100 Years of International Women's Day – What's the Big Deal?

For 100 years women have been celebrating International Women's Day, a day that started before women had the right to vote in most countries, or the right of personhood.

A line from the song “Bread & Roses”, with words by James Oppenheim, which was sung at the now famous 1912 strike against the American Woolen Company in Lawrence Massachusetts sums up the struggle of the entire “woman's movement” and all that it stands for: “The rising of the women means the rising of the race”. The line speaks an ultimate truth about humanity that is impossible to deny: when a portion of society has their rights oppressed all of society suffers, making it impossible for it to blossom into its full potential. We cannot claim to be free unless each and every one of us enjoys the same freedoms enjoyed by all, which is why the pursuit of women's rights seems so inexorably tied to the battle for all civil rights.

The rights of women are fundamental and must be guaranteed for a very simple reason: if we live in a society that is unwilling to recognize the absolute unquestionable equality of women how can we expect that same society to extend those rights and freedoms to the rest of society, to those members who have been traditionally excluded as a result of their sexuality, or even because of what they believe? A simple example of how this is glaringly true can be found in present day Uganda, where their parliament is considering a “kill the gays bill” which would make homosexuality an act punishable by death. They contend that gays are gay by choice – that someone who is living a “gay lifestyle” can simply choose to live a “straight lifestyle”. Of course, that assertion has been debunked on numerous occasions, one of which can be found in a compelling interview that Rachel Maddow conducted on her show last year. The debate over the bill has been getting coverage around the world, which has helped reveal some of the thinly repressed feelings that some people harbour about homosexuality in their community.

If homosexuality is treated as something that will send people to their deaths in Uganda, how are women treated? Is this a nation that values their mothers, their sisters, their daughters, and their grandmothers, or is it a paternalistic society that wants to have absolute control over every aspect of production, including procreation? Well, the facts speak for themselves: while there are women in positions of authority, and working in professions, just as in the West, in Uganda the “tradition” is for women to be subordinate to men. A tradition of subordination prevents the existence of equality for the simple reason that it is diametrically opposed to it by its very nature.

In the 1990's many Ugandans recognized and followed several female religious leaders who led revolts, overthrowing the paternalistic political system, and in some areas women were able to own land and fully participate in the political process, but on the whole, there was still a well defined role that women in Uganda were expected to live by, including being subordinate to their husbands. If you consider the state of women's rights in a nation like Uganda it is not difficult to imagine how or why their lawmakers could be so moved to craft legislation with the ultimate end being the execution of homosexuals. The legislation of hatred, the attempted codification of morality through the abuse of the legislative process, is merely a reflection of how that society feels about the issue of rights for anyone other than the dominant class in that society: that being the heterosexual (married) male in Uganda.

Oddly enough we seem to encounter a similar phenomenon here in North America, minus the “kill the gays bill”, yet replete with all of the institutionally entrenched denials of rights – all of the things that serve to, in one way or another, prevent the largest portion of the population from having the same opportunities as the rest of the population. It is repression, be it passive or active, it is a form of repression, and it must be ended: when women battle inequality they are fighting for all of us, be they, women, children, gays or men – or rights as individuals and our status as humans can only be fully realized when each and every one of us is treated with the equality and dignity that they deserve, regardless of their sex, age, colour. The use of contrived excuses to demarcate where one person has every right under the law while others are denied only serves to prove the desperate state that these individuals are in as they attempt to rationalize the oppression of any selected group.

The celebration of International Women's Day is an opportunity to remind the world that the struggle for equality has not yet been realized. In 1995 the International Labour Organization, an agency administered by the United Nations, estimated that women would make up at least half of the global workforce by the turn of the century. In 2008 the number of women in the workforce was estimated at 40.5%, but that does not include the number of women who work long, unpaid hours, in their homes. With around 1.2 billion women in the workforce women are responsible for upwards of 80% of the food production in Sub-Saharan Africa, as well as more than half of the world's total food production.

At the same time, the issue of pay equity continues to be a topic that serves to actively repress women: by forcing women to work for less than the men who work beside them, or at equivalent jobs, women are forced into poverty. Poverty causes women to do desperate things in order to survive, including remaining in abusive relationships in order to maintain their means of support. Poverty also leads women into degrading situations where they are forced to sell the one commodity that they should have complete power over: their own bodies, though this is another thing that is often taken from them through the acts of violent men, seeking to subjugate women both sexually and emotionally. When someone is unable to control what happens to their own body how can they claim to be free?

On this International Women's Day let us not forget that there are still places in the world where the sexual mutilation of young girls is accepted as a routine part of daily life. Female genital mutilation, or FGM as it is referred to by the World Health Organization, is practised in many western, eastern, and north-eastern regions of Africa, as well as in some countries in Asia and the Middle East. Female genital mutilation is also practised among various immigrant communities in North America and Europe, making it something that potentially threatens a young girl that you or one of your children know. Between 100 and 140 million girls and women are estimated to have endured these barbaric procedures that have absolutely no health benefits: their only purpose is to prevent a woman from feeling pleasure during the sexual act in the warped belief that this will keep a young woman from seeking out a sexual partner before she is married. The fact that the spread of HIV/Aids amongst heterosexual couples in Africa demonstrates that it is spreading as a result of the promiscuity of married men. The “purity” of the young girls isn't the problem, the fact that there are so many men who seem incapable of thinking about anything beyond their gonads – that's a problem.

Another form of mutilation that women are enduring