Terrorism: a bad argument
It is argued:
The right to life is more important than the right not to be imprisoned without
a fair trial, and therefore in the defence of people’s lives freedom
may be taken away. Any action we can take that will protect us against terrorism
is justified, even if it reduces freedom. It is better to have an innocent
person in jail for a fortnight than to have many people killed.
The argument supposes, correctly, that where two rights conflict, we should
prefer the more important right to the lesser one.
But it is wrong to suppose that that is all that is to be said. At least the
following requirements must be met, for the argument to be valid.
- Better reasons must be given for acting on the overriding right than
on the infringed right.
- The moral objective justifying the infringement must have a realistic
prospect of achievement.
- The infringement is necessary in that no morally preferable alternative
actions can be substituted.
- The infringement must be the least possible
infringement, commensurate with achieving the primary good of the action.
- The negative effects of the infringement must be minimised.
- The agent must act impartially in regard to all affected parties;
that is, the agent’s decision must not be influenced by
morally irrelevant information about any party (see
Tom L. Beauchamp & James F. Childres, Principles of Biomedical
Ethics,
5th ed, Oxford University Press, 2001).
When politicians have attempted to justify the new law, these considerations
have been ignored. Yet none of them are controversial. None of them are novel.
They are just common sense.
Are there good reasons for locking people up without trial, and on the basis
of mere reasonable suspicion that we might stop a disruption to a financial
system? Or to a transport system? Clearly not. The Act is seriously defective.
There are reasons for locking people up if there is good reason to think that
we might stop a real terrorist attack, in which dozens of people might be killed.
But we can do that, using other laws, and still not infringe their rights.
There are real problems if the police powers are misused. The Act provides
punishment for some misuses. It also leaves open the possibility for people
who are wrongly detained to seek compensation by suing for damages.
But it makes it almost impossible for them to obtain the necessary evidence.
So principles iii., iv., and v. in the list above are not adhered to. The
infringement of basic rights is not justified.
Worse things can happen to a country than a terrorist attack. They include
civil war and tyranny. We must defend ourselves against the possibility of
tyranny, if necessary, even at the risk of terrorist attack.
It does not follow that every action we might take to protect ourselves against
tyranny is justified, especially if it weakens our defenses against terrorism.
Much better argument is needed in the whole debate.
|
