We have become so political that
we sometimes don’t seem to realise that politics is all perception, and
perceptions are derived from what the mind’s willing to comprehend, not necessarily
conclusive. That's why everybody’s is different. But from when we are
objective, tread carefully on our democracy, be less personal about issues,
even if we cannot see eye to eye, we may end up having new eyes for discovery.
To start with, I feel for Dr.
Ismaila Ceesay, and I don’t even have reliable answers as to what he did, the
extent of violation of his rights if any, how brief and cursory was his time at
the police to qualify a detention –was it an arrest as in the technical sense
of the word, or just a detention ripened into a de facto arrest, I don’t know.
I just naturally don’t like the control of people's freedom, especially by
means of the police, but that’s just me being sentimental.
That sentiment aside, I’m aware
of the fact that Freedom of Speech is one of the bases of a good democracy.
However (and I’m not saying this to quench anyone’s thirst), for the good of
all, and like all freedoms, there are boundaries and responsibilities that go
with Freedom of speech.
What I mean is, just like your
driver’s license can only permit you to drive, not to absolve you from reckless
driving, Freedom of Speech cannot be used to disrespect others, to justify
sedition, negative vibe peddling, presstitution, etc. because even if
officially permitted, it’s so defeating the common purpose of creating a better
people.
Don’t twist this. I didn’t say
Dr. Ceesay is in the wrong nor am I saying he did all that. In fact, like I
said, I don’t even know the details. And it’s not like I’m trying to give the
government coercive powers to edit our rights. I just want to throw caution and
I hope not to the wind, that Freedom of Speech cannot continue to be predicated
on the (implied) notion that it's OK to work against each other than work
together, or to trigger rather than extinguish chaos.
No comments:
Post a Comment