Maravi

Unnecessary overzealousness

Unnecessary overzealousness
By Editor
Wednesday October 31, 2007 [03:00]

Writing in 1859 in his book, On Liberty, John Stuart Mill remarked: "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." He further argues that "the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it.

If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."

That is the whole point about free speech and freedom of expression - to allow opinions to flow freely, regardless of how much we may detest some of them. In simple terms, the principle of freedom of speech allows us to speak freely without censorship from anyone.

In fact, freedom of speech is often regarded as an integral concept in democratic societies such as ours.

The right to freedom of speech is so fundamental that it has been guaranteed under international law through numerous human rights instruments, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Other nations such as the United States have gone further by enshrining it in their constitution that their law-making body, Congress, shall not make laws that infringe upon such fundamental rights.

It is, therefore, very strange that our High Commissioner to Namibia, Mr Griffin Nyirongo, wants to curtail the freedom of Zambians who live in Namibia and interact via the internet to discuss issues and subjects of their own choice. And going by the explanation from Kazhila Chinsembu - the university lecturer High Commissioner Nyirongo is trying to censor - it is clear that the censorship is unwarranted and totally out of tune.

First, the High Commissioner should know that while he may not like what Patriotic Front president Michael Sata said in the United States, the best way for people to know whether or not what Sata said is right or wrong is not to stifle debate over the matter.

Indeed, it is not possible to agree with each and every opinion we come across, just like we ourselves do not agree with Sata's approach on the China-Taiwain issue. But censoring unpleasant or unpalatable opinions isn't the best way of counteracting those ideas which we are not comfortable with.

On the contrary, censorship actually always defeats its own purpose because in the end, it just creates the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion; censorship creates a society that is incapable of thinking on its own. If anything, censorship is a reflection of society's lack of confidence in itself and this is perhaps why it is mainly associated with authoritarian regimes where free thinking is an intolerable idea.

Going by his reaction to Sata's Harvard University address, it is clear that our High Commissioner in Namibia has a lot to learn in terms of the concept of free speech and free expression, especially in a democratic society like ours. But as John Stuart Mill advises, we have to understand that "If the arguments of the present chapter are of any validity, there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered." Essentially, what Mill is telling us is that any doctrine, and for that matter any opinion, should be allowed the light of day no matter how immoral it may seem to everyone else. And such freedom should exist with every subject matter, such that we have "absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral or theological."

So the High Commissioner cannot start dictating to Zambians living in Namibia the kinds of subjects they need to debate because freedom of speech cannot be limited only to the subjects which he is comfortable with.

By saying all this, we are not suggesting that such freedom is completely absolute because we know that every freedom comes with a corresponding responsibility from those exercising it. Yes, there should be rules in terms of how we conduct ourselves as individuals exercising these freedoms but that should not amount to censorship as we are seeing in High Commissioner Nyirongo's conduct.

For the sake of decency and acceptable norms in our societies, we can have limits, rules and regulations in terms of, for instance, the language or actions applied. But the law, as well as other ethical requirements, have taken care of all such concerns. Thus, it would be wrong for anyone, as the High Commissioner is doing, to be dictating the kinds of subjects that people should be debating.

We want to believe that through the discussion forum that Zambians living in Namibia interact over, the idea is to encourage a democratic culture in terms of engagement on various subjects, including those that touch on our national politics.

If that is the case, the best test of democracy would be to allow individuals the freedom to criticise, the freedom to present opposing or alternative ideas or opinions, including introducing subjects or topics that may not be pleasant to others.

Let us not forget that freedom of expression is integral to tolerance. And we believe that tolerance, especially tolerance of divergent views - no matter how unpopular those views may be - should be a basic value that we should easily embrace as a society.

So, instead of wasting his energies and time trying to undermine invaluable ideals of liberty and democracy such as freedom of expression, our High Commissioner in Namibia would do well to ensure that these fundamental principles are protected. As High Commissioner, he is actually in a very ideal position to do so.

Furthermore, the High Commissioner should realise that the advancement of technology, particularly the development of the internet, has now opened many new possibilities for people to exercise freedom of speech using methods that are not as restrictive as the conventional communicative media and no matter how much he may want to do it, it will be difficult for him to censor people interacting via cyberspace.

Therefore, the High Commissioner's overzealousness over Sata's Harvard University lecture is not necessary.

Labels: EDITORIAL, FREEDOM OF SPEECH

posted by MrK @ 8:17 AM