You don't like making blanket statements, but here you say, “Terrorism and other threats jeopardize our fundamental right to life and security of the person.”
That must be based on some risk assessment. Is that not the case?
Many things fundamentally jeopardize our lives and security, but we don't put boxes around them because they're not that important.
Isn't there fundamentally some need for risk assessment within this whole question of human rights? Don't you, in order to actually determine whether an issue has impact on human rights, have to look at the risk assessment of the particular act?
We've had two bombings on Canadian airplanes in my lifetime. One of them was by a terrorist group; the other was for personal gain. Yet we don't profile people for personal gain when they're getting on the airplane, do we? Do we make those choices?
I'm trying to understand how we've come to a point where security has taken such a large part of our lives without correct and very careful risk assessment.