Freedoms
All societies who accept the Rule of Law and a democratic or republican form of government (lower case letters in both of those forms) also accept what seem to many who do not have this form of government to be contradictions. These manifest themselves in many forms - most of them being small and usually resulting in some comedian pointing out the irony and the audience getting a laugh out of it.
Contradictions such as Freedom of Speech, but obviously not Freedom to Libel, and Freedom to Assemble, but obviously not to block access to a hospital are two examples of some of the more serious potential abuses and how the rule of law has come in and tried to patch up that which is not in the interest of society as a whole.
Protecting the rights of the individual while weighing the effects those rights might have on society is what makes for good public policy debate. When the smoke finally clears though, it is obvious that both sides of the debate still want to move society in a positive direction - they might just not agree on what method would be the best to get them there.
A major idea behind the rule of law is equal protection and application, and while we can shake our heads at many individual examples of this idea failing to be practiced at one time or another, it is still an idea very much worth striving to achieve.
What happens when a group of people enter the picture who do not have any desire to be part of that society, and in fact wish to destroy it in one form or another - including by employing criminal and probably violent means?
Some ‘enlightened’ types wish to grant them the same protections and applications as any ordinary person would have, and while this might seem noble and wonderful it helps undermine the very institutions that they wish to destroy and because of this these noble people do the work for those who wish to see that society eradicated.
Most common criminals are still willful members of society who simply find no use for certain behavior or laws and as such ignore them in order to gain what they want. While this is destructive to society, in most cases, simply removing them from the population also removes the threat they pose to the harmony in that society since they will no longer have the ability to rob, rape, or murder members of the society as a whole.
The modern terrorist who is determined to destroy a culture, nation, or an idea (such as Western civilization) will not be deterred by the threat of, nor rehabilitated from a stay in, prison. This person tends not to care for their own life and is quite willing and sometimes eager to die in an attempt to advance their cause. This eliminates a show of force (i.e. threats of imprisonment, armed guards and police) from being as effective as it might be against people who are willful members of a society and simply do not agree with policy.
When these terrorists are caught there are members of society who still wish to grant all the rights and privileges to them as if they were simply accused of car theft. We all know that laws can have loop holes and most of us get tired of hearing about people getting off due to technicalities or obscure laws and precedents, yet it seems that we fail to realize that those forms of manipulation against the rule of law’s equal protection and application are trivial compared to the rights many wish to extend to terrorists.
It is important for any society to hold equal application as a high standard for everyone who, even despite a criminal past, wishes to integrate into the community. It is even more important to give adequate care for the preservation of that society from forces who wish to destroy it. Terrorists have no care for Freedom of Speech, and this can be seen in their own nations, so to grant them such a right and to protect it while they find ways to destroy the very society granting them such rights is a suicide pact against the Rule of Law.
Caring for those who wish you harm is no more logical than giving the keys to someone who wishes to break into your home. Imagine the fun a comedian would have with that.
Societies must protect themselves, whether is be the United States, Israel, or anywhere else, and while both of our societies respect the rule of law and hold equal application in high regard, we must also not put our own people at risk for the sake of attempting to attain something that is not within reach as long as the bombs are exploding.
Contradictions such as Freedom of Speech, but obviously not Freedom to Libel, and Freedom to Assemble, but obviously not to block access to a hospital are two examples of some of the more serious potential abuses and how the rule of law has come in and tried to patch up that which is not in the interest of society as a whole.
Protecting the rights of the individual while weighing the effects those rights might have on society is what makes for good public policy debate. When the smoke finally clears though, it is obvious that both sides of the debate still want to move society in a positive direction - they might just not agree on what method would be the best to get them there.
A major idea behind the rule of law is equal protection and application, and while we can shake our heads at many individual examples of this idea failing to be practiced at one time or another, it is still an idea very much worth striving to achieve.
What happens when a group of people enter the picture who do not have any desire to be part of that society, and in fact wish to destroy it in one form or another - including by employing criminal and probably violent means?
Some ‘enlightened’ types wish to grant them the same protections and applications as any ordinary person would have, and while this might seem noble and wonderful it helps undermine the very institutions that they wish to destroy and because of this these noble people do the work for those who wish to see that society eradicated.
Most common criminals are still willful members of society who simply find no use for certain behavior or laws and as such ignore them in order to gain what they want. While this is destructive to society, in most cases, simply removing them from the population also removes the threat they pose to the harmony in that society since they will no longer have the ability to rob, rape, or murder members of the society as a whole.
The modern terrorist who is determined to destroy a culture, nation, or an idea (such as Western civilization) will not be deterred by the threat of, nor rehabilitated from a stay in, prison. This person tends not to care for their own life and is quite willing and sometimes eager to die in an attempt to advance their cause. This eliminates a show of force (i.e. threats of imprisonment, armed guards and police) from being as effective as it might be against people who are willful members of a society and simply do not agree with policy.
When these terrorists are caught there are members of society who still wish to grant all the rights and privileges to them as if they were simply accused of car theft. We all know that laws can have loop holes and most of us get tired of hearing about people getting off due to technicalities or obscure laws and precedents, yet it seems that we fail to realize that those forms of manipulation against the rule of law’s equal protection and application are trivial compared to the rights many wish to extend to terrorists.
It is important for any society to hold equal application as a high standard for everyone who, even despite a criminal past, wishes to integrate into the community. It is even more important to give adequate care for the preservation of that society from forces who wish to destroy it. Terrorists have no care for Freedom of Speech, and this can be seen in their own nations, so to grant them such a right and to protect it while they find ways to destroy the very society granting them such rights is a suicide pact against the Rule of Law.
Caring for those who wish you harm is no more logical than giving the keys to someone who wishes to break into your home. Imagine the fun a comedian would have with that.
Societies must protect themselves, whether is be the United States, Israel, or anywhere else, and while both of our societies respect the rule of law and hold equal application in high regard, we must also not put our own people at risk for the sake of attempting to attain something that is not within reach as long as the bombs are exploding.
posted by Edward W. Prather at 11:04
<< Home