Maravi

Facts are subversive

Facts are subversive
Written by Editor

Why is Fr Frank Bwalya being denied the right to hold a press conference in Kitwe? What is the government scared of that they think Fr Bwalya will say? What peace can this priest threaten or endanger through a press conference? We are asking these obvious questions because the whole issue of denying Fr Bwalya his right to hold a press conference doesn’t make sense.

There are so many questions that can be asked, seeking honest answers from the government. But we don’t think anyone in government will give an honest answer to these questions. And it therefore leaves the whole issue to speculation. However, what is at stake is a serious constitutional and human rights matter.

There is no law that allows the government to permanently stop Fr Bwalya from holding a press conference in Kitwe.

Not even the public order Act permits the police from stopping Fr Bwalya from holding a press conference. This is a right that is guaranteed Fr Bwalya in our Constitution. And to deny him this right constitutes a serious violation.

Freedom of expression forms the backbone of our multiparty democracy. And this democracy will only become a reality when there is a freedom of speech, including the freedom on the part of each individual to criticise the government and political parties; a freedom of each individual to hold a political opinion that is different from that of Rupiah Banda, the ruling MMD or indeed of the opposition political parties; the freedom of each individual to express a political opinion that is different from that of those who wield political power; that is, the freedom to have a different line of political thinking and expression.

Clearly, freedom of speech and expression is the lifeblood of any democracy. To debate and vote, to assemble and protest, to worship, to ensure justice for all – all these rely upon unrestricted flow of speech and information. Democracy is communication: people talking to one another about their common problems and forging a common destiny. Before people can govern themselves, they must be free to express themselves.

Citizens of a democracy live with a conviction that through the open exchange of ideas and opinions, truth will eventually win out over falsehood, the values of others will be better understood, areas of compromise more clearly defined, and the path of progress opened. The greater the volume of such exchanges, the better.

If the government feels there is something that Fr Bwalya is going to say that is dangerous, that is harmful, they have no choice but to wait until he has said it. And then they can take whatever measures are permissible within the law. It is simply not the business of the government to edit one’s thoughts or speech before one is allowed to hold a press conference and share his thoughts with others. If there is anything wrong that may come out of Fr Bwalya’s press conference, the cure for it is not to curtail the freedom of speech either for Fr Bwalya or for anyone else. The cure for free speech is more free speech.

It may seem a paradox but in the name of free speech, a democracy must sometimes defend the rights of individuals and groups who themselves advocate such non-democratic policies as repressing free speech. Citizens in a democratic society defend this right out of the conviction that, in the end, open debate will lead to greater truth and wiser public action than if speech is stifled.

Furthermore, the suppression of speech that we find offensive today is potentially a threat to our exercise of free speech tomorrow – which perhaps we or others might find offensive. This reminds us of that classic defence of this view argued by English philosopher John Stewart Mill in his essay of 1859 On Liberty that all people are harmed when speech is repressed: “If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth, if wrong, they lose…the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error.”

It is quite clear that the denial of Fr Bwalya’s right to hold a press conference suggests a conscious or unconscious lack of humanity on the part of those running government. It is quite true that acceptance of the rights of others to freely express themselves implies the highest respect for human ideal. Its denial must surely rank as one of the worst forms of immorality in human affairs.

If there is any principle in all the constitutions we have had, and we are probably going to have, that imperatively calls for attachment more than any other, it is the principle of free thought – not free for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we don’t like, we detest or even hate. Political speech is at the apex of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. And it should not be for the government to decide that political speech is some sort of disease that we must quarantine.

And from the way Fr Bwalya is being treated, it’s clear that freedom of expression is in danger in this country and it has to be defended. People believe that having freedom of expression is a natural phenomenon. It is not. It is the result of intense care and vigilance.

And there is no pleasure in living, if you are to be corked up forever, and only dribble your mind out by the sly, like leaky barrel. We shouldn’t repent saying what we think. The unregulated voice isn’t as dangerous to the public as the silenced voice. It is more dangerous to silence Fr Bwalya than to allow him to say all the dangerous things we think he’s going to say. If we think sticks and stones are hard on bones, silence breaks the heart.

People are never so likely to settle a question rightly as when they discuss it freely. It is easy to embrace freedom of speech for the ideas we accept. But the essence of freedom of speech is that we must protect the ideas we hate. The need to protect what we detest is the reason freedom of the mind both exists and remains under siege.

In a democracy, the freedom of discussion and freedom of expression are of the highest value because without them, democracy stands into a caricature. We know that those who seek to stifle free speech seek all sorts of national security arguments, they claim that peace will be disturbed if people like Fr Bwalya are allowed to freely speak and share their ideas, views and opinions with others. We know that necessity is always the plea for every infringement of human freedom. But we also know that it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of those who they seek to enslave.

The right of Fr Bwalya to express himself is not something that should be given to him by the government only when those in power think he is not going to be harmful to their political interests; it is something that belongs to him, that is part of him by virtue of him being a human being.

We should never allow, for whatever reason, those in the government to silence anyone. Silence blurs more truth than it reveals. You cannot have democracy and you cannot have a community if you don’t have a way to share ideas. Only a strong and secure democracy can guarantee the fullest and freest exchange of ideas, no matter how much those ideas hurt or incite. To silence Fr Bwalya is to silence freedom of expression. Today it’s Fr Bwalya who is being silenced, tomorrow it will be the whole nation that will be silenced. If they can get away with it on Fr Bwalya, they will try it on many other people and one day on the whole nation.

Freedom of speech is a precious thing, and the inalienable birthright of all who travel this earth. When truth is no longer free, freedom is no longer real.

We don’t believe any tyrant, any intolerant regime ever succeeded in imposing moratorium on thought, on intellect. The oppression of any people for opinion’s sake has rarely had any other effect than to fix those opinions deeper and render them more important.

We therefore make a clarion call to all our people to come up and defend Fr Bwalya’s right to hold his press conference without any undue interference from those in control of government. This is a fundamental human right that the Human Rights Commission and other institutions whose mandate is to defend our people’s rights and advance their liberties should defend. The defence of Fr Bwalya’s freedom of speech should not be left to his father, old Flex Mwango. Of course we hope other parents can learn something from Mr Mwango and stand up to defend the fundamental human rights of their children when they are violated or trampled upon.

Labels: FRANK BWALYA

posted by MrK @ 7:59 PM