Jagmeet Singh Quotes

We all want security …. But we don’t need to simplify the debate to such an extent that we simply say we have to give up our liberties.

If we give up all our privacy rights, have we become any safer?

Since the first Patriot Act, as this has evolved, more and more of the privacy of Americans is disappearing. And that’s going to hurt us; it’s not going to make us safer.

Those who are troubled by our existing programs are not interested in repeating the tragedy of 9-11. And those who defend these programs are not dismissive of civil liberties. The challenge is getting the details right and that is not simple.

I think most people accept that it is necessary to have some surveillance in a democratic society. I think most people accept that it's important to have limits and clear safeguards on that.

Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy.

I particularly recognize that reasonable people can disagree as to what that proper balance or blend is between privacy and security and safety.

In the area of national security, I urge the swift passage of an anti-terrorism law that will protect rather than subvert, enhance rather than weaken, the rights and liberties that terrorism precisely threatens with extinction.

Liberal Democrats in government will not follow the last Labour government by sounding the retreat on the protection of civil liberties in the United Kingdom. It continues to be essential that our civil liberties are safeguarded, and that the state is not given the powers to snoop on its citizens at will.

I don't want security guards. I don't think security guards are particularly good for your writing.

The issue of wiretapping raises the issue of the balance between human liberty and the requirements of national security. I would say that the weight should be on the side of human liberty and that if human liberty is ever to be infringed, the demonstration on the national security side must be overwhelming.

It’s important to recognize that you can’t have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience.

We don’t have to choose between preserving privacy and preventing terrorism. We do have to decide how much oversight and accountability there should be when the government conducts surveillance on its citizens.

If we take away all our privacy rights, we become our own terrorists.

We do need to think about how we have security - everyone has a right to that - but we also need to think about how we maintain civil rights and personal freedom.

It is not possible to debate the balance between privacy and security, including the rights and wrongs of intrusive powers, without also understanding the threats.

This is a big debate concerning the values of the society in question: Whether the risk of a terrorist act is more important than the 100 percent right to privacy.

I've made sure that I've stood for privacy and the rights of the people time and time again.

Our need for public safety and our need for privacy are crashing into each other and we've got to sort that out.

I care a lot about privacy. I also care an awful lot about public safety. There continues to be a huge collision between those two things we care about.

Liberty and security are often in direct confrontation and must be balanced in a way that protects us without destroying what is worth protecting.

Law-abiding citizens value privacy. Terrorists require invisibility. The two are not the same, and they should not be confused.

The history of America is to expand civil liberties in a responsible and civil manner. We need to remember that our wonderful Democracy with its freedoms has been working.

We are living in a world where everything is based on security.

The right to personal privacy is precious. Without it, we are all potential victims for a prying secret police.