Privacy or Protection?

(Aired on May 27, 2010)

There is a fine line somewhere that says "here’s the line over which you don’t cross, and here’s what’s acceptable." We waver around that line continually when it comes to privacy. What’s private, what’s not, and when is it reasonable to assume that the public good is more important than the rights of the individual.

We’re facing that scenario right now when it comes to the fight against crime, particularly against gangs and drugs. The Court of Appeal recently ruled that a program designed to shut down grow ops was against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That program would allow Fire Inspectors to trace power spikes and then enter homes without warrants to try and find grow ops.

It seems pretty draconian at first glance. That’s unfair, the civil libertarians cry. But on the other side of the coin, grow ops are causing increasing problems. They’re becoming more sophisticated, they lead to many people getting involved in criminal activity, either to reap the profits of the sales, or getting hooked on these illicit drugs. They allow gangs to flourish, and they cause untold amounts of physical damage to homes, not to mention the theft of hydro, threat of fires from poorly set up systems, and the list goes on. So whose rights are more important? The individual who gets searched, or the rights of the many who suffer at the hands of the drug dealers and the gangs? It’s not an easy question to resolve, and the Courts wrestle with a tough decision.

If I had my way, I’d vote in favour of protecting the many at the expense of the few. I’m all for the greater good. But protecting the greater good can also open the door to things we might not find as favorable. How much power do you put in the hands of Big Brother? The program at issue here has resulted in a dramatic increase in marijuana grow-ops. So it seems like the right thing to do. But what the Courts have to wrestle with, and here’s the crunch, is how many other doors does that open. And those other doors may lead us to such destruction of our rights that we would find repugnant.