Personal freedom is one of the universally recognized human rights to which all individuals are entitled (Donnelly, 2013). There are several aspects of personal freedom such as freedom of speech or expression, freedom of movement, freedom of association among other forms of freedom. These forms of freedom are also referred to as fundamental human rights, meaning that both adults and children are entitled to these rights in fullness. All these need to be respected at all times (Donelly, 2013). However, there are some instances where it might become absolutely necessary to violate one’s right for personal freedom for the sake of national security and long-term viability of civil liberty. Proper exercise of liberties in conjunction with the need for national security, public order, preservation and protection of moral values, and long-term prevalence of civil liberty entails that there are instances when the government has no other option but to intrude and restrict its citizens from exercising some of their liberties (Yoshimo, 2015). According to Napolitano (2013), safety is better than personal freedom. Therefore, in an instance where national security and civil liberty are threatened, Napolitano’s principle holds true. This paper presents different views on whether it is sometimes necessary to sacrifice a few personal freedoms in order to protect national security and ensure long term viability of civil liberty. While some views acknowledge that it is absolutely necessary, other views sharply contradict with such requirements, both with supportive reasons. These views are briefly discussed below:
Personal Freedom should sometimes be sacrificed for National Security and Civil Liberty
The constitution of any country needs to be protected at all times as a sovereign set of rules and principles that guide the country. This means that above all things, the most important consideration is whether the constitution is in danger of being violated or not. A country’s constitution is greater than the individual need for freedom. Any threat to national security is a threat to the constitution which protects the country. Although it is entitled in the universal declaration of human rights that the citizens need to be protected at all times and their rights provided for in fullness, an individual’s willingness to sacrifice personal freedom at the expense of the entire country’s security which might be at stake is one way of ensuring protection of the constitution (Donnelly, 2013). Therefore, it is in the best interest of every country’s constitution to ensure that security for all citizens is upheld. Sacrificing personal freedom for the sake of national security and civil liberty is a way of ensuring protection of the constitution.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
All citizens belong to the state. Any threat to the national security and civil liberty is a threat to each and every citizen either directly or indirectly. It is a common sense theory that the interests of citizens and the state at large override an individual’s or minority interests. Where there is a conflict of interests between the state and an individual, an individual should be willing to sacrifice his/her own liberty for the sake of the state’s well-being (Napolitano, 2013).
Napolitano (2013) argues that there are extremities in personal liberty and freedom of speech, movement and privacy. Sometimes, it becomes necessary that an individual’s freedom to express some ideas, thoughts and feelings be curtailed so as to preserve the rights that are universally and mutually shared in the country. For instance, a citizen may not be allowed to exercise their freedom of speech especially if that speech is likely to evoke hatred or displeasure. If an individual uses his/her freedom of speech to abuse others or speak out sentiments that are insightful, his or her right to speech may be sacrificed for the sake of civil liberty.
Freedom of movement may sometimes be limited due to a person’s health status and for the purposes of safeguarding others against a disease or a potentially threatening condition. For instance, a person’s mental status may limit him/her from movement if that person is insane and/or is in a condition that predisposes him or others to harm. Such an individual may be restricted to staying in one compound or a room until he/she recovers from the condition. In case of an outbreak of a dreadful and highly contagious disease, a group of people may be limited to movement within specific hours of the day, after which every person in that locality is expected to remain indoors. Such a rule limits the rights of citizens but with a view of achieving national security.
All humans are allowed to access information freely without restrictions. However, in circumstances where that information is likely to have a negative impact on an individual, a group of people or the state at large, there may be need to restrict this freedom. Yoshimo (2015) suggests that as much as children are entitled to their right to access and use information freely, information that damages their morals and impacts negatively on their thoughts, behaviors and other aspects such as education should be denied to them. For instance, access to movies that feature atrocities of the world, adult information or other forms of hazardous behavior may prompt young people to develop extreme forms of behavior which consequently leads to antisocial behaviors that may be harmful to the society and threaten national security and civil liberty at large.
The choice of religion should not be subject to restriction as long as its practitioners or the process of worshipping do not threaten national security and civil liberty. If a certain religion exercises its freedom to worship in a manner that restricts others from worshipping freely or in any manner that contradicts with civil liberty, such freedom of religion is sacrificed so that national security and civil liberty can prevail (Yoshimo, 2015).
Right to Freedom should not be sacrificed to Achieve National Freedom
While it is almost obvious that personal freedom cannot be compared to national security and civil liberty, other opinions still support the view that there should be no instances of sacrificing personal freedom for the sake of national security ond civil liberty. These views are presented below:
Human rights advocates have been agitating for the full protection of the universal human rights as provided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Cochran (2003) argues that the right by states to limit citizens’ liberties in various circumstances has for a long time and in many countries been misused by those in powers. For instance, individuals are tortured and abused in at least 81 countries, individuals have faced unfair trials in at least 54 countries and in more than 71 countries, individuals have been restricted in their freedom of expression (Cochran, 2003). The main claim cited for all these findings is the need to protect national security and civil liberty. According to the advocates of human rights, human rights are more important than the need for national security.
Some leaders are likely to misuse their powers by unfairly restricting human rights to freedom and liberty if they are allowed to restrict it at times. Unless an individual willingly agrees to restrict his or her own freedom for the sake of national security and long-term viability of civil liberty, there should be no forced denial of their rights to freedom since this is likely to lead to unfairness, owing to the fact that a single citizen is powerless compared to the entire country (Cochran, 2003).
Human rights are definite and justifiable, while national security is a concept that cannot be defined in definite terms. It is only a psychological state. Sacrificing human rights that should be protected at all times in the quest for attaining complete national security and order is a malpractice on the side of citizens (Cochran, 2003). This is because national order and security is unattainable in countries that constitute diverse multicultural communities. Therefore, trying to infringe individual rights of citizens in the quest for perfectionism which is unattainable is a way of inflicting suffering to citizens for no reason.
Final Verdict
From the above points supporting and opposing the need to sacrifice personal freedom in some instances, it is evident that human rights to freedom and personal liberty should sometimes be sacrificed in order for the whole country to experience national security and long-term viability of civil liberty. The society in which we live is associated with so many changes which cannot be fully regulated by the constitution, unless the citizens’ freedom to make use of what comes with these changes is limited. Otherwise, if every citizen is allowed to exercise their freedom in fullness to the extent of placing the state or public at stake, there are high possibilities of getting the whole country in danger, which is perfectly avoidable through limitation of some liberties in some instances as discussed above. Views that are contrary to this requirement are irrational and inconsiderate of how dangerous it is for the public to be left insecure. Personally, I strongly support the opinion that personal security should sometimes be sacrificed in order to achieve national security and long-term viability of civil liberty.
References
Cochran, C. L. (2003). Human Rights Violations. Reference & User Services Quarterly , 43 (1), 88-89.
Donnelly, J. (2013). Universal human rights in theory and practice . Cornell University Press.
Napolitano, A. (2013). “Giving up Liberty for Security.” Reason.com. Retrieved from http://reason.com/archives/2013/07/25/giving-up-liberty-for-security
Yoshimo, K. (2015). A New Birth of Freedom?: Obergefell v. Hodges. Harv. L. Rev. , 129 , 147.
