The delicate balance between social security and individual freedom – Imad Al-Din Hussein

How to strike a balance between the right to security and stability of the whole society and the right to liberty of each accused? I heard this question repeated many times by some participants and discussants at the National Dialogue on Pretrial Detention. This question is important, logical and natural, and if any society can answer this question correctly and in a balanced way, it will surely be able to resolve this dilemma that it may face in difficult times.

On the issue of pre-trial detention, most activists and supporters of absolute freedom do not care about the right to survive in a safe and stable society. They only care about their right to express their opinions and ideas, even if it leads to the destruction of the entire society.

Some people here may be surprised by this proposal and say that the right to freedom of opinion and expression is sacred, which is true, but only if it does not lead to the commission of crimes that undermine the security of society. For example, inciting violence, sedition, etc. are not free speech, but outright crimes. When your freedom of opinion affects the freedom of others, your freedom of opinion ceases.

An activist who doesn’t care much about the rest of society may become so aggressive and extreme in this freedom that he may destroy the entire society. However, most supporters of countries and governments may not care too much about issues of individual freedom and right to speech until the situation is objective. The team believes that the first, second, and third priorities are the stability and security of society, even if this leads to restrictions on the freedom of some individuals. Supporters of this view further elaborate on this, saying that social security takes priority over anything else because allowing supporters of “destructive and extremist views” will lead to unlimited chaos, which may lead to a complete collapse of society. People who hold this view also believe that sacrificing the freedom of certain individuals is not a big problem as long as society remains cohesive.

The above are two views from two groups, but in my opinion there is another view that is closer to the objective, which is how to strike a precise balance between these two views to ensure the safety and stability of our society, while guaranteeing the greatest possible freedom for individuals who exercise their freedom of speech. First of all, to protect their rights, while not causing the destabilization of society.

At a time when the national dialogue is having an important discussion on pretrial detention, the issue is not black and white, but very grey. This is not a negative expression, because many people do not like grey, but it means that there are so many complex overlaps and layers between those who hold the two views that you cannot completely decide which view is correct. Correct. This issue is also not just about texts, laws and legislation. For example, you can have the best texts and legislation, but you have the same problem, and in this case and in many other similar cases, the decisive factors are the general climate, the policies followed and the degree of local transactions. Not only in the political field, but also in judicial policy. You can have the best legislation and texts, but the wrong behavior of one employee or a few employees can ruin everything. From what I have heard, the “republic of small employees” has hindered and disrupted many important and major projects, causing significant losses to all. society.

So, as far as pretrial detention is concerned, there is an urgent need to reach innovative formulations that can be implemented in practice on a number of issues, especially the issue of the multiplicity of crimes and their simultaneity. I personally believe that this is the case with the national discussion. The dialogue on this issue is very positive and could lead to the beginning of a solution to this dilemma that worries important sectors of society, especially since the House of Representatives is currently discussing this issue through some of its committees. The Criminal Procedure Code is very positive and in many ways consistent with the recommendations of the national dialogue. All hope is to strike a balance between social security and individual freedom.