The Hancock Symposium is a nationally recognized academic event, in which renowned speakers engage in thought-provoking lectures, panel discussions and presentations on one particular area of global interest. Students and faculty members have the chance to participate in these activities, creating a campus-wide learning environment around the symposium, and expanding the horizons of these discussions beyond the speakers, reaching the diverse student body, faculty and staff, and the local community. The 2015 Hancock Symposium had as a theme “Security vs. Liberty: Balancing the Scales of Freedom,” which focused on the actions taken after 9/11, and the inquiry of liberty being jeopardized in the name of security. In this paper I will analyze …show more content…
Farhat Haq. Dr. Haq is a professor of Political Sciences at Monmouth College, she has focused her career on issues of ethnic politics, gender and politics, Islam and Human Rights, and militarism and motherhood. On her lecture at the symposium she presented how the Pakistani military has been “glorified” after the massacre at a school, and the consequences that this glorification and “implicit coup” had on the Pakistani society. She began by referencing George W. Bush, when he question in public “why do they hate us?”, but the ambiguity of the question did not clarify if that “they” meant extremists or the whole Muslim world. Then she expressed that many Muslims in fact embrace the political freedoms as well as the Westerns do, including many people in Pakistan. However, in the case of Pakistan there was one turning event that pushed the desire for security above everything, and challenged the already weak democratic institutions of the …show more content…
In the case of Donohue, she considered that the general warrants that affected the American and English society during the 18th century, were back in the form of mass collection programs, which evolved from the physical bursting of property that characterized the warrants, to a cybernetic violation of privacy. For Dr. Haq, the returning law was more evident and in a shorter amount of time. During the Lunch that fortunately I had with her, she expressed how she saw this move as going “backwards” on the democratic process, and the multiple counter-effects that this law would have in Pakistan. I see that both authors would agree that any set of actions taken by a government that affects its democratic institutions, should not be considered as an adequate option to solve short-term problems, as they would be harming the stability and values of the same country in the
Less than one week after the devastating terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S.A. Patriot Act was introduced to Congress. One month later, the act passed in the Senate with a vote of 98-1. A frightened nation had cried for protection against further attacks, but certainly got more than they had asked for. Russell Feingold, the only Senator to vote down the act, referred to it as, “legislation on the fly, unlike anything [he] had ever seen.” In their haste to protect our great nation, Congress suspended, “normal procedural processes, such as interagency review and committee hearings,” and, “many provisions were not checked for their constitutionality, lack of judicial oversight, and potential for abuse.” Ninety-eight senators were willing to overlook key civil liberty issues contained within the 342 page act. The lone dissenting vote, Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold, felt that our battle against terrorism would be lost “without firing a shot” if we were to “sacrifice the liberties of the American people.” Feingold duly defended American civil liberties at the risk of his career, truly exemplifying political courage as defined by John F. Kennedy.
Since the Confederation of Canada until today, the province of Quebec has always wanted become its own nation by separating from Canada. As a result, Canada’s scariest ever terrorist group, the Front de Libération de Quebec (FLQ), wrote the darkest chapter in Canadian history, The October Crisis. To end the terror, Canadian Prime Minister, Trudeau, was forced to invoke the War Measures Act (WMA) during his term in 1970 which was flawed with disapproval and controversy since it was the first time the Act was used during peacetime. However, despite the criticism, his decision to invoke the War Measures Act was reasonable because of the fear presented by the FLQ, the public and governmental demands, and the end result of the October Crisis.
Charen presents her thesis prominently at the beginning of her essay in her title. By doing so, she not only clearly expresses her thesis that we must give up some liberty to secure the United States, but also peaks the interest of the reader with a provocative and timely statement. To understand the appeal of the title as a narrative hook, the reader should consider the context in which it was written. Charen’s essay was written at a post-9/11 time when security was on the minds of everyone in the United States.
