The problem with 'rights'

That there may be conflict and misunderstandings between the upholders of private and the upholders of public rights is tolerable in a civilised society living by civilised rules made by governments and testable by the courts. But this is not the situation we now face. We face opponents with whom there are no battle lines. This is new in the catalogue of threats facing democratic societies. Our opponents are hidden, mutating and unpredictable. They do not act within the context of the rules the rest of us act within. They are outsiders; in a real sense they are outlaws to the great democratic civilisations.

The world has changed. This is not a time when we should lay down rules which might prevent the state acting harshly and quickly when it must. Governments and politicians face the sanctions of the ballot box. That is the ultimate arbiter in a democratic society. If we don’t like what they do, we can throw them out. If we believe they have been unjust, we can sanction them.

Will there be individual injustices along the way? Almost unavoidably. We must try as hard as we can to make sure this does not happen. If torture is ever to be used, it is to be only in the most extreme of cases and under the strictest of supervision. Too horrible to contemplate? So horrible that there should be an absolute rule to prevent it ever happening? If you take this position, you must be willing to say: yes, I will uphold this individual’s right not to be tortured even though there is a chance that an entire population may perish.

That seems to me to be a very dubious ethical position.