To those who don't like the use of this law, I think this is OK. Here's why: You live in a democracy where the popular opinion decides who's in power. You agree that's a good idea because you aren't moving to an authoritarian or libertarian country or voting to change the system. The popular opinion allowed this law, so you should accept that it's the right one according to the system. Of course there will always be a minority which doesn't like each law, and you happen to be a member of that minority in this case.
If it does become a bigger problem that affects the majority, they'll eventually decide to vote it out. Until then, it's nothing to worry about. This is the self-stabilizing effect of democracy. There can be small problems, but not big Syria-scale problems.
It's just part of the cost of sharing your country with people who think differently from you. If you really strongly believe the law is being used for "bad" purposes, the bad people are the voters who first allowed it, and after seeing it happen, continued to re-elect the same politicians that passed this law. Those are the people you should be complaining about - the two wolves voting on what's for dinner.
You might say those majority voters are ignorant and it's not their fault. No, they are taking action which you believe is wrong, so they are doing something wrong. If they aren't competent to decide who to vote for, they're being negligent by doing it recklessly.
PS I live in an authoritarian country where imagining the police have some restrictions on their power is only a fantasy. Your police at least do still have some restrictions, and they always will as long as you have a democracy.
> You live in a democracy where the popular opinion decides who's in power....The popular opinion allowed this law, so you should accept that it's the right one according to the system.
No. This is a Republic. Our elected representatives built and instituted this law in a power grab while the country was reeling from a terror attack.
> Of course there will always be a minority which doesn't like each law, and you happen to be a member of that minority in this case.
See the ^.
> If it does become a bigger problem that affects the majority, they'll eventually decide to vote it out. Until then, it's nothing to worry about. This is the self-stabilizing effect of democracy.
No, this is how democracies drift into authoritarianism.
I could go on, but it seems you're getting awfully relativistic, legally and ethically speaking.
>To those who don't like the use of this law, I think this is OK. Here's why: You live in a democracy where the popular opinion decides who's in power.
Nope: a bunch of marginal (and mostly rural) constituencies "decide" who's "in power" (which is not actual power but rather arbitrating positions between lobbies, anyway). Everybody else is just an extra.
If it does become a bigger problem that affects the majority, they'll eventually decide to vote it out. Until then, it's nothing to worry about. This is the self-stabilizing effect of democracy. There can be small problems, but not big Syria-scale problems.
It's just part of the cost of sharing your country with people who think differently from you. If you really strongly believe the law is being used for "bad" purposes, the bad people are the voters who first allowed it, and after seeing it happen, continued to re-elect the same politicians that passed this law. Those are the people you should be complaining about - the two wolves voting on what's for dinner.
You might say those majority voters are ignorant and it's not their fault. No, they are taking action which you believe is wrong, so they are doing something wrong. If they aren't competent to decide who to vote for, they're being negligent by doing it recklessly.
PS I live in an authoritarian country where imagining the police have some restrictions on their power is only a fantasy. Your police at least do still have some restrictions, and they always will as long as you have a democracy.