to a strict and inflexible code and stringent application of that code to benefit the individual, all we do is warp our collective common sense. Government should not be our sole tour guide to a just society.

If rules are meant to be broken then laws are meant to be changed. There is a plausible argument to be made that most people will tolerate some cuts in personal freedom to protect themselves. It's happened before in history and it will surely happen again in the future.

In the meantime, why take the chance? The 1950s are long gone.