Terrorism is undoubtedly amongst the greatest threats to our society. The freedom of association, expression and movement enjoyed in a liberal democracy are conducive to the planning and execution of acts of gross violence, designed to destabilise or destroy State structures or to advance particular ideological ends. Yet, our lives in the modern world are predicated on our freedoms and rights enjoyed in liberal democracies, presenting to us a paradox. I believe and shall argue in favour of the topic. My reasons for thinking so are: our protection of our institutions outweighs the costs of a targeted and temporary infringement of rights; it is in the utilitarian best interests of society to do so and that other measures alone in countering terrorism will not be sufficient.
Before proceeding to the argument, I will elaborate on technicalities of the question. By traditional liberties, I refer to the right to freedom of assembly and movement as well as the right to privacy (as indirectly defined under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, UNDHR). I believe that only these rights may have to be sacrificed and that the encroachment of any other right is an abuse of power. By terrorism, I refer to violent attacks against a person(s) or institution(s) with an extreme ideological motivation. These attacks may lead to economic and political instability.
First, our protection of our institutions is crucial. We must realise that terrorism is not merely a violent attack. It serves to destroy our cultural and moral values, our governments as well as everything else our society represents. Collectively, we must protect these and fight till our very last breaths to do so, for the destruction of these entails the destruction of us as people. For example, the Charlie Hebdo attacks, US Capitol riots and more. Only then may we hold our heads high in enjoyment of our fundamental rights and freedoms. Temporary suspensions of traditional liberties, for specific groups of people seems to be a small price to pay for this.
Second, it is in the utilitarian best interest of society for certain citizens to forego traditional liberties for the physical protection of our entire society. All individuals of a society have equal rights and an argument in favour of protecting majority, whilst not degrading society’s cultural and moral principles in the long run supersede the counterarguments. However, these interests are underpinned by the fact that these suspensions are for reasonably short periods of time and are sanctioned only based on unbiased, court-approved evidence leading to suspicion. If these criteria are not met, the costs of diminishing terrorism outweigh the benefits as society is nudged toward a slippery slope leading to a surveillance state with an abuse of government power (as in 1984, Orwell).
Third, other measures alone in countering terrorism will not be sufficient. An approach to diminishing terrorism that does not infringe traditional liberties will almost certainly be diagnostic. Once acts of terror have been committed, these measures may help identify further suspects and suppress potential threats. Since these measures cannot be preventive, their efficiency is questionable. In addition, these measures will always run against the clock, leading to non-ideal scenarios. A pre-emptive or preventive approach to counter terrorism (based on the infringement of traditional liberties), if adopted, it is likely to be faster, more accurate and more reliable, thereby reducing the economic burden to society.
In conclusion, I reaffirm the importance of a sacrifice of traditional liberties to diminish terrorism. Just as terrorism impacts human rights and the functioning of society, so too can measures adopted by States to counter terrorism. Governments have not only a right but a duty to take effective counter-terrorism measures. Such measures and the protection of human rights are complementary. They are mutually reinforcing objectives that must be pursued together as part of a government's duty to protect individuals within their jurisdiction.
Comentarios