Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Time to Re-Read "1984"


Have you ever read George Orwell's "1984"? If you haven't, please do. If you have, maybe read it again.

There are certain themes in Orwell's disturbing piece of fiction that grow incrementally in our current society, and for people who value individual freedom, they are more than a little disconcerting.

The European Union wasn't created until 1993, and built upon the existing European Economic Community, and even that organization didn't exist until 1958. Yet, in 1949, George Orwell wrote about the creation of broad "superstates" eroding existing national borders and identities.

Think about that as we see the collective action of the world economic powers in response to the recent economic crisis.

More upsetting is the notion of a government, slowly, but surely, imposing its imprint upon our lives "for our own good." As more and more of our freedoms are taken from us, at each step of the way we are told it is "for our own good."

We need laws against cigarette advertising "for our own good."

We need seatbelt laws and helmet laws "for our own good."

We need to control access of U.S. media into Canada, "for our own good."

We need to prevent some people from offending other people "for our own good."

We need to allow the police to randomly arrest us, without cause, "for our own good."

We need to prevent those accused of crimes from fully questioning those who have laid complaints "for our own good."

We need to take property away from people charged with crimes before they are allowed to question their guilt, "for our own good."

And, now, we need to allow the government to conscript private business to "spy" on our citizens and to report their findings to the government, "for our own good."
Already, I am getting the usual suggestions of paranoia - however, ask yourself this:

When is the last time you saw the government REDUCE the degree to which they impact on your freedom to do what you want?

By definition, any new law is a restriction on your freedom. And there are many, many excellent reasons for proper government to do this - however, every year, from our municipal government right up to the level of international treaties (can you say Kyoto?) we see more and more regulation (i.e. government control) over what we, as citizens do in our daily lives.

Every year, government enacts more and more NEW statutes, and expands on existing statutes, and very seldom, do they reduce the number of those statutes or the size of existing statutes. What this means, very clearly, is that today you are subject to massive amounts of government control that our grandparents never would have even conceived of.

And yet, year in and year out, we let it pass with nary a notice... after all, it is all "for our own good."

And, like sheep, our citizens, and most disturbingly, our Liberal opposition, sits back and watches the current Conservative government put forth a new law this week, seeking to compel internet service providers to spy on all of us, and report back to government their findings. Warrantless interception of what you are looking at or reading on the internet. The very real equivalent of listening to your phone calls and opening your mail without your knowledge will be happening in Canada if citizens do not say, "enough".

Yes - it's all conducted under the very real and very important effort to battle child sexual abuse - however, that almost makes it worse, because no one wants to be labeled "weak on crime" or, worse, as a "child porn pervert" themselves. So. We watch it happen. And we say nothing. Because it's "for our own good."

Where is Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn on this point?  Or is freedom only important when it's being threatened by people who don't "look and act like US"?

7 comments:

Kez Creates said...

Definately a BaaBaa thing going on. I have complained about this to many people but no one listens. I use the stop smoking campaigns as an example when people shrug off the idea that US Health Care bills could eventually put them in the same 'state' as us up here. They can't see it happening but I say 'well let's see, first I could smoke at 16 and I could buy single smokes at the gas station'.. but then they weren't allowed to open a package to sell singles. Then it was age 18. That's fine I understand - but it became 'give an inch, take a mile'...

- no smoking inside public buildings
- no smoking outside the doorway of public buildings (must be 9 feet away)
- no smoking in restaurants, even those who followed earlier rules by retrofitting special air circulation, fans, and even having separate rooms built and walled or glassed off.
- no smoking on the outdoor decks of bars or restaurants
- no smoking inside the bar even if you are the owner and the establishment is closed for the night
- no selling smokes in stores that have pharmacies
- no smokes must be visible to the public (cos if they close off the counters, you might forget that you smoke lol)

What's next? I am not sure but maybe they will continue cutting smoking in public parks because I *think* there are similar pilot projects out there.

Oh and I forgot, some areas have No Smoking in your own private vehicle while within city limits or if there is a child, or evidence of a child (ie carseat) in your vehicle.

That all happened over the course of about 20 years but has been moving faster and faster the last 5 or 10. Smoking is bad, they say although they surely use gazillions of tax dollars from it on a daily basis, so they are allowed to put these things into place without people actually THINKING about how it can happen in pretty much anything.

CanadianSense said...

Another great post. Yes many from all sides are ASLEEP at the switch.

Cherniak_WTF said...

Rob, I agree with your post -too many want abuse invasions into my privacy.


Kez, I think you are off the mark with your examples.
I take the more Libertarian view that you can pretty do whatever you want, UNTIL is starts to harm others.

So a ban on smoking in public building is fine by me.
In bars, not so much (private property after all).


ISPs should not be policing their clients, we don't need CCD cameras (look at London), we don't need databases with your vitals that are easily exchanged between governments... If anything, we need more safeguards of our privacy.

Kez Creates said...

Don't get me wrong, it's not like I think people should be able to smoke wherever they want lol - I remember people smoking in grocery stores and seeing the butts on the floor when I was a kid. Ew!

But I think of it in the way that eventually, after allowing certain changes along the way, it just keeps going like a snowball. Now it does involve private property where before it was public buildings. Now it includes wherever the public chooses to go (indoors AND out - ie patio bars/restaurants). It started out with good ideas in mind but ended up snowballing and it's not finished yet. How long before cities and towns ban smoking from vehicles? I have read about pilot projects in various places around the world that may become more wide-spread bills. What does smoking in my own car that I purchased have to do with second hand smoke in public places? Beats me!

So I agree with the start of this - you shouldn't smoke in the middle of the mall, but we let it get well passed that now and who knows when it will finally stop.

Rob Harvie said...

I am far from a hard-core libertarian. I believe in a strong social safety net, I believe in public health care, I believe in control over the marketplace to avoid another AIG fiasco..

What I don't agree with is MORE laws to intrude on our privacy in the name of "safety", when, by and large, I think society is pretty safe already.

I don't want or need perfect security - particularly if it comes at the expense of my own ability to be free of state intrusion into my personal life.

Yet.. what is in the headlines? Afghanistan. And not current issues, but an issue over what happened for 18 months two years ago.

And looking at it from the perspective of both Conservatives and Liberals.. the Liberals hope to score points by embarrassing the Conservatives, and at the same time, can completely avoid having to stand up to horrible legislation.. and, conversely, the Conservatives can push through more fascist legislation with narry a whimper.

(Yes. I used the word "fascist". It does apply when a government seeks to impose control over its people by removing freedom, using a "bogeyman" as the pretext.)

Cherniak_WTF said...

Sorry Kez - I understand what you are saying.



What I don't agree with is MORE laws to intrude on our privacy in the name of "safety", when, by and large, I think society is pretty safe already.
Given that if policy cannot be debated in less than 140 characters you loose most of the audience, little sound bytes carry the day....

CanadianSense said...

I am with RH, this legislation is over reaching.