if by freedom

Freedom is much in the news these days. It is chanted on the streets. It is printed on trucks and banners and flags.  It is used as an excuse for all manner of behaviour and as a rallying cry by those on the right and the left and in the centre.  What does it mean, really?  How can we talk to each other about freedom if we don't have a common understanding?

 

Here is what I think about freedom:

 

If when you say freedom you mean

 

you can pursue your own happiness regardless of its impact on others

you can exploit people for your own selfish gain

you can call people niggers and pakis or chong ching ching chang with impunity

you can spit on a person you disagree with

you can carry a gun that is more likely to be used against you than to protect you

you are allowed to shoot anyone who trespasses on your property

you can put your child in harm's way in defense of your principles

you can hold a city hostage if you don't like the law

you can refuse to recognize an elected government

you can cut down every tree, pollute every waterway, and extract every resource to enrich your pocketbook-

if by freedom, that is what you mean

then certainly, I am against freedom.

 

Retrieved from tsln.com

 

But, if when you say freedom you mean

 

you can follow your own path regardless of the colour of your skin

you can choose who you love

you can count on your fellow citizens to make sacrifices for the greater good

you are protected from extreme poverty

you can see society's children educated, hopeful and empowered to create a better future

you can access skilled professionals who keep you healthy

you can rely on the rule of law to ensure equal treatment for all persons

you are protected from those who would do you harm

you can vote in fair elections

you can enjoy the majestic forests, mountains and lakes of our protected spaces- 

if by freedom, that is what you mean

then by all means, I am all for it.

This is what I think about freedom.
This is my stand.
I will not retreat from it.

*In 1952 a lawmaker by the name of Noah AKA "Soggy” Sweat made a speech about prohibition in Mississippi. The speech, referred to as If by Whiskey is a classic example of a relativist fallacy in which the speaker's position is dependent on the listeners point of view.

After listening to this speech, I realized a similar argument could be made on the topic of freedom which is much in the news in Canada today. So, thanks to Mr. Sweat for the format of this piece.