In summary

The debate rests on whether anti-terrorism legislation increases security, and if so, whether this justifies the impositions it requires to operate. The clashes came under 1) the inviolability of certain rights 2) the accountability of the state 3) the substitution for alternatives 1) The Prop believes that the existence of anti-terrorism legislation is worse for the citizens over whom the state presides than living in a society where the legislation did not exist. They explain their stance by saying that, despite the efficacy of the legislation, and despite knowing the wide-scale damage to society terror attacks (that would occur if the legislation were to be removed) would have, it is the breach of the rights such as the right to privacy of any citizen who was not terrorist, that was condemnable. The Opp contest this on the grounds that we think curtailments of these rights is necessary to ensure in the long term a greater level of liberty for society. Using the example as we have of a state of nature, where there are no laws and every man must fend for himself, we see that people must spend an inordinate amount of time keeping themselves and their interests safe, so that they are left less time to actually live life to the full. This applies to the case of anti-terrorism legislation, as having witnessed or suffered personally the effects of terror attacks, I would endure a greater loss of liberty if I was forced to spend more time acting as if under possible threat of a terror attack than if I knew anti-terrorism legislation was allowing the government to take care of the threat for me. We on the Opp believe that the Prop do try and use a similar case, but on the grounds that it is the legislation which seeks to make one feel vulnerable. But the Prop cannot present the legislation in this way AS WELL AS presenting it as subtly working its way into lives with citizens UNKNOWING. Therefore saying it would change our behaviour and practices, through the fear and this is a loss of liberty and freedom demonstrates that Prop are definitely with us on Opp in terms of wanting to ensure people have the freedom to feel safe as they act, but merely seem to be following the wrong road. For, unlike in Brave New World (we’ll reference Huxley as opposed to Orwell for originality’s sake), we in democracies are allowed to question ‘our great Ford’ and therefore we don’t modify our behaviour quaking in fear of masterful controllers. The Prop may point to instances where the legislation was used against innocent men or women, but it is the very fact that they can point to them and openly speak about them that demonstrates we are not living in the Nazi Germany Prop suggests. 2) This leads us to the clash on accountability. We have moved away from the Nixon days of “when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal”. We on the Opp drew a distinction between the two types of ‘democracy’. In nations such as the USA and UK where legislation had to be passed through Congress/ Parliament, where debate was had, where votes were taken, we see everything took place before public eyes. The UK recently saw Parliament’s debate over detention periods in our newspaper headlines. The fact that the government had to pass legislation to be able to exercise these infringements on the citizen’s overall liberty shows that they are willing to be held accountable. In other ‘democracies’ such as the Prop wish to use as examples, the government would not need to legislate to commit acts of abuse of its citizens' rights. Nor would repealing such legislation inhibit them in this regard. In countries where there is a strong justice framework, such as the USA and UK, we see the emergence of cases where people can hold the government accountable for using legislation against the innocent, including civil rights abuses conducted under the auspices of anti-terror legislation thereby refuting Props slippery slope argument. 3) This leaves us with the third and final clash. The Prop tried to further their claims by saying that the terror threat could in fact diminish if we remove the legislation and substitute for the current criminal justice system. However, if the Prop were satisfied with using the criminal justice system then surely they ought to be satisfied with anti-terror legislation, as the same supposed checks and balances for the criminal justice system exist with the legislation, in fact perhaps to a greater degree in the case of the legislation. And this is ignoring the major flaw, that the criminal justice system would not do to prevent terror threats, which should be our main priority if we wish to maximise the freedom of our people. The tendency of the justice system to penalise immigrants and other minorities disproportionately which props also invoked, is a fault in the status quo (which Props see as the solution to terrorism) and not the result of anti-terror legislation at all. There can be no freedom without security, therefore our case rests on the fact that the proven ability of anti-terror legislation to prevent massive indiscriminate attacks and the reassurance this provides citizens, equates not to a threat, but to an overall advance in the cause of freedom.