Karly L.

Dwyer

Position Paper

Dec.17

When looking at democracies and the societies that come along with them, there are many
complexities that may not be visible but in reality, indeed they are there. At times, even the most
extreme forms of liberal governments are going to be faced with difficulties that are going to make them
adjust their ways of running the government. In times of a major crisis, systems of governments have to
ask themselves if they should always adhere to the principles of liberalism or if it is acceptable to restrict
a few concepts of censorship in order to protect the greater good of the society. It is important to take
into consideration of how extreme a crisis is and decide whether or not it is serious enough to take away
liberal freedoms of citizens. Another major concept to analyze would be, if matters do come to the point
where a community is threatened is it worth sacrificing individuals liberal censorship? It is also very
crucial that the extent to how for the government is going to go is reasonable and practicable.
Therefore, in the time of a crisis, when the restrictions of freedom are minor, they are certainly not as
serious as the devastating consequences that may come from not making a reasonable decision.
Shortly after the incidents of 9/11, an act was passed that is known as the, Anti-Terrorism Act.
This act enabled government security to arrest anyone who they perceived as a threat to society or that
could possibly be linked to terrorism. A Syrian born Canadian by the name of Abdullah Almalki was an
electronics supplier. His job involved travelling throughout Pakistan and the Middle East, because of this
the government grew suspicious in the means of connecting him to terrorism. Police raided his home in
the hopes of finding evidence that they could use to tie him to terrorism, they were unsuccessful. Later
on Abdullah was visiting family in Syria, he was detained and spent twenty two months in a Syria jail. He
was questioned by authority and was beaten and tortured. Due to lack of evidence that could connect
him to terrorism he was released. This whole situation was completely unacceptable in the means that
his personal liberties were violated in every way. Relating to the Anti-Terrorism Act there was an act
passed called, The No Fly List. How this worked was that any individual that was thought to be a threat

Karly L. Dwyer

Position Paper

Dec.17

to a society, their names were put down on a list. Surprisingly enough the individuals whose names were
recorded on the list actually had no recognition of it. So they could be going on vacation to another
country and unexpectedly be taken into a room to be questioned and they would be told they are not
able to departure from the airport. The U.S government had over forty four thousand names on their no
fly list and that is absolutely ridiculous. Mobility rights being taken away from an individual because of
their race, religion or possibly even values is an extreme violation of censorship and should have never
been tolerated. Although it is logical to be completely against imposition of liberalism, the fact is that
the safety of an entire nation is more viable than the liberties of one individual, and if one individual is a
threat to society something has to be done about it.
After WW1 the, War Measures Act, was passed because the Canadian government felt it was
essential to protect, retain and secure other principles of liberalism. Even though the act limited basic
principles of liberalism it was necessary for the overall good of society. The War Measures act was
justified because of an extreme threat or severe nature of a situation. This is evidence that in some
cases it is appropriate to impose liberalism. The War Measures act was put into place three times,
during WWI, WWII, and the October crisis. The acts repeating pattern goes to show that in a severe
situation, restricting freedoms is acceptable when the majority population is at risk. In 2001, the United
States Government passed an act called the, Patriot Act. This reduced restrictions on law enforcement
agencies. In some ways the extent that personal liberties were being taken away was too extreme, the
U.S government had their reasons. They felt that there was a need for increased security and they were
determined to deter and punish terrorism acts all around the world. The nation was at risk so the
government did what they had to do in order to protect the citizens. At one point the Canadian military
officials restricted their soldiers from using the social media site known as Facebook. The soldiers felt
that their liberal freedoms were violated but if both sides of the argument were to be compared the
conclusion would be that it is more reasonable to take away some minor freedoms of the soldiers rather

Karly L. Dwyer

Position Paper

Dec.17

than risking to mistakenly give out information about the military to the enemy. In most cases, the
governments are only thinking about safety and security of the community, and in order to be successful
with that there are going to be inequalities. It cant be expected that something as complex as safety
and security of a nation is going to come easily.
Liberal democracies can be justified in restrictions during a crisis. The reality is that at times
illiberal censorship is acceptable when the main concern is safety and security of a community. Being a
supporter of increased security, I agree that when a nation perceives a threat, it is only reasonable to
give up a few minor freedoms. You cant have a completely liberal government and one hundred
percent ensured safety and security it just doesnt work out. Making sure that every single individual has
every possible personal liberty isnt worth the risk of jeopardizing the well-being of an entire society.