Cole, D., & Dempsey, J. X. (2006). Terrorism and the constitution: sacrificing civil liberties in the name of national security. New York: New Press.
Our nation seems as if it is in a constant battle between freedom and safety. Freedom and security are two integral parts that keep our nation running smoothly, yet they are often seen conflicting with one another. “Tragedies such as Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombings may invoke feelings of patriotism and a call for unity, but the nation also becomes divided, and vulnerable populations become targets,” (Wootton 1). “After each attack a different group or population would become targets. “The attack on Pearl Harbor notoriously lead to Japanese Americans being imprisoned in internment camps, the attacks on 9/11 sparked hate crimes against those who appeared to be Muslim or Middle Eastern,” (Wootton 1). Often times people wind up taking sides, whether it be for personal freedoms or for national security, and as a nation trying to recover from these disasters we should be leaning on each other for support. Due to these past events the government has launched a series of antiterrorist measures – from ethnic profiling to going through your personal e-mail (Begley 1). Although there are times when personal freedoms are sacrificed for the safety of others, under certain circumstances the government could be doing more harm than good.
Democracy is more than merely a system of government. It is a culture – one that promises equal rights and opportunity to all members of society. Democracy can also be viewed as balancing the self-interests of one with the common good of the entire nation. In order to ensure our democratic rights are maintained and this lofty balance remains in tact, measures have been taken to protect the system we pride ourselves upon. There are two sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that were implemented to do just this. Firstly, Section 1, also known as the “reasonable limits clause,” ensures that a citizen cannot legally infringe on another’s democratic rights as given by the Charter. Additionally, Section 33, commonly referred to as the “notwithstanding clause,” gives the government the power to protect our democracy in case a law were to pass that does not violate our Charter rights, but would be undesirable. Professor Kent Roach has written extensively about these sections in his defence of judicial review, and concluded that these sections are conducive to dialogue between the judiciary and the legislature. Furthermore, he established that they encourage democracy. I believe that Professor Roach is correct on both accounts, and in this essay I will outline how sections 1 and 33 do in fact make the Canadian Charter more democratic. After giving a brief summary of judicial review according to Roach, I will delve into the reasonable limits clause and how it is necessary that we place limitations on Charter rights. Following this, I will explain the view Professor Roach and I share on the notwithstanding clause and how it is a vital component of the Charter. To conclude this essay, I will discuss the price at which democr...
Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the United States, once said “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In America’s society today, some are willing to sacrifice their civil liberties in order to gain protection and security over some potential threat. Especially after the events of September 11th and several attempted bombings in U.S. cities. This sacrifice of individual freedoms such as the freedom of speech, expression, the right to information, to new technologies, and so forth, for additional protection is more of a loss than a gain. Citizens of the United States deserve equal liberty and safety overall, as someone should not have to give up one value in order to gain another. This concept of individual right goes beyond the simple idea of “individual comfort.” Personal liberties cannot be surrendered and are not to be compromised since these liberties are intangible. Individuals should not have their personal liberties exchanged for national security because individuals are guaranteed protection to these rights.
Since September 11, 2001 many people can say that America has changed. Many people question if America has changed for the better or has it just gotten worse. Since the day those four planes crashed around the United States people’s lives have been changed. Many may not realize how their lives have changed, but with new laws passed life is different within America. The United States Patriot Act is one of the laws passed after 9/11: singed into order on October 26, 2001 just 45 days after the attack. The United States Patriot Act was put in place in order to protect Americans, yet has been affecting American’s civil liberties and caused controversy all over the United States.
middle of paper ... ... As well as during the October Crisis, even though the kidnapping originated in Quebec, the whole country was put in a state of alert and many hundreds of innocent people were arrested without charge. By doing so, the government degraded the nation and took away people’s rights and freedoms for no decent causes in addition, they also blew the problem out of proportion. By taking away people's freedoms and rights as well as being allowed to take exaggerated action, the War Measures Act is not effective, fair or useful.
