1. Although in the history of liberal democracies there have been times when the government temporarily abolishes or restricts certain freedoms within reason, if they were to permanently and without just cause remove certain unalienable rights and freedoms of a select group they would be blatantly disregarding key pillars of liberalism. Due to the nature of the quote and the speaker’s belief that even the opposition deserves freedom of opinion; the impression given is that the quote was spoken by a modern supporter of liberal values. By stating that even enemies of the government have the ability and right to express their dissent to the degree where it harms no one, it is a direct representation of the pillars of liberalism which give all citizens the right to influence their government and choose their leaders, as well as every individual having rights and dignity equal to others within the nation.<br />At times, it is best for security of all that certain rights and freedoms are removed for a short period of time. According to Thomas Hobbes, human nature is to be brutish and vulgar if they are not properly controlled, and it is the job of the government to monitor people in order to ensure that every individual is functioning well in society so they can better protect everyone. If one favors this ideology about humankind and how they need to be managed, then certain circumstances where it appears a subject or specific group is a threat should be dealt with by the government harshly, even if the ideas expressed by the “enemy” are valid. However, if the government does not allow its citizens to express varying opinions then improvement is never made in the country, nor are people generally content for they are continually strictly monitored. For example, Canada implemented the War Measures Act and detained thousands of Japanese and various other immigrants because they were deemed a possible “threat” to the security of the country. By putting one specific group in a position of suspicion and distrust the basic components of liberalism were ignored and the government set a precedent for Canadians that certain forms of racism and restrictions on freedoms were acceptable when national security is at stake. The paranoia of the government during this time led them to remove rights and freedoms of certain nationalities and this negates values of liberalism that our country so prides itself on. When equality is ignored in such an abrupt manner, it gives the impression that there has been less progress than it appeared in Canada and that the government needs to have a greater influence over the opinions of its citizens than it should in a liberal democratic country. The government did not value all people and guard their rights and freedoms, and therefore violated their duty to protect the rights of all, even opposition.<br />While securing the safety of all is obviously a crucial role for the government and government institutions, extenuating circumstances can cause even a liberal government to take inappropriate actions that later have extreme consequences. In the source the speaker refers to a precedent that, when set, will eventually mirror itself upon the one who initially removed the rights. In the case of Nazi Germany, the Treaty of Versailles was implemented after the First World War and decimated a variety of rights and freedoms of Germany as a nation. The treaty not only removed Germany’s ability to defend itself with a strong military but its ability to have a strong economy as well, and it was all in the name of securing a safer world for all to live in. However, by restricting Germany in such a manner, the Allied Powers created a precedent that inspired the society of Germany to elect a government that promised extremist measures in the extreme situation that had been created in Germany. With their ability to help themselves removed, the people of Germany needed a focus for the popular discontent and that became the Jewish race when Hitler came to power. Due to the power and support Hitler gained in Germany, he was able to remove rights and freedoms of all citizens in Germany through the Enabling Act. The Enabling Act removed the rights of privacy, right to vote and each and every form of dissent as well as many other “threatening” activities, similar to how the winners of WWI attempted to prevent Germany from becoming “threatening.” While it is important that safety be considered by the government, it must be ensured by measures that are within reason and without creating circumstances that will harm the apparent enemy. Had the Treaty of Versailles created circumstances within Germany that allowed them to recover after the war while also keeping safety a priority, perhaps the citizens would not have been as outraged and felt the need to seek revenge by electing a man who created a dictatorship and decimated their rights and freedoms while attempting to achieve the same effect across the globe all in the name of Germany’s glory.<br />