Freedom of Speech

We must insist that free olfactory is only the beginning of free speech; it is not the end, but means to an end. The end is to find the truth. The practical justification of civil liberty is not that the examination of opinion is one of the necessities for us; for experience tells us that it was only when freedom of opinion became the compulsion to debate, the seed which our forefathers planted had produced its fruit. When this is understood, freedom in real sense will be cherished not because it is a vent for our opinion but because it is the surest method of correcting it.

“The unexamined life”, said Socrates, “is unfit to be lived by man”. This is the virtue of liberty, and the ground on which we may best justify our belief in it that it tolerates error in order to serve the truth. When more men are brought face to face with their opinions, forced to listen, learn and mend their ideas, we cease to be children and savages and begin to live like civilized men. Then only is freedom a reality, when men voice their opinions because they must examine their opinions.

The only reason for dwelling on all this is that if we are to preserve democracy, we must understand its principles. The principle which distinguishes it from all forms of government is that in a democratic system, the opposition is not only tolerated as constitutional but must be maintained because it is in fact indispensable.

In our society, in contrary to the necessity of democracy, opinion of people, specifically termed as the “unprivileged” are turned down or ruled over. Suppression and negligence prevails in the world, where even in the institution such as that of parliament, the members listen to others opinion just to impose theirs, never considering or understanding what the other has to say. This does not define democracy.

Our democratic system cannot be operated without effective opposition. For, in making the great experiment of governing our people by consent rather coercion, it is not sufficient that the party in power should have a majority. It is just as necessary that the party in power should never outrage the minority. That means that it must listen to the minority and be moved by the criticism of the minority.

Thus it is evident that the right to opinion expression is necessary for making a properly structured government and to govern our people without being labeled as hooligans. People of any nation must have the liberty to express their ideas and have importance to their voice to make suitable amendments in a system independent of their status, which it requires, for it is on which a true democratic system basis on.

No one

Every footprint blurred by the alien dust. When the lights are put out, the wine and cup too. And those doors which kept vigil all night, lock them all, no one will come here now, no one!

For whoever had come as my savior, had left me yet with another scar. The fire of deception, regret and melancholy might have turn cold, yet the scar burns and burns infinitive. No one will come here now, no one!

Hope

This is their obduracy,

These enemies of wine and cup,

Let there be no moon by night,

No cloud by day,

The breeze has knocked at the prison door again,

Dawn is about to break,

Tell the heart not to feel so restive,

If a spark, let it leap out,

If a bud, let it blossom,

What if you have put out the candles,

In the luminous chambers of love,

Snuff out the moon,

And I will concede defeat,

The sky waits for this spell to be broken,

For history to tear itself from this net,

For silence to break it’s chains,

Look up at the sky, hope is found

Where is our sovereignty

In the name of anti-terrorism, the Justice Department of U.S.A has urged its acquisition of all modes of powers since the birth of our country. Following are some fundamental considerations.

Why, at all, do our civil rights have to be sacrificed in order to protect (so called) us from terrorists by this outside force, called as hegemony? Why even has U.S. taken the responsibility on interfering in Pakistan’s (and the worlds) internal matters as that of security? The argument is whether security is more crucial than our liberty. We are told that the Justice Department requires these powers in order to make us secure. But the central question goes deeper – will the sacrifice of our liberty actually make us safer, for we accept their dominance and let them interfere in our matters, why?

Can we be made absolutely safe by U.S.’s interference in our security matters? No. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together realizes this. The War on Terrorism, occurring in Pakistan, will not be won, as this war is a political act, done by politicians for political reasons. We had a war on poverty, and lost. We had a war on drugs, and lost. These kinds of wars are not about resolving issues, they are about appearing to resolve issues.

The biggest blind liberty we openly give to The U.S. is the power to name anyone amongst us as a terrorist or a supporter of terrorism, without any proof or any judicial review of the claim; we trust American leaders to name someone a terrorist or a devotee of terrorism only for the reason of protecting from terrorists. They do this in secret, on the basis of whatever information or sources they characterize, and with no one ever able to review their decision.

Once they have determined that someone is a terrorist or a supporter of terrorism (remember no testimony required), they assert (or want) the right to detain indefinitely, and in clandestine. That is, should they decide you are a terrorist or a supporter of terrorism; they get to secretly arrest you and hold you as long as they want without anyone knowing why or where. No court is able to review this situation. Where is our sovereignty at this point?

The above, of course, has to do with the eavesdropping they want to do, or their ability to come into our homes without a warrant and copy our hard drive, and make it possible to copy all the keystrokes we make and harass us for whatever petty grievance they hold.

Now ask yourself, how does their interference in our matters of security make us safe from terrorists? How does their power to name someone a terrorist or a supporter of terrorists, without judicial review, make us safer? Such a power only makes the judgments, of those who hold this power, safe from any abuse of that power. How the power to search and arrest without warrant make us safer? For it threatens not the terrorists, but our sovereignty.