Throughout history, the actions of governments have always been debated; however, occasionally there are certain events which spark much controversy, both at the time of the event and by historians today. One of these controversial acts was the invocation of the War Measures Act in 1970, an act which suspended the civil liberties of Canadian citizens. In October 1970, in what became known as the October Crisis, the Front de libération du Québec, (commonly known as the FLQ) which was a French Canadian organization advocating independence from Canada, kidnapped two politicians. This initiated a series of events, one of which was the invocation of the War Measures Act by Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Many historians argue that Trudeau was justified in invoking the War Measures Act because the October Crisis ended shortly after the Act was invoked. However, this argument is invalid as justification; primarily because the War Measures Act was an extreme overreaction by Trudeau, as the threat of the FLQ was largely small-scale, and the demise of the FLQ was impending with the rise of the Bloc Quebecois. Furthermore, the Act may have inspired Quebecers who favoured separatism, as they saw the government desperately employ the most extreme measure to stop the FLQ. Finally, the War Measures Act suspended the civil rights of citizens within a democracy, violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
After reading the poem entitled “Youth”, I felt that James Wright was not only describing the life of his father but also the lives of the many other factory workers in the Ohio Valley. Many of these workers had either dropped out of school or went straight to the factories after high school, never really getting a chance to enjoy their lives as young `````adults. I think that has something to do with the title of this poem. It’s clear that Wright knew his father and the other men were not satisfied with their jobs and just chose not to speak about it. These factory workers slaved away and then came home “quiet as the evening” probably because they were content to just be relaxing at home with their families. They knew that this was their way of life and they had to do it, even if they had big dreams to someday get away. I think that Wright was also trying to make a point that these men who worked so hard every day were not valued as much as they should have been. These men did not have the education to get a higher paying job but they did have the proper skills and knowledge to work in the factories. I like that James Wright mentioned Sherwood Anderson in this poem as I enjoy his work. Anderson left his Ohio hometown for Chicago to pursuit bigger and better things because he knew if he stayed in the area, he would be unhappy. However, it is a little ironic that Anderson one day just got up and left in the middle of writing and was said to have a mental breakdown.
The attacks on American soil that solemn day of September 11, 2001, ignited a quarrel that the grade of singular privacy, need not be given away in the hunt of grander security. The security measures in place were planned to protect our democracy and its liberties yet, they are merely eroding the very existence with the start of a socialistic paradigm. Benjamin Franklin (1759), warned more than two centuries ago: “they that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Implementing security measures comes at a cost both economically and socially. Government bureaucrats can and will utilize information for personal political objectives. The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of what the ‘law is”, causing a lack of circulated rule. The actual leaders with political purposes jeopardize our individual privacy rights, liberties, and freedoms.
Mohsin Hamid has successfully captured the dominant political discourses of the contemporary world and presented them as mutually exclusive. What makes this book work is the masterful employment of irony and controlled suspense to create a subtle polemic. As one reviewer has put it:-
Pakistan is a country inhabited by people belonging to many different nationalities. Hamza Alavi’s article focuses on the rising sub-national demands in the country and how the dominant factions have tried their best to suppress these movements.
Trauma is severe in Pakistan, Pakistan's meltdown. Two nation theory was discovered and established the theoretical basis of Pakistan--were brutally questioned, and the support of Pakistan's foreign policy is not morally be found anywhere, including her longtime allies, especially the United States and the people's Republic of China from collapse. She has since its inception, Pakistan's physical and moral existence is in great danger. In front of the internal, Baloch, Sindhi, Pashtun nationalism, at its peak, to urge them to independence from Pakistan. From this, we can clearly see Zulficar · Ali · Bhutto, despite its limited resources, to begin running the country, and great work in a State of confusion after 1971. Despite torture and torment, the shell · Bhutto had faced, but the incredible courage, with smiling face looking like a real thinker Punjab Muhammad Muslim Muslims · The Iqbal case referred to by