The past month has been quite a tumultuous
one for the Namibian public. We’ve had mass demonstrations that rallied
hundreds, even thousands of citizens, and we’ve had social outcry over the
vicious attack and murder on some of our citizens. It is heartening to see that
the freedom of speech and expression is alive and well in Namibia, as
guaranteed in Article 21 of our constitution.
But as with all freedoms, it is sometimes
misunderstood. Especially when this freedom is expressed via heated, and
sometimes emotional, language and arguments that are so close to the person
concerned, they seem to believe that the freedom of speech and expression
entitles them to a certain level of protection that is not in any way included
in that freedom. It does not guarantee you the right to an audience…
Article 21 of the constitution points out
some of these limitations, stating in Sub-Article (2), “The fundamental freedoms referred to in Sub-Article (1) hereof shall
be exercised subject to the law of Namibia, in so far as such law imposes
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the rights and freedoms conferred by
the said Sub-Article, which are necessary in a democratic society and are
required in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of Namibia, national
security, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of
court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”
But what is implicit here, as with all
constitutions, is that it defines the role of government in these freedoms.
Freedom of speech is thus the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas
without fear of government retaliation or censorship. And even that is allowed
as per Sub-Article (2), for certain forms of speech. It is thus quite
permissible for a private organisation to censor speech by taking private,
non-government, action against you.
Thus, when a newspaper or social media site
does not publish your letter to the editor, or your post to their page, they
are not practising censorship – they are in fact practising their own freedom
of speech and expression – it is after all, their platform that they speak
from. Forcing them into speech they do not wish to make is the antithesis of
freedom of speech. You are, after all, still free to publish your own newspaper,
and host your own website, and start your own page on Facebook, or even your
own version of Facebook. Your rights have not been infringed at all.
After all, you have the right to freedom of
speech and expression, not the right to an audience. Those you speak to also
have a freedom to listen, or not, to your speech. Some people go even further,
and believe that freedom of speech imparts their words with a mystical and
truthful colour that cannot be opposed.
They believe that anyone who criticises something they’ve said, are
trying to ‘censor’ them.
This is an old problem. Even Winston
Churchill commented on this, claiming “Everyone
is in favour of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled,
but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but
if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” Truth be told, by
claiming no one may respond to your speech is in fact infringing on their right
to free speech. The right not to be criticized has never existed, no matter how
much someone might have wanted it.
Freedom of speech, even without its
additional imaginary rights, is quite a powerful freedom. It is fundamental to
any functioning democracy, as only an informed electorate that has access to
the free flow of information and ideas can make an informed vote. But as I have hinted above, implicit in the
freedom of speech is another freedom. According to John Milton, the freedom of
speech and expression has four distinct aspects. It is not only the right to
express information and ideas, but also the right to seek information and
ideas, the right to receive them, and the right to impart them.
The freedom of speech, thus, also contains
within it the freedom to listen. And just like any freedom confers upon its
user a certain level of responsibility, so too does this one. The freedom to
speak has outlined how it should be responsibly used in Sub-Article (2), but
the freedom to listen? Those responsibilities are perhaps even more important,
as they shape how we as a society consume the speech produced by others. But
those have not been quite so clearly delineated.
An informed citizen must not just listen
and accept everything as true, for on that road surely lies madness. The simply
incongruence between sources that might be either deceitful, delusional, biased
or simply propaganda that distorts facts, should surely convince people that
there must be a better way. They’d be right. Listening requires assessing
information, and over the years a set of standard techniques have been
developed that allows one to assess and evaluate ideas. Drawing heavily from
the Scientific Method, this has become known as critical thinking skills.
For those who apply critical thought to the
information they receive, the information becomes much more valuable. They are
able to determine whether the information is in fact relevant to the matter at
hand, and differentiate between rational and emotional claims. They’re able to
separate fact from opinion, and can spot holes in an argument and ferret out
deception. Separating fact from simple opinion, they can recognize logical
flaws in arguments.
But more than that. Based on these skills,
they’re able to connect different sources of data and information, and pick the
strongest set of supporting information. They are able to tolerate information
that differs from their views, and evaluate whether it’s not their own views
that must change. From this, they can showcase
their own, personal analysis of said data, and present their argument and its
context, and correctly use the evidence to defend their argument. But most
importantly, it enables them to recognize that a problem may have to single
answer, or even a clear answer.
The freedom to listen is perhaps even more
important than the freedom to speak, as when it is properly applied, your fellow
citizens together make you a better, more informed person. In Namibia, we now
have the freedom of speech mastered. Perhaps for us as a nation to ascend to a
better democracy, we should now try exercising the freedom to listen. After
all, tolerance cannot come without a measure of understanding. And if you’re
not even willing to listen, how will you ever understand?
No comments:
Post a Comment