An obsession with security

Let’s face the facts: we’re all annoyed with the flood of daily security updates (sexual assaults on campus, email frauds, stolen PINs and identities, contaminated food, etc.). It all comes down to a question of degree. These things are a constant reminder of how much evil there is in the world. We need to be aware of how to protect ourselves, and that is why security is something fundamental and necessary – let us never take it for granted. Surely it is better to be safe than sorry, and we need to know about possible threats to our safety. However, being constantly bombarded by so-called “security updates” has put society on edge, and it is about time for — in an odd reversal — a much needed update on “security.”

The obsession over our security can be detrimental for healthy social growth, especially on campus. We have to keep in mind the boundaries of security; there is a thin line between what is healthy and what is becoming obsessive. While outside on a photo assignment last week, I was confronted by a person who stopped me from taking a photo of frosh-related activities. “For the security of the frosh students, you are not allowed to take pictures here,” he explained. I’m used to this kind of confrontation, so I gave him my standard reply, “I am standing on York public property, I am allowed…” “No, you’re not,” he persisted before I finished my sentence, “it is against York’s policy.” He lied.

He suggested that I get my editor-in-chief (whom he was familiar with) to contact him, simply to confirm my identity. Here is an example of a person taking security a little too far. I agree it is “better safe than sorry” — I can appreciate how he acted with authority. But he took it too far when he had to lie to get me to comply. Of course, there are some circumstances where this strategy is valid. Take for example an assailant with a knife; it would not be unusual for you to defend yourself by threatening her/him with a gun (even if you didn’t really have one) just to scare them away. By contrast, however, the extent to which he acted cautiously was unwarranted; there was no reason to tell me to leave, unless you consider my camera a threat. Firstly, given the circumstances of our location, he did not have the authority to do so; secondly, I was unfairly labelled a “threat” by default. In retrospect, I felt the onus was turned on me to prove I was innocent, which I successfully did — eventually.

Obsession over security: it is capable of undermining our social growth and changing us for the worse. Think about it from a larger perspective: the fact the United States’ “War on Terror” was founded on simple suspicion is one example; the extent to which the United States has the ability to detain “suspicious terrorists” is another. On campus, this same attitude is capable of defeating collaboration, unity and friendship — the themes commonly touted during the most important days of the year, i.e. frosh week. In this issue, if there is one principle that I would like to communicate through my writing, it is the reminder that in Canada we are innocent until proven guilty — a right that is guaranteed to us. Even for the sake of “security,” we should never assume that someone is guilty until proven innocent.

We feel this is simply unjustified as citizens of a democratic and free country. It infringes on many of our rights, constitutionally and morally.