The sky is falling, Canada version.

C

Cobalt_Kid

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,760
17
38
So is Harper using the terrorism issue to provoke fear and through that push for greater military spending and political control?

Adam Kingsmith: Trade Freedom for "Security"? That's a Raw Deal, Canada

The odds of dying in a terrorist attack on North American soil are roughly 1 in 20 million. Canadians have a better chance of being killed by a stray bullet in a random Toronto shooting -- 1 in 222,000, or suffering a fatal car accident -- 1 in 11,000.

According to the Terrorist Risk Index, Canada enjoys the lowest risk of terrorism out of all major Western economies -- and at 1 in 14 million, even winning the Lotto 649 is more probable than experiencing an act of extremism here at home.
Click to expand...

The chances are much greater that we'll be killed driving or in a rare criminal shooting or that there's more chance to win 6/49 than be the victim of a terrorist attack, but we're being told what a major threat terrorism is.

But why in the world would our governments and law enforcement agencies want to inflate the terrorist threat you ask?

The answer is simple: to engage the strongest political validation of them all -- fear.

With fear come easy justifications for augmented military spending, increased political leverage, and, above all, a terrified citizenry which longs for security, safety, and refuge -- the kinds of things we were told could only be guaranteed if we were willing to give up some of our Charter-imparted rights and freedoms in return.
Click to expand...

Should we be listening to a government that has proven to be so undependable in other areas such as with the current PMO scandal when it comes to potentially losing Charter rights over an issue that is almost certainly being inflated for political purposes just as violent crime is often used by certain groups to push agendas even though the stats show its on the decrease?

And therein lies the problem -- security is not a tangible thing. Rights and freedoms are definite and palpable public goods that once earned, can be invoked and enjoyed. Security is a vague and mysterious assurance that once engaged, can operate outside the parameters of a free and transparent democratic society.

In short, we're trading something irreplaceable that will in all likelihood never be returned to us for nothing but a vague promise by a government asking us to "trust them." When you simplify the exchange, it doesn't sound like a fair deal does it?

After all, while we cannot say for certain how much safer all this "security" has made us, we can say how much less free it has made us -- and that right there should serve as a stark reminder that those willing to trade freedoms for "security" will end up with neither.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom