There's an interesting discussion on the WD at the moment here, regarding what we think is more important: safety or freedom. I'll admit that my first thought (and what I voted for) was freedom, but now I'm not so sure. There are some very convincing arguments for the side of safety, or at least for a balance between safety and freedom. Admittedly, the poll was a strict blank and white: safety or freedom, with no room for a balance. But I think if I had to vote again, I'd come down more on the side of safety. Freedom is all well and good, but the fact that we can speak our minds about what we want without too much fear of a backlash goes to show just how much we take our safety for granted. There are countries in the world who would gladly give up some of their freedom in return for feeling safe to walk down the street.
I get that it's now the "cool" thing to do to rail against the government and corporations, and say that they're taking security measures too far and infringing our freedom, but now we're going too far. We pick up on the smallest thing and blow it way out of proportion.
Take this news article for example. An older woman was asked to remove her hat in a pub near Cambridge so that her face could be seen on the CCTV cameras. Why the big bruhaha? This is a very common thing that happens almost everywhere. Hats, motorcycle helmets, anything that can obscure a person's face are often used by criminals or troublemakers so that they can't be identified on CCTV. I don't think it's unreasonable for an establishment to ask people to remove them.
Another thing that gets me about this story is that a big deal is made about her being a "Women's Institute stalwart" and a "retired teacher", as if that should make a difference. It shouldn't. In fact, hats off (pun intended) to the pub for enforcing the policy, despite it being a "nice old lady". Making exceptions for people just because they don't "look" like they would do anything bad is a form of prejudice. A rule for one should be a rule for all.
One ring to rule them all....
Sorry. Wrong post!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Another thing that gets me about this story is that a big deal is made about her being a "Women's Institute stalwart" and a "retired teacher", as if that should make a difference. It shouldn't.
Yes!
Why are some people exempt? There are some people which would look like an ordinary, genuine and honest person, but who could do and commit robbery or assault or something. So if you exempt an old lady, why not exempt someone who looks like a vicar?
You either do something proeprly or not at all.
I haven't voted in my own poll yet! I'm going to go for safety when I do. And I'd rather have explicit rules for everything and them all be enforced. If nothing else, it makes things easier.
Post a Comment