This document discusses the principles of modern liberalism and when it is acceptable to suppress human rights within that framework. It argues that modern liberalism generally promotes individual freedoms and human rights but that governments may suppress some rights during times of crisis like war or terrorist threats. As an example, it discusses how the Patriot Act passed after 9/11 restricted some rights in the name of national security. While controversial, measures like this aim to protect citizens when serious dangers arise. Overall, the document supports modern liberalism but acknowledges that governments must have flexibility to modify it during emergencies to fulfill their duty of protecting public safety.

1. By Danea TwaSuppressing Within Modern LiberalismHumanities 30-1 6/1/2010<br />Throughout history the world has seen many different leaders support multiple ideologies, ranging from communist violent revolution to reactionary fascism and all things in between. The crisis or emergency Roosevelt spoke of was the great depression of the 1930’s. He was looking to fight the devastation of the land through introducing principles of modern liberalism as if they were waging a war against a foe with armed soldiers. At this time President Roosevelt saw fit to put forth, what he called, the New Deal. Roosevelt worked with John Maynard Keynes’ ideas of stabilizing the economy and saw modern liberal principles as the best guidelines to follow in order to come out of the depression and so he moved the nation in that direction. This was a good move for the president because when modern liberalism is embraced to the extent at which the people are satisfied with their freedom and yet the government still has the control to protect them by altering these principles when need be, it has proven to work very well.<br />There are groups who would argue that it is unacceptable to suppress human rights, even in times of need. They would say that within modern liberalism individuals are entitled to human rights, and suppressing these rights goes against that principle. People who have experienced the suffering in Guantanamo Bay would strongly support the idea of everyone receiving equal human rights, despite the conditions of the nation. Many people who have been suspected of supporting or partaking in terrorist actions upon the United States have been taken to Cuba and forcibly held there in hope of protecting innocent Americans. Omar Khadr was taken to Guantanamo Bay and imprisoned there for seven years after being suspected of supporting terrorism and allegedly throwing a bomb at American forces. These accusations were found to be false and he was released, but the experience changed his life forever. In defence of Mr. Khadr, this terrible mistake could have been avoided, had more careful questioning and investigation come in to play. However, the United States were simply taking understandably quick action against a possible danger to millions of innocent citizens. If the accusations had been correct against Omar Khadr and the government had not taken the precautions of suppressing the rights of suspected terrorists, there could have been a very large population injured or killed.<br />It is important for a nation to embrace principles of modern liberalism to provide freedom and equality within a greater sense of unity. The principles of suffrage and human rights allow individuals the freedom of choice in their everyday lives in the way that they live personally as well as the way their country is run. A government monitored welfare state and welfare capitalism can be highly beneficial as well because it creates a sense of nationalism between citizens while helping create better opportunities for those who would not normally have those chances. A leader such as Hitler, who tried fascism, failed to maintain a healthy society due to his rash reactionary actions. He lost the feeling of community and freedom amongst the people of Germany. Under Hitler’s rule, the people were deprived of their rights as humans, and there was no welfare state or capitalism being run in the country. When the people of Germany began feeling this enormous inequality between them and realized they had lost their sense of nationalism due to this fascist leader, they revoked. Communism, on the other side of the spectrum, entails a violent revolution in order to progress full speed ahead into a new world, with the government leader sitting behind the wheel. Although it is ideally a perfect society in which everyone is equal, there is no room for individuals to get ahead in life and make their own progress. They do not have the suffrage and human rights that there is present in modern liberalism, and that is its downfall. Support for modern liberalism such as the New Deal, brought in by President Roosevelt, presented a plan to achieve relief for the unemployed and the poor, reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression, and recovery of the economy to normal levels. This new deal not only appealed to everyone by improving the situation of the “Dirty 30’s” but also was a benefit to the collective society by improving labour standards and unions, as well as reemphasizing human rights.<br />A valuable principle of modern liberalism is that outlining human rights, but it is important for a government to suppress these rights in times of crisis. The rights of individuals should always be present when embracing modern liberalism, but when there are terrorist threats to a nation, it is the responsibility of the government to impose restrictions in order to uphold safety for their nation. Things like the Patriot Act and the War Measures Act were implemented in the past in regards to unsafe conditions and worked well within their affected area. Most recent of the two was the Patriot Act. This act was set in motion as a reaction to the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the U.S. The intention of the Patriot Act was to allow the government to find potential terrorists in hope of keeping Americans safe. The act allowed the government to detain suspicious individuals without a trial or evidence as well as restricting some activities of citizens, for example, the No Fly list. Although this does deliberately limit human rights which people would otherwise be entitled to, it was put in place with the safety of others in mind. In times of terrorist threats and war scares the government’s first priority is to keep the nation they lead safe. Under normal circumstances human rights would not be revoked. <br />Looking to the past it is clear that the best solution to running a government is embracing modern liberalist principles. Governmentally monitored welfare state and welfare capitalist systems can create opportunities for growth and unity. Applying suffrage, labour standards, and labour unions to a nation creates a positive feeling of freedom, equality, choice, and importance. Previous leaders have shown the failures in fascism and communism when the needs and wants of citizens aren’t met by not allowing them these fair principles. Still, these principles should only be embraced to the extent of the government keeping the power to suppress them when life threatening situations arise. It is the responsibility of the government to do so and if they choose not to instil these modifications when the time calls for it, the consequences can be severe. <br />