In the aftermath of the Ottawa shootings, the fear level
will grow. The loss of two young lives, one aligned culturally and one counter-culture is an absolute shame. Each was brought to a circumstance by different
paths, one can deliberate of their respective paths, what is unequivocal, however,
is that their deaths came from a conflict larger than themselves. It is
important, however, to bring the loss of these two young men into perspective in
the context of governance, policy and real threat. While there is no means by
which to value their loss, there is a means to ground ourselves in reality so
that the sentiment from their loss will be directed appropriately and
proportionately.
To offer context, last year, direct deaths attributable to
terrorist attacks were ZERO, and deaths attributable to preventable medical accidents 10,
000. Where, then, should the focus of legislators be and where is it now? It
was reported that 3,000 people died in attacks related to 911, that same year
in the USA, 100, 000 people died from preventable medical accidents – where did
legislators focus their attention. It was reported that due to the fear of
flying post 911 there was an incremental increase in deaths related to car
accidents that exceeded deaths attributable to 911. Due to the events around 911, there was an assault
launched on civil liberties at a scale that would never have been permitted
absent the skewed sense of risk projected by 911, as it was portrayed by the media
and government. The United States Constitution is a beautiful document that
should be held up as the preeminent example of freedom governance, post 911
there was an unprecedented incursion on the spirit of the document and by
extension the American way of life. We need to be cognizant of what transpired
south of our border, and bring the rational mind to the challenge, or we too
will forfeit hard-won freedoms given to us by preceding generations to protect.
There is talk of preemptive justice, the capacity for state intervention
when someone is “thinking about doing something”. We have as the most basic
right, as a fundamental legal tenet the presumption of innocence and for our
rightful state of liberty to be interrupted, the state must prove wrongdoing. There
is no room here for preemptive justice, the notion is oxymoronic. It is the
case now if the state can prove intent to harm, the state can intervene. We
have the means by which to counter-terrorism, it is a matter of directing them
correctly. In the event of a serious domestic or international event, we have
the War Measures Act. Watch closely how our government responds to this, it is
easy, especially in the face of a direct threat, for legislators to go too far
and jeopardize our rights and freedoms.
No comments:
Post a Comment