Libertarians feel strongly about protecting the inherent rights of a society because we've seen how easily they can be suspended when it is deemed necessary for the “public good”.
Take the fight against terrorism.
Most, if not all, of the laws curtailing civil liberties were passed in the years after September 11, 2001, an event I like to call "time zero" since many of our foreign and domestic security policies stem from the repercussions of that horrible day.
Before September 11, civil liberties were largely taken for granted in Canada. We didn't have airport security fees, security certificates, or Bill C-36, Canada's version of the Patriot Act which was rushed through Parliament during the panicky time when we feared terrorist strikes in North America were to become the norm.
Now, in the post-September 11 world, national security takes priority over every other responsibility and policy priority, including civil liberties, due process and international law.
At times it sounds justifiable to curtail basic liberties; perhaps even necessary, in order to catch the kinds of people who conceive plots to murder us. And certainly many Canadians support the idea of attacking terrorists by seizing their property, freezing their bank accounts, tapping their phones and reading their emails.
But we need to remember that our rights, which took centuries to enshrine as fundamental constitutional liberties, can be lost in a heartbeat.
And sometimes the people our governments go after are not terrorists.
Consider the case of Abousfian Abdelrazik, a Sudanese refugee who became a Canadian citizen in 1995. When visiting Sudan in 2003 he was placed under arrest by Sudanese Intelligence Agents, who later claimed they had been asked by CSIS to capture and interrogate him. It took six long years before Abdelrazik was repatriated to Canada, despite having never been found guilty of a single crime.
And there are examples of similar civil liberty infringements right here in Canada. The British Columbian government recently tabled an amendment to the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act which would essentially allow a "temporary" suspension of basic liberties and property rights. This will empower the municipalities of Vancouver, Richmond and Whistler to swiftly remove signs considered illegal during the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games.
This is being done under the pretext of security and trademark infringement for the 2010 Olympic Games.
But because what constitutes a “legal” sign is vaguely defined in the bill, civil libertarians wonder whether it's simply a way of forcing people in B.C. to comply with the government-approved Olympic Games. Maybe, in other words, the bill’s true purpose is to squelch anti-Olympic protests.
Again, maybe Canadians support censoring visible demonstrations and protests to an international event that has cost billions of tax dollars.
But when liberty is something that can be purchased by the whims of the majority, where does that leave the rest of society? The strength of a nation is tested by how well it protects the liberties of the individual, not just those who agree with the majority. Our rights are enshrined in the constitution for each and every day we live in this country, not just the days when the Olympic Games aren't in town. Every time we make a temporary exception to certain rights, we weaken the foundations upon which our democracy stands.
