Prowling Using Freedom?

#OnFreedomOfSpeech(1)

Prowling Using Freedom?

The terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris, France, killing seventeen people in totality (considering the hostages killed), the worst of it in recent time in the history of the French people, attracted understandable outrage, and the whole world is standing in solidarity with the French people. We mourn the dead, we console the bereaved, and we solidarize with writers and cartoonists, globally!

In weighty and unequivocal tone, we condemn the barbarity and savagery of the theocratic fascists in the garb of ISIS, Boko Haram, al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab, and all franchises of blood-sucking demons, parading themselves as litigators of God on earth. The world has shown again that, for the umpteenth time, it is unrepentant in its advocacy to ensure it becomes safe and habitable for all men irrespective of their colour, religion and race –reinforcing equality, liberty and fraternity, as the France motto reads! 

In equal measure, evidently, this recent attack has awakened a global debate on freedom generally, and free speech specifically. This becomes a reaction to set in perspective the global outcry depicting that the attack on Charlie Hebdo is an attack on freedom, an attack on free speech. To draw the magnitude of such unacceptable ‘jihad’ on the free speech phraseology, a world match was conveyed, dubbed France unity match. In attendance was Benjamin Neyantahu of Isreal, Mahmoud Abass of Palestine, Boni Yaya of Benin Republic, Abd-Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt, amongst other world leaders, echoing the message: guns cannot silent pens! 

In the same vein, an unignorablecounter-narration is also oozing from the media, suggesting that the world is not monolithic in the definition of free speech, its boundary, and who to adjudicate on what amounts to hate speech, insulting and tasteless arts, racist and Islamophobic caricature, and all that Charlie Hebdo is accused of. 

To be clear, the Muslims’ (or Muslims-populated) countries –citing Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Brunei –are not disposed to the idea of ‘free speech’. Islamic governance models are individually adapted as it suits these individual countries’ specificities, and none, without any fear of contradiction, allows free speech, especially in the popular context of Western nuance, as it affects religion. The only difference, as I have observed, is the punishment to the perceived blasphemy -ranging from death sentence, imprisonment, flogging, as determined by the Sharia courts. 

I said: perceived blasphemy, because, usual of theocracy and states controlled by political clericalism, anything can be turned to blasphemy, either to blackmail dissidents, to silent critics, and to coerce citizens, in order for the political class to remain immune against public scrutiny. For example, a simple query like: Don’t you think there is a relationship between the Ifa worshippers (Ifa is a traditional religion in Africa, commonly among the Yoruba in Nigeria) and Muslims during the Hajj rites has once earned me the charge of blasphemy, and the accuser even went to the extent of sending death threat. The point is: ‘No freedom of speech’ is also not self-explicit. What are we not to say? And what determines this, on a global standard? Or is it to be determined by respective countries? The only ‘beauty’ is that the Muslims’ world is not ashamed to inform those who want to know that Freedom, Liberty is purely Western conceptions, and not acceptable in their ranks, feigning ignorance of the fact that  Islam would not have been spreading in Europe, if not for the benefit of the same free speech. 

On the other hand, the Western worlds, led by US, Britain, France, Germany, and other allies, present in the France Unity march, especially Egypt, have exposed themselves to the charge of hypocrisy and double standard, or an accomplice in Islamophobia. How do we relativize a legal provision or societal reaction that supports Charlie’s sackof Sine, one of its cartoonists charged with anti-Semitism, and literally absolves the same Charlie of racism when it depicts a particular black Minister of France as monkey?  How do we conceptualize Netayathahu’s discomfort, when certainly in Israel, making mockery of religious symbols is unlawful, but the same number one citizen of the State of Israel is in France for unity march, blatantly promoting limitless ‘free speech’? How do we contextualize the Britain’s free speech, where you cannot criticize the royal family, especially the Queen? Without losing any sense of objectivity, how do we explain al-Sisi’s countenance, a man whose government jailed journalists (al-Jazeera staffs), and recently docked a man that professes “there is no God”. 

To assume this alleged hypocrisy and double standard of free speech (or what is not free speech) is peculiar to the Western countries are their ally is also to be magnificently hypocritical, in its own terms. What would be defined as hypocrisy other than situations where Muslims can say “Jesus is a mere mortal, not God”, and one risks the charge of blasphemy when one says “Muhammad is just a mere philosopher, poet and possibly magician”? Or would it be pardonable to pray “Allah demolishes Jews and Christians”, but frown at “all Muslims are terrorists that should be killed”? –alleging it is stereotype, or Islamophobic. 

I mean: who determines what is offensive, who draws the limit of free speech and its characterization? How do we come to terms, as individual countries, or a single member of humanity on what is free speech and what is not? Is an objective standard feasible and plausible, or are we continuing prowling on the weak ones in our respective countries, using free speech, abusing free speech, or restraining free speech?

~Ibn Qalam

The Books I read in 2014

2015 is here, a new phase in the counting of our daily activities, powered by the Gregorian calendar.

