every-i-matters-blog

[every-i-matters-blog]

Does “freedom of expression” have the same meaning for everyone?

 Freedom of expression is the right afforded to everyone to be able to voice out concerns, problems, injustices and other remarks. It is also protected in South Africa’s constitution. However, freedom of expression does not have the same meaning for everyone, hence the government has put in place certain restrictions or limitations of the freedom of expression. Any individual has the right to say anything at any time but problems or misunderstandings usually occur when the “free speech/expression” is defamatory, racist, partial, prejudiced, and or biased. We are different human beings conscious of our cognitive differences, therefore, our understanding of the meaning of freedom of expression is invariably different.

Given the diversity of cultures, beliefs, religions, traditions, as well as perspectives, it is almost impossible to have the same understanding of freedom of expression. For instance, the words which are considered to be “insults” by one culture may be perceived as “compliments” by another culture. Another example is the gratuitous display of the old apartheid flag, some people think that it is freedom of expression which constitutes hate speech because of South Africa’s apartheid history, while others think that its display should not be banned because it is an inoffensive insignia to them and it reminds them of their history, good or bad.

In numerous instances, freedom of expression is habitually misunderstood by people who do not have formal studies or those who are not law scholars or even those who are just ordinary citizens with a sufficient degree of formal education. Public engagements on freedom of expression become infinite because of existing misconceptions. Expression is imperative since we are arranged in social order but this expression is, to some degree, constrained. It is constrained for the purpose of limiting any hate speech or any expression which may incite violence or misunderstanding between a people in the public sphere.

I think that in South Africa freedom of expression is unequivocally afforded to everyone but not in the same way. For example, the president has the powers to get across a biased message to millions of people within a short period of time and face major consequences for his partiality but an ordinary citizen can utter racist remarks and escape accountability to and criticism from the public. Furthermore, given the economic disparities between the rich and poor it is again impossible to have the same meaning of freedom of expression. The poor might be perceived as violent criminals during the demonstration of their plight when there is a protest, but they seem to hold a view contrary to the rich because during protests, the poor seem to think that their violent behavior and expression is the only way they can get the government to speak to address them.

Freedom of expression has not changed because even if it is a right, it is to some extent, limited. The limitations that government has imposed on freedom of expression is a result from the notion that “although freedom of expression is fundamental to our democratic society, it is not of paramount value”. Therefore, this expression can be construed against other human rights such as the right to human dignity. For some people, freedom of expression may mean that they are allowed to: utter racist remarks, spread propaganda, incite violence and or use somebody’s property as their own. To me, freedom of expression does not extend to remarks or expressions which incite war in our country.

In conclusion, every individual is afforded the right to express himself but the onus is on him to try and express himself mildly and in a way that is not in contravention with the constitutional limitations to the freedom of expression because we do not hold the same meaning of “freedom of expression”.

[every-i-matters-blog]

Toxic masculinity: Can we ever exhaust the questions?

To make it simple toxic masculinity is violent behaviour perpetrated by men. This behaviour is not innate but it is effected by societal norms created around masculinity and femininity. The primary problem with toxic masculinity is that it is not practised on men but mostly on women and children. Some men tend to abuse their wives, actually women in general are abused by men; not only physically but emotionally, politically and socially. My aunt once married a rich man and got divorced 15 years later. Benjamin (His name) abused my aunt emotionally with his infidelities, and physically by beating her in front of her children. After her divorce, my grandfather called a family meeting in which my aunt was interrogated and shamed. She was told that her divorce is a reflection of her inability to take care of a good husband. Things got out of control, my aunt stood up for herself and as a result, my grandfather and uncle beat her up. She got badly whipped in front of the whole family. My other uncles did not bother to stop the fight nor did they make an effort to take away the sjambok from my furious grandfather. One thing which led to this event is my grandfather’s greed and the obsession he has over livestock. Benjamin used to buy him goats, sheep, chickens and donkeys; and now that he divorced my aunt, my granddad stands to lose. Benjamin, my uncles and my granddad are weak because they beat up women; they are incapable of solving situations without resorting to violence. Women are not fully human, their right to be has been deprived from them by oppressive men who only care about their egos.I do not tolerate toxic masculinity because just like men, women have feelings and it is our responsibility as men to protect them and to make them feel safe. In an effort to eradicate toxic masculinity, men should come forth as crusaders for the emancipation of women.

[every-i-matters-blog]

Preaching for profit.

A shocking incident of a pastor pretending to resurrect a human emerged on Sunday. This pastor is alleged to have brought a man back from death.This immoral act of his is disapproved by multitudes. Pastors from around the world have said that this incidence tarnishes their reputation as gospel crusaders. It affects them directly in such a way that their congregation population may decrease. This act was a strategy meant to  yield exposure, more exposure-more congregants which means more money.  This leaves us with one question, has religion been commercialized? Oh yes! It has been and that will never change. There is a scripture about tithes and giving but some pastors are doing too much. Driven by greed and the longing to have it all, pastors demand that people give their all, even if it means emptying their pockets. Good Samaritans do not generally notice that their churches are charismatic, they just go with the holy flow. As a consequence of desperation, people are deceived, false miracles are performed. False prophets are becoming popular by cheating people off their last money in exchange of mythic healing lotions. All this demonstrates how people’s emotions are toyed with. This brings in the question of morality, have we lost it, have pastors lost it? How do congregants address the problems which beset them if they are unconscious of the unrighteousness going on in front of them? Religion has been commercialized to its entirety. Why should we buy holy water and holy ointments? We can never exhaust the questions.