Modernizing Liberty

[Scribbly]

lib¬?er¬?ty   
,Äìnoun, plural -ties.
1. immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence [syn: autonomy]
2. freedom of choice; "liberty of opinion"; "liberty of worship"; "liberty--perfect liberty--to think or feel or do just as one pleases"; "at liberty to choose whatever occupation one wishes"
3. personal freedom from servitude or confinement or oppression

Above is the dictionary definition of that most outdated term, Liberty. It is a word that has been used for many purposes throughout history. Liberty is something wars have been fought for, men and women have died for, and it is something that many people in the western world would declare that they are fighting for today- against terrorism. It is often said that the terrorists are attacking our liberty, and our freedom. This may be true. What I want to ask is, why, in order to fight this menace, must we sacrifice the very thing we are fighting for?

I shall go through it step by step:

1)Immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: Political Independence

I do not believe we have this today, at least in the United Kingdom (my home, and thus where I am writing from; though I believe that many of the comparisons drawn here can be equated neatly enough to the United States). People are grabbed often under new legislation, and held without trial, without even a charge. The police don't have to present any evidence, they just have to claim that there is a terrorist link. These people risk losing their job, their home, and risk the suspicion of their neighbours even if they are let out. Nobody in the United Kingdom is immune from arbitrary exercise of the authority of the state, if there is even the slightest suspicion that they might harbor terrorist sympathies. Therefore, we do not have liberty by that definition.

2) Freedom of choice; "liberty of opinion"; "liberty of worship"; "liberty--perfect liberty--to think or feel or do just as one pleases"; "at liberty to choose whatever occupation one wishes"

We do not have this any more, either. It is illegal to make statements that may incite religious hatred, or statements that can be seen to be glorifying terrorism. It can be argued, therefore, that the celebration of Guy Fawkes night, the movie V for Vendetta, political parties such as the Neo-Nazi's, or the BNP are all illegal. Whether or not you are in favor of the examples above, I remind you of the words of Voltaire, ,ÄòI disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,Äô. When you silence groups, you don't allow for healthy and open discussion of their views. The views of these groups become well known, and are, in a strange way, validated by their silencing. The holes in their arguments cannot be brought out in front of the public, and political parties such as the BNP get more support by their martyrdom- as is happening.

3) Personal freedom from servitude or confinement or oppression

Finally, we come to the last definition of liberty. Can we be said to hold onto this in the modern day? No. We can't. Again we must return to the anti-terror legislation in force, and we see that we can be held in confinement in our own homes merely on the suspicion that we might be commiting a crime. Again, there needn't be any evidence presented, the police can state that it is too sensitive.

In these times of strife, we must ask ourselves what we are fighting to protect, just as much as what we are fighting to prevent. I do not wish to live in a radical islamic state, but I do not believe that in order to prevent that from happening we have to sacrifice the ideals upon which our nation has survived. The liberty of the individual and the security of the collective have always had to maintain a careful balance, but that balance no longer exists. It seems that if we are to fight the extremists, the message that is being sent by these new laws, is that we are going to have to have to modernize our view of liberty as far from the original concept as our modern society is from the of the past.

I do not believe this is possible. I believe that you either have liberty, you either have freedom, or you do not. You cannot 'modernize' such a fundamental concept.

What do you believe?