Informative Essay: Does Increasing the Level of Security in the Airports Violate Personal Freedom Rights?

In my essay I discuss the level of airport security and I make it clear in an informative way that no human rights or personal freedoms are violated by airport security, and that further restrictions and safeguards could be extended and installed without violating human rights or personal freedoms.

People make a choice to use the airlines and make a choice to undergo airport security. Their personal freedoms are not being violated if they are the ones choosing a course of action. In addition, their human rights are not being violated if they are choosing their course of action.

Personal freedom violations?

Ironically, allowing a Muslim stewardess to wear a head covering, but not allowing a female stewardess to wear a Christian cross is a violation of personal freedom and an act of religious discrimination. However, if you were to enter an airline and were asked to remove your religious clothing or personal items, this is not* a violation of personal freedom, nor is it an act of religious discrimination.

* unless its removal was also deemed an act of religious rejection. For example, if a Manchu hairstyle was ordered to be cut, such an action would be a direct contradiction of Classic of Filial Piety and the teachings of Confucius. (身体发肤,受之父母,不敢毁伤,孝至始也。)

One may also make the argument that if a person’s personal freedom was violated, then he or she may leave, which is valid if a person already knows what freedoms are due to be violated. This is true in all modern airports. After all, people are not locked in rooms unless they have broken the law. Airport security is not sprung up on people by surprise. Most people know what to expect when they enter an airport, and people that do not know what to expect are told what is about to happen. In addition, they are still given the option to leave after they have been told what is about to happen.

Human rights violations?

The best example I can think of is the human right that states a person cannot be subjected to cruel and usual punishment. If a person were detained in a jail and subjected to cruel and usual punishment, then his or her human rights have been violated. If that same person were to visit a dominatrix and pay for cruel and usual punishment, then that is not a volition of human rights because the person is choosing to undergo such treatment and is even paying for it. A person that uses an airline is choosing to pay for and use the service. Such as person may not expect or want anything uncomfortable, but he or she is free to leave at any time, and he or she is aware in advance of what security measures may be taken, ergo there are no breaches or violations of human rights.

Conclusion

As you can see by my essay, there is no level of airport security that violates a person’s human rights or a person’s personal freedoms. People are not forced to use the airlines in any way, and even when they are in airports, people are not forced into anything. People are free to leave the airport at whatever point they wish unless they are breaking the law, which is the only circumstance under which they are detained. If they are detained, then their personal freedom is being violated because they violated the rules of the country first. Even if further restrictions and safeguards were extended and installed, they would still not violating human rights or personal freedoms whilst ever people both have the choice of using airlines, and whilst ever people are still able to leave if they wish.