LibertasPost

Is it ever acceptable to give up a little bit of liberty for more security?

According to 35 percent of people who responded to this poll question, the answer is “never.” Some 27 percent, however, agreed that it is acceptable “in moment of great national crisis, such as a war.”

A much smaller percentage (12 percent) said it was acceptable “but only temporarily, and for important events such as international summits.” Some 15 percent, meanwhile, agreed that such questions could only be answered “on a case-by-case basis.”

A couple of articles ago, I talked a little about former Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier and his maverick approach to Conservative politics in this country—an approach that actually represents what are, really, basic, small-c conservative principles.

Don't me wrong: I love mavericks. But now it's time for me to denounce them.

The headline reads like a piece of black comedy:

“Suicide barrier on [Toronto’s] Bloor Viaduct worked, but jumpers went elsewhere: study”

Really? You mean that investing $6 million in a view-obscuring fence designed to thwart people who want to snuff themselves didn’t actually prevent them from doing the deed somewhere else?

Colour me shocked. And while you’re at it, colour me annoyed as well.

Several conservatives have expressed a distinct lack of sympathy for the people arrested and detained by Toronto police and the Integrated Security Unit during the recent G20 Summit. Many conservatives assume that anyone who was hassled or detained by the police were either demonstrators or observers who shouldn’t have been there in the first place.

“It’s their own damn fault. What did they expect would happen?” has been a common refrain.

There is one thing I can take away with certainty from the G20 protests—face coverings should be banned. Burqas, niqabs, balaclavas, bandannas and other face coverings should be outlawed in public. Thank you, Black Bloc protesters, for crystallizing something for me that had previously been anything but clear.