I started documenting books read on yearly basis last year –a move influenced by a particular Feyi Fawehinmi whose blog posts are always delight to mind and soul. The richness of his essays, the depth of his grasp of socioeconomic issues and his penetrating writing styles have endeared my regular visits to his blog site. I documented books read in 2013 under an essay titled “My 2013 InRetrospect, My 2014 In View”, where I also made some sort of ‘New year resolution’ –better called 2014’s target. I was able to achieve some, and to my happiness, the most fascinating achieved-target was “hopefully to have a baby, preferably a girl, and to be named AadiyatuLah”. This was achieved on November 26, 2014. AlihamduliLLah!! 

I would have forgotten this yearly book review if not for the blog posts of Bill Gates and Satya Nadella, respectively on Gate notes and Geek Wire, reviewing their 2014 books’ favourites. 

In 2014 year, I was able to completely devoured 4 books, with 3 undergoing bit-by-bit consumption, those are ‘carry-overs’ to 2015. These completely-devoured books are: Chinua Achebe’s ‘There Was a Country’ and ‘Things Fall Apart’, Friedman Milton’s ‘Capitalism and Freedom’ and Michael Lebowitz’s ‘The Path to Human Development: Capitalism or Socialism?’

There Was a Country

This was a historical account of the 1967-1970 Biafra Civil war, as seen by Chinua Achebe. As expected in all historical accounts, Achebe’s account is highly subjective by putting all blames of the sad event and accusation of genocide on the tables of the military officers of the Northern Nigeria enclave, the international community, and some Nigerians who believe in a united Nigeria, for personal or patriotic reasons, what so ever. Some of the ludicrous narratives are: alleging that the Nigeria army went to the war with hard-heartedness, as if the Biafra army was soft-hearted, and absolving the Nzeogwu-led coup of any ethnic sentiment! None the less, it is a worthy read and notable literature on Nigeria political history.

Things Fall Apart

Contrary to expectation, I just read this fascinating piece in 2014. The reasons of the delay are better understood and known to circumstance. Things Fall Apart (TFA) made to me to fall deeper in love with literary works, especially fiction. Achebe’s art of storytelling is captivating so the extent that a mere literature enthusiast like me was glued to the book till it was completely devoured.

The book centred on Okonkwo, a major character that exhibits the traits of valour, steadfastness and Afrocentrism, as expected of an African man. Sadly, he had to take his own life, as the only brave route to prevent him from the maltreatment in the hands of white supremacists who invaded Africa land under the guise of evangelizing religion and education.  TFA brings its reader close to African culture and tradition, especially the Igbo cultural specificities.

Capitalism and Freedom (CaF)

Just as Hayek’s ‘Road to Serfdom’, CaF argues unapologetically that socialism is a path of human slavery and only capitalism guarantees freedom, especially the free market economy where the Adam Smith’s invincible hands of demand and supply take control of the market, absolutely and independently.

Notably, Milton did not exclude the presence of government and her role in a free market economy. But, opposing what socialists and/or the Keynessians would want to propose, CaF reduces the role of government to ‘watch dog’, to prevent the manipulation of the market from unscrupulous players. Government interventionism is economic crime in Milton’s thesis, and the only exemption is when such will have a ‘neighbourhood effect’. In his cited example, sponsoring scholarship on courses that have direct national importance like national integration, religious tolerance in a plural state, and all what-not.

I disagree with almost 80% of Milton’s proposition, and this is largely traceable to my socialist background. I however agree with some of his positions, especially the objection to government willing to pick bills for every convenience of her citizens, like public Motor Park, public toilet, and others that do not form content of social welfarism like education and health. I also agree with his liberalization of medical researches and findings, with a condition that such must be with profound education-based guess which can be handled by the unorthodox medical practitioners. 

In sum, as a centrist –nor to the right, or left, I see Milton’s work as a must read for anyone who is willing to open his or her mind to dispassionate critique of Marxism and Keynessianism.

The Path to Human Development: Capitalism or Socialism?

Michael Lebowitz is a Marxian economist, and as expected, he made weighty arguments against capitalism as path to human development. Apart from the abstract theoretical mop-up of Marxism-Leninism, he cited global economic index (rate of poverty, unemployment, labour movement) to support the capitalism-induced economy decaying experiences in the world, even as capitalism is make-believe to be growing wider and waxing stronger. He argued that the failure of capitalist economy to avert the 2008 global economic recession, the Euro catastrophe and Greece’s inability to head-out of the economic ill-trappings are obvious signs of the inherent contradictions in capitalism.

Finally, he related that the socialistic economic provision, which dignified labour force and believed that the control must be handled by the producer of labour, is the path to human development. The dialectics of thesis, synthesis and antithesis was duly employed to make this landing. He also clarified that “nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy”; a popular mantra in the Marxists’ circle, is just a leap towards socialism, and not socialism itself.