Article content continued

The point isn’t whether, in each instance, the correct judgments were made or if atrocities against individual rights occurred. It’s that political dissent and open objection is often suppressed during such emotional, intense and distressing times.

The fact that such strong disagreement will soon grip our political leaders is to be cherished. The coming debate is a vital public good that will serve Canadians well. It will guarantee a thorough testing of assumptions and a proper cross-examination of any proposed changes to our laws.

Perhaps adjustments are needed. Maybe they can be justified. And upon occasion, Canadians have shown themselves willing to surrender freedoms if that’s what it takes to properly target and dismantle ominous threats.

But the onus lies with those who would argue that 88 individuals on a watch list – and who are presumably now encountering a heightened level of surveillance — should trigger a rebalancing of everyone else’s rights and freedoms.

The nation’s security apparatus exists to save lives and protect Canadians. But every inch of new ground acquired is taken at the expense of individual liberty. If such trade-offs can be defended as necessary to protect our wider freedoms, then so be it. If not, then they should be rejected. But that evaluation cannot be made properly without political leaders who are strong enough to risk being called weak.

In Canada we arrest people for what they do, not what they might do. And certainly not for who they are. It is the presence of political disagreement that guarantees such core principles are defended. Unlike so many similar times in our past, it appears that we’ll soon witness a bracing example of such disagreement. Thank goodness for that.

Scott Reid is a principal at Feschuk.Reid and a CTV News political analyst. He was director of communications for former prime minister Paul Martin. Follow him on Twitter.com/_scottreid.