It is frightening how swiftly and how easily politicians can get people to accept the erosion of their rights *without debate*. It usually happens when those in power attempt to remove rights from another group – from a religious minority or an ethnic minority or gay people, or convicted criminals or whoever.

The key thing is, the majority accept it because they do not believe they and those persons have anything in common or will ever have anything in common. And they believe that there will never come a day when the same rights are stripped from them.

What also allows politicians to get people to accept the removal of their rights is a crisis. In times of fear, uncertainty, danger, emergency and crisis, when we feel our safety and security is under threat, we are more likely to accept the state removing certain rights, either from some group we perceive to be the problem, or from everyone as a whole, if it has the potential to restore our sense of safety, etc.

Another thing that allows us to accept the removal or reduction of our rights is ignorance. Unfortunately, we have a long way to go in this country when it comes to civic literacy. More of us need to be able to hold a decent conversation about the implications of different policies and state actions on our rights and freedoms.

When we hear a politician threaten to remove a judge by means which fall outside the established procedure, even if we are of the view that such a judge has made unsound decisions, we must immediately be able to see the dangerous implications for our rights and the functioning of our democracy if we simply allow politicians to pick and choose who remains a judge or not.

When we hear politicians discuss ideas like mandatory prayers in public schools, even if we are ourselves deeply religious, and even if we genuinely believe that prayer will benefit youth, we must immediately be able to see the dangerous implications of allowing the state to use its institutions and their rules to compell citizens to engage in religious practices, potentially against their will.

When we see politicians obfuscate in the face of circumstances where an election is constitutionally mandated, and refuse to schedule such an election, making all sorts of spurious claims to deny the reality that an election must be held, even if we support the party in power, and we believe it would be in the party’s political interest to delay such an election, we must immediately be able to see the dangerous implications for our rights and the functioning of our democracy were we to allow any government to simply refuse to hold a constitutionally due election for no other reason than the fact that it was not politically convenient for them.

When we hear politicians attack persons in the media and media persons lose or give up their work due to circumstances generated by politicians, regardless of whether we agreed with the views of those media persons or not, we must immediately be able to see the dangerous implications for our rights and the functioning of our democracy when those in power are easily able to silence media practitioners they simply do not like or who disagree with them.

When we see a person arrested and criminally charged under the electronic crimes act for allegedly making false accusations online, and faced with the prospect of criminal conviction for what would in other circumstances be a case of defamation, no matter how much we disagree with the person or view their actions and behaviour negatively, we must immediately be able to see the dangerous implications for our rights and the functioning of our democracy if false accusations became a matter of arrest and criminal punishment rather than a matter of civil liability.

Too often, we do not see or are unwilling to acknowledge the deeper issues involved in state actions and policies so long as those actions and policies are against people we don’t like or don’t not affect us directly.

We tell ourselves:

“I don’t like that that radio host, so I don’t care if politicians caused them to come of the airways.”

“I don’t like the other political party, so I don’t mind if my party, which is in power, refuses to hold an election if the other party might win.”

“I don’t like that social media personality. They are nosey, disrespectful, and always in everyone’s business. They got arrested in connection with allegedly false accusations online? Me glad. Serve them right.”

“I’m a Christian and I believe in the power of prayer. So i don’t mind if the government makes prayer mandatory in public schools. It won’t be a problem for my child.”

“Those judges have to be crazy, handing out weak sentences like that. If the government wants to send police and immigration for one of them and kick them out the country, that’s fine with me. Whatever means necessary fpr justice to be served.”

But what happens when it’s your turn?

What happens when you have a grievance with how you were treated by a government agency that you want to air in the media, but the host tells you, “Sorry, but I want to keep my job, so I can’t say anything that might upset the government.”

What happens when your party is out of power, and you feel that the people in power are running amok, and an election is due, but the government simply starts finding bogus reasons to not hold the election?

What happens when you make an accusation against someone that you believe to be true, and as opposed to being challenged by way of a defamation case against you, you are arrested, jailed, hauled before a magistrate, your devices are seized and searched, you are possibly remanded, and you are made to go through the criminal justice process?

What happens when in that same case, when the judge rules in your favour and says you are not guilty, the government then disagrees with the judge, and says it will revoke the judge’s immigration status and send police and immigration officers to haul the judge off and deport them?

What happens one day when the Prime Minister and most of the Cabinet convert to Mormonism, and make daily prayers with the Mormon Bible mandatory in public schools? Do you want your child to be a Mormon? Will you object to state power being used to mandate religious activity then?

Are your constitutional rights, political and civil rights, and human rights a tap that you turn on and off depending on who is in power? Are you a different type of human being from everyone else? Is your blood redder? Are you entitled to rights which others should be denied? Are your rights separable from everyone else’s? Can you allow the state to dney others a right, and still expect to have the state respect your enjoyment of that same right?

Sincerely

Shane

This article was originally published by Antigua News Room. Read the original article here: LETTER: Antiguans Give Up Their Rights Too Easily.