145.

One-hundred and forty five acts of terrorism world-wide. One-hundred and forty five in August, 2016, alone.

145.

If this is not proof that we need a solution, and fast, then I don’t know what is. 2014 saw the largest  yearly increase in the past 15 years regarding terrorism related deaths with a shocking 80% increase from 2013. Since, terrorism has been at the forefront of worries within societies across the globe.  Not too long ago, we assumed that Islamic State was weakening, yet the tragic attack on Brussels earlier this year has lead many to believe that their power is continuing to grow. We desperately need to fight for our safety; increasing Security measures. In doing so, it is inevitable that the level of freedom that we have will be compromised. This ultimately proposes a question of what we value more. Do we want high security at the consequence of low levels of freedom? Or is it more important that we have the freedom we desire at the consequence of low security?

In theory, maximizing security would eliminate the threat of Terrorist Attacks. Conducting random frisk searches and forcing suspected terrorist to leave Australia are both examples of security implementations that have already occurred during 2016. A progression of these security measure could result in isolation from the rest of the world or no longer allowing travel in or out of Australia. It would (again, in theory) make it almost impossible for us to be the target of outside terrorist attacks. Going one step further and blocking internet sites that are not run by the Australian government would limit exposure to dangerous ideologies and therefore would prevent home-grown terrorist attacks. But where would it stop? Limitations on religious choices? Complete government monitoring of our lives? All of this in the name of safety from an inevitable yet drastically devastating threat. The further this idea is explored, the more dysfunctional and limiting it appears. What we could currently consider ludicrous has the potential to be reality.

By contrast, having no limitations as a result of low security could undoubtedly be just as harmful – if not more harmful considering the threat it would have on our safety rather than our freedom. The previous example of forcing suspected terrorists to leave Australia rids them of all freedom which becomes an issue if it is later proved that the suspects were wrongly assumed.  Despite this, it is an act that has occurred for the purpose of prevention. Whether the suspects are in allegiance with terrorist movements or not, the motive behind their deportation is ultimately to increase the safety and security of Australia. Being preemptive against terrorist attacks has the potential to save countless lives though it can be argued that may situations of preemptive actions limit and damage the freedom of the individual. What we place higher value on will inevitably determine which situation appears to be more important to the progression of society. Regardless of which situation we value, it is clear that both negatively impact either our freedom or the security of Australia.

I am an open advocate for freedom in all forms (excluding those that bring harm to others) yet I believe that we should be willing to sacrifice some level of our freedom for the safety of our nation. It’s undoubtedly hard to determine where to draw the line. We all like, want and deserve for our privacy to remain unyielding. We all want as little limitations as possible. But we all also want to feel as safe as we possibly can. We deserve to be secure in our own country but sacrifice is necessary to achieve this. So rather than deciding if we should fight for freedom or security, we must fight to find the right balance. Unfortunately this is much easier achieved in theory than it is in reality. We cannot make everybody happy, though we can try to make everybody safe.