Stageleft, it was a VERY poorly written polling question. Compare the two questions.

1. On the topic of surveillance cameras, the need for safety trumps individual privacy rights. (63%)

OR

2. On the topic of surveillance cameras, individual privacy rights should always come before safety concerns. (20%) (my emphasis)

Note the use of the word “always” in the second options, NOT present or even suggested in the first option. I can think of a few situations in which safety concerns come before individual privacy rights; therefore, even though my opinion is MUCH closer to response than response 1, I can’t accurately respond (2).

It doesn’t bother me that some people are willing to give up their privacy to gain more safety. What bothers me is that they’re so willing to give up my privacy!

balbulican: Poor wording or not those are the numbers that various levels of government will quote and use to justify the next round of privacy invasions.

Chimera: And that is the problem, the Nervous Nellies are not only willing to give up their own privacy but, in their fear, willingly hand over mine and yours as well.

David: I recall two summers ago when gas prices here went through the roof for a while and the gas station I usually frequented decided to go with a “pay before you pump policy“. Customers found out when the fuel didn’t flow and they went in to ask why - they lost my business the day it happened to me.

I believe the poll. It’s horrible. Canadians also believe other silly things like: democracy is the most important ideal (above civil rights), that multiculturalism is the same as acceptance of other ethnicities and races, etc.

In fact, this poll proves why democracy is often such a horrible thing… Most people also support the death penalty. But majority is not the same as right.

Democracy is actually a horrible system. The worst accept all others, to invoke Churchill. It’s only tenable because we balance it against individual rights. People make the erroneous mistake that Democracy itself enables individual rights, when it reality, it only enables majority rights, to the great exclusion of others.

It’s easily demonstrated by simple, dumb, examples like: if 99.99% of Canadians voted in a referendum to kill all third-born children at age 10, is it right?

Of course if a plurality of this size existed, constitutional law would probably be moot, but that’s another story.

The point is we strive for the protection of individual rights. It’s why I am against Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and other measures by which we invade the sanctum of liberty.

Sure, if we ran a poll, I have no doubt that 60% of people would support limiting “hate speech”, if not more. But 60% of people shouldn’t get to decide what the other 40% get to say, even if we find no utility in the nature of their speech. It’s not our right to decide that either.

I appreciate your libertarianism stageleft, and I have great respect for it. I am usually in agreement with you on most of the posts you right around the subject of liberty. We could seriously share some common causes, I think.

All one needs to do is look south of the border to see how far people are willing to go for “safety.” Warrantless wiretapping? Sure why not. Listen in. As long as I feel safe. Look at Britain, where you are on camera several times a day (In London at least). As long as we’re safe right? How far away are micro-chips? Retina scans? Scary shit.