Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

Cailan Jackson

It is universally agreed upon that rights and freedoms are a basic requirement in
democratic societies. However, the source believes that in times of crisis there may be a
temporary suspension of rights to preserve the future of democracy. In historical times, this
concept worked fairly well, due to the fact that catastrophe could be systematically categorized
and put on a timeline, and the this could directly justify the sacrifices of certain liberties. As with
our ever changing political landscape, this idea has become outdated and impractical in the face
of post-modern extremism. The perspective demonstrated by the source is only functional when
three clauses are met - the suspension of rights must be temporary and in response to
immediate danger, it must be formed by rational reasoning of the government and it must be for
the betterment of all citizens of the nation. Unfortunately these conditions are impossible to
meet in the face of terrorism. The war on terror is not a material war, it is idealogical. It is the
constant fight between the liberal values of the western world and those who reject the
principles of liberalism. As terrorism rarely has a set timeline or battleground, it can be
extrapolated that any democratic nation could be in imminent risk of an attack. This is where the
Hobbesian ideology of the sacrifice of liberty in return for security show by the second half of the
source does not work as the sacrifice cannot be temporary as long as a country is always at
risk. The government also limits freedoms out of fear instead of rationale, as the death of
citizens is almost always blamed on the state not doing enough to protect the people. This
limitation through fear often creates unintentional scapegoating of groups within the nation,
further dividing the people. Faced with no other option the state can become a Leviathan to
protect the nation, therefor rejecting all aspects of liberalism and ultimately submitting
themselves to the extremist regime. As an alternative to the current ideology, modern
democracies should strive to take on the words of Jean-Jaques Rousseau who stated he would
rather live in liberty and danger than peace and slavery. The best way to face modern crisis is
not to reject our liberal principles, but to embrace them as an act of solidarity.

Cailan Jackson
The suspension of rights and freedoms must be made rationally and without fear by the
government on a basis to preserve democracy, not undermine it. The national motto of the
people during the french revolution that created their democracy was libert, galit, fraternit,
o la morte. Since then to the death has been removed but the roots of liberalism without
compromise echo in Frances democracy today. Approximately two months before the
November 13th Paris attack, alleged mastermind Abdelhamid Abaaoud re-entered Europe by
way of Greece from Syria. During that time Abdelhamid boasted about how easy this feat was
due to the influx of Syrian refugees and how incompetent the french governments border
control policies were. In response to this France suspended the European Unions Shengen
agreement during the massacre and have not lifted the exceedingly harsh rules in the wake of
the event for of letting yet another terrorist into their borders. The french also granted their
president exceptional powers in the face of crisis including the ability to search personal
premises without warrant, and place citizens under house arrest without giving them access to
the judicial branch. These are not rational decisions, they are a quick response to fear as they
violate habeas corpus and the fundamentals of french democracy. Americans also suffer from
this mandate of fear through the Patriot Act. Very similar to the suspension of rights in Paris, the
Patriot Act allows the government to monitor, detain, torture and even possibly kill American
citizens on US soil who may be connected to terrorism. Combined with the fact it is not
temporary, the Patriot Act voids all the essential checks and balances the American people are
so boastful of.

In the face of modern terror, government decision to suspend rights and

freedoms are born of fear rather than rationality.

The suspension of rights is often abused and targeted at minorities. Since the horrific
attacks of 9/11, the Muslim community has been unfairly designated as a high risk group. The
Voldemort effect, born of unintentional scapegoating by government and social media, has
created a division in the nation - the mentality of us against them. Despite the large majority of

Cailan Jackson
Muslims rejecting the radical views of the Islamic State, ethnic minorities as 42 times more likely
to be randomly searched in British Airports under Schedule 7 of the Counter Terrorism Act.
This racial profiling not only degrades our nation socially, but also on humanitarian and
international stages. The Czech Republic, despite being a proud member of the European
Union who believe in Unity in Diversity, has show extremely xenophobic tendencies
highlighted in the wake of the Paris massacre. Possibly due to Abaaoud entering Europe with a
group of refugees, the Czech government has forbidden Syrians fleeing war from entering the
country, going so far as to detaining them and further alienating them through writing numbers
on their arms. Similarly, the french attacks allowed the Parisian government to unfairly target
climate change protesters, through claiming that public assembly is forbidden under the
emergency laws. Although there is a legitimate claim that this is an example of draconian law
and that the government is just being extremely careful in light of recent events, other
gatherings such as football games, christmas markets and trade shows have been allowed to
transpire. Although masked as a sacrifice of liberty to all citizens in response to crisis, it is
impossible for government to prevent strain on certain minorities in response to extremism.
Illiberal policies enacted during times of crisis always run the risk of not being as
temporary as promised, especially with the threat of constant violence that post-modern
extremism poses. Francois Hollande asked the french parliament to extend the state of
emergency of the french massacre, legally limited to twelve days, to three months. With the
approval of the lower house, he managed to pass this bill and essentially bestowed vast
amounts of power upon himself, declaring himself the judge, jury and witness of France.
Currently he has the rights force citizens into house arrest without the right to the judicial branch
and search private property without warrant. He has even floated the idea of revoking the
citizenships of all those involved or supposedly involved in terror attacks. In addition to this, the
president plans to convene congress, where both legislative houses will sit together to rule on

Cailan Jackson
wether or not the state of emergency should prolonged past the current three months. If he
gathers two thirds of the vote of congress, Hollande could extend the state of emergency
indefinitely without even consulting his people through referendum. Green member of
parliament Nol Mamre, who opposed the vote of the three month extension, warns of this loiliberticide of exceptional power has the risk of becoming an everyday fact. If this mandate was
enacted by malicious intent rather than a place of fear, it would be comparable to Hitlers
Enabling Act. In both cases, ones mans party or government was given the right to reject
principals of liberalism in the name of longevity of the nation and democracy. Much as the
Enabling Acts sunset period of four years was never respected, the french nations three
month protocol runs the same risk if played correctly. Although it is very doubtful something so
undemocratic could befall France, the risk is always there and could be acted upon if the power
is in the wrong hands.
The perspective of the source is of a historical viewpoint, where crisis could be
measured, controlled and ended. The suspension of rights and freedoms could be easily
justified and monitored. In modern times, we must respond and adapt to new, more abstract
threats appropriately. Illiberal policies should only be enacted as a last resort, as they are
essentially a concession to terrorism. The state must not act out of fear, it should be rational.
Illiberal acts target minorities, stifling dissent and creating unintentional scapegoating, dividing
the nation.

Through embodying Hobbes Leviathan, the state runs the risk of permanently

residing in a mode of terror to attempt to provide security, conceding to the extremists. Only
through embracing the values of liberalism without hesitation and standing in solidarity will the
war on terror be won.