Leaders often contend with conflicting situations that compel them to ignore partisan concerns raised by antagonistic groups in order to come to objective decisions. For instance, when a leader has to choose between the right to safety and security of one group and the fundamental liberties of another, an impartial decision is hard to come by. In a situation where the safety and security of a given group of people are at stake, it is standard procedure to overlook the fundamental liberties of the individual or group of people that is considered threatening (Ginsberg, Theodore and Margaret 15). For instance, if one citizen becomes a threat to the safety and security of others, authorities often overlook the fundamental civil liberties of the individual until such a time that the individual is no longer a threat.
Based on the same principle, even if the right decision seems unpopular, the safety and security of the public should always come first. If a nation descends into a state of anarchy, fundamental civil liberties do not make any sense at all (Ginsberg, Theodore and Margaret 24). Therefore, the right to safety and security is more important and should be valued above fundamental civil liberties. This assertion stems from the fact that the primary purpose of the authorities is to ensure the safety and security of the people before they can look into other issues.
In light of the preceding argument, the Nazi’s should not be granted permission march in the said neighborhood. If they have to march, they ought to do it in a different neighborhood because their opinions will still be voiced. It should be noted that the decision to deny them permission serves to protect them from the residents of that neighborhood. Going by the opinions of most residents, the Jews, who are dominant in the neighborhood, are very hostile towards the Nazis. Any slight provocation could result in a brutal confrontation between the two groups. Therefore, the law notwithstanding, the Nazis do not deserve the permit to march in the said neighborhood. This decision serves the interests of both the Nazis and the residents of the said neighborhood.
The decision to deny the Nazis permission was informed by three key arguments. The most compelling argument came from Peter Pfizenmaier. His parents suffered grievous atrocities at the hands of the Nazi regime. In fact, he is well aware that his father died in a German concentration camp under the Nazi regime. His mother on the other hand, narrowly survived because the American forces arrived in time to liberate her. In light of this background, allowing the Nazis to march through Peter’s neighborhood would subject him to massive psychological torture. In essence, the Nazis would purport to be exercising their freedom, but with no idea of the extent of damage caused to that neighborhood.
The second most compelling argument was by Loretta Jackson, who, as a young girl, witnessed the Klan burn a cross on her lawn. According to this woman, the motive of the Nazis is to subject the residents of her neighborhood to unnecessary mental torture. Authorities should not allow this kind of behavior under the guise of upholding fundamental civil liberties. The law seeks to facilitate harmonious coexistence among people. If anyone attempts to take advantage of the same law to infringe on the liberties of others, they should be discouraged at all costs.
Another compelling argument came from Rabbi Joseph Rabinowitz who has worked in the said neighborhood for ten years. He noted that Jews who had suffered gross mistreatment at the hands of the Nazi regime were dominant in the said neighborhood. All of them moved to America to flee the hatred sprouted by Nazis. Consequently, permitting the Nazis to march through the neighborhood is entirely unpalatable. Besides evoking painful memories that can propagate hatred or instigate brutal confrontations, such a march would rob these people of their peace and harmony.
Work Cited
Ginsberg, Benjamin, Theodore J. Lowi and Margaret Weir. We the People: An Introduction to American Politics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2011. Print.