I apologise for not posting for ten days, but I have been preoccupied with visitors, a funeral and other sundry domestic matters that diverted me from attending to my other duties. What gave rise to this post was the conviction of Anjem Choudary, the radical Islamic preacher who will now be sentenced for hate crimes and whose case has given rise to a debate about freedom of speech in Britain. This is a debate that necessitates a continuous dialogue, as freedom and rights are dynamic and should not be regarded as static and given. This also applies to the debate about all forms of freedom and human rights in an ever changing world and is of fundamental importance, particularly when states have the technological ability in the modern world to intrude into every facet of our daily lives. Freedom is, of course, intimately connected to privacy, and also gives rise to the persistent theme that runs through this blog, the nature, roles and function of government and the state.
As I have written before on this blog, freedom is not the right to do whatever you want, and you may recall my rejection of the nature of freedom postulated by people like Thomas Hobbes and Jeremy Bentham. That is what is so dangerous about neoliberal economics and the persistent calls for economic freedom and the so-called freedom of the market, a concept of freedom that leads to the gradual enslavement of ordinary working people and the demonization of those who are deemed to have no market value. This is now so obvious in western capitalist societies that I never cease to wonder how any intelligent being can still hold to any form of commitment to a free market, except of course the licensed criminals who compose our ruling classes. Freedom is not an unlimited resource. As human beings are social beings each human action inevitably impacts on other human beings, and thus, human freedom means that each individual freedom can only be recognised within the prism of our social life. Thus, individual freedoms are crucial and fundamental, but cannot be viewed as absolute, and, even more importantly, neither can governmental or state rights and freedoms. Indeed that is another debate that is rarely heard, should governments and states even be considered to have rights?
Human social living means that we are faced with numerous paradoxes in our lives. In relation to freedom we must always ask, how much freedom should be given to the enemies of freedom? We are daily faced with the paradox of attempting to establish a system of law and justice that protects our freedoms against the enemies of those freedoms, and at the moment the biggest enemy of my freedom is not Islamic fundamentalism, it is the British government and state. That is the fundamental reason that I support Scottish Independence whilst supporting membership of the EU. It is Westminster that is threatening to withdraw from the European system of human rights and the court system that protects them. It is Westminster that is attempting to remove all workers rights. It is Westminster who is threatening to invade every aspect of my private life. It is Westminster that is destroying my health and welfare system. It is Westminster that is destroying the pensions system etc. etc. and it is Westminster that is in thrall to the economic system that is demanding the removal of all my freedoms and rights because they are constraints in its never ending quest for greater and greater profits and methods of exploitation. It is the British elite and the personnel within the Westminster pigsty for whom enough is never enough.
Your freedom must never be allowed to threaten my freedom and therefore we have a paradox, how much freedom must I grant to those of you who wish to use that freedom to restrict mine? Westminster has more in common with Anjem Choudary than they would ever wish to accept. For example, the aforementioned Mr Choudary argues that real freedom is achieved under the restrictions of Islamic sharia law, just as the Christian argues that true freedom is submission to the will of the Christian god and the neoliberal argues that true freedom can only be found in submission to the unrestricted market. What the Islamic fundamentalist, the fundamentalist Christian and the fundamentalist free marketeer have in common is a fierce resistance to any form of regulation of their activities. What they all demand is that I sacrifice my freedoms to theirs. However, sharia law, many of the interpretations of Christian law, and the free market, would place me in an intolerable situation from my perspective of freedom. We therefore have a situation whereby I argue for the freedom of both the Muslim and the Christian to practice their faith, but, in an Islamic and Christian ruled society, they would persecute my freedom to reject their faith and religious practices. With respect to the free market, their freedom will destroy my freedom to remove my labour, to negotiate my wages and terms and conditions of employment, to enjoy a pension etc. Similarly, whilst they demand that they have an absolute freedom to promote and practice their religion and their economic policies, I restrict their attempts to coerce me into their faith, and it is no use anyone telling me that modern Christians would not do that, because they have done it before and would no doubt do it again.
As a result, I could never be reconciled with the Anjem Choudary's of this world nor he with me, just as I could never be reconciled with a merchant banker or a hedge fund manager. An intelligent society then requires compromise from both sides and that is the delicate balance that we seek to achieve in a just and democratic society. However, compromise requires the acceptance from both sides that they will have to sacrifice something, and that is when intolerance raises its head. A British jury decided that tolerance cannot be extended to the freedom to kill those who will not submit to Islamic domination, nor to the freedom to call for such action. However, by the same token I could never be reconciled with Donald Trump. Americans should beware because they may get what they vote for. You have been warned.
Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat
No comments:
Post a Comment