Government and Oppression

Over this 4th of July weekend, observing our nation's celebration of independence and the overthrow of Morsi and the constitution of Egypt,  I have thought deeply about the relationship between government and oppression.

Does oppression occur when government engages in actions that diminish citizen participation? Last year the majority party in the Michigan legislature arguably sought to diminish free and full debate by proposing and passing legislation without going through the usual committee hearing process. During this time, despite a Governor who previously said the issue was not a priority for him, turned Michigan into a "right-to-work" state. Regardless of whether one supports unions or not, passing this legislation without holding hearings open to the public seems to this blogger oppressive.

Similarly, recognizing public opposition to other issues, the majority party proposed and passed legislation that would prevent referendums to change certain hunting/environmental practices. There is great irony when legislators elected to represent the public decide that the public should not have a say.

Sadly, rather than expressing outrage, citizens sit back and say, "that's politics."

Email, phone, and now even snail mail monitored by government

As revelations of US spying on phone records and email of all US residents proliferate, The New York Times, 3 July 2013, reports that "Postal Service computers photograph the exterior of every piece of paper mail that is processed in the United States — about 160 billion pieces last year. It is not known how long the government saves the images."

The story tells of a bookstore owner who years ago was a member of a pro-ecology group that the FBI regards as an eco-terrorist group. The man found out that his mail was monitored by the US government.

Is monitoring mail by the government acceptable? Does the action oppress? Does the action hurt freedom?

On this day celebrating independence . . .

On this 4th of July we say happy birthday to independence for the USA. As we consider the freedom from tyranny that so many good people fought for and continue to fight for, let us be vigilant in opposing those elected and appointed officials who support through action or inaction taking away freedom. What may seem like an innocent or inconsequential action to erode freedom may come back to haunt us.

Is surveillance by government oppressive?

Over the last several months much has come to the attention of U.S. citizens about surveillance activity by the U.S. government. This surveillance was not restricted to spies, enemies of the state, and terrorists, but included the emails and phone calls of all of us. The surveillance apparently also included political leaders of nations friendly to the US.

I posted about the surveillance issue on my Facebook page. One of the most frightening responses I received was from an acquaintance who argued, "What's the big deal? I have nothing to hide so I don't see the problem. If the government wants to read my boring email that's up to them." All one need do to see the weakness of this argument is to look to history and discover that millions of law abiding citizens who thought they had nothing to fear: Jews in Hitler's Germany, Japanese Americans in the US after Pearl Harbor, Native Americans forced to reservations, government critics in Stalin's Russia--the list goes on and on.

Although many argue that government surveillance of US citizens post-911 is a legitimate and necessary act, the question I raise: Is surveillance by government oppressive?