2007-01-13 05:59:01 · 9 answers · asked by lena 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Formally, yes. The Parliament can temporally cancel or limit civil rights in times of state of war or state of emergency, but the declaration of these states has to be approved by an absolute majority of MPs.
2007-01-13 06:05:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you look back in the History of this Great Nation, you will find that personal liberties have, in time of conflict from the Civil War to present, be reduced slightly in the name of National Security.
WW 1 and 2 had the biggest limitations and people, because they support the fight against the Kaiser, then Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo, readily support this. Look at the Japanese Americans!! They suffered the most, but signed up and went to Europe and fought with honor, pride and a determination we have not seen since.
People, you have to use some common sense. This is the only country that has many of the freedoms and yes, many are taken for granted, until like at airports, some are restricted.
2007-01-13 06:14:35 · answer #2 · answered by bigmikejones 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO!
Civil liberties are Ideals that are believed above laws of mankind to eradicate.
If a system of government or a culture set in place is not capable of upholding those precedents in any and all situations then they were never worthy of upholding to begin with.
The populace within a culture may chose to lose those civil liberties of their own volition for whatever reason and in dong so admit they were never a liberty but a convenience.
It is a conveneince when there is no challenge to uphold them and an inconvenience when questioned worthy of upholding or takes uncommon means to uphold them we throw them away.
Insecurity is fear of harm to oneself, self preservation, and takes precedence over idealism.
The ideal is not worth defending, thereby not of any worth in reality.
Physical entity over an etheral entity.
History has proven that civil liberties once destroyed never are fully returned by the powers those civil liberties were surrendered without a violent resistance to reinstall.
With todays technology to transform all humainty into one conforming entity Privelige has overtaken Liberty has a means to live under.
That those who can grant priveleges have more liberty than those who accept them only will get further and further restrictive by its very nature.
2007-01-13 06:31:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It depends on which side of the poliical coin you stand on.
Are you a Libertarian/Left Winger? To the left wing, personal freedoms are of the utmost importance, and alot of conservatives would agree with that scenario.
Are you a Totalitarian/Fascist? To the Nationalist, the State is the most importan thing in the world and anyone would die to defend it
2007-01-13 06:02:37 · answer #4 · answered by thomas p 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, but it is a slippery slope. You have to be very careful.
Case in point, Adolf Hitler used national securtiy measures as a means of turning germany into a full dictatorship
2007-01-13 06:07:05 · answer #5 · answered by rostov 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i imagine there are genuinely circumstances once you should commerce one for the different. it isn't as ordinary a time as at the same time as Ben Franklin reported his popular line. For those unwilling to renounce their civil liberties are they are going to to renounce flying with the intention to circumvent those "unconstitutional" searches?
2016-10-17 01:12:15 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No - as Benjamin Franklin said - "Those who would sacrafice liberty for security deserve neither."
2007-01-13 06:02:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
they interned japanese in the 2nd world war....we think we are so bulletproof now that the aclu wants our rights for other nationalities ...thats a nice theory, if it wouldnt eventually erode our own culture..like they are helping them do...
2007-01-13 06:01:18 · answer #8 · answered by badjanssen 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You mean in times of fear. "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" FDR "Let us not negotiate out of fear but let us not fear to negotiate" JFK
2007-01-13 06:05:30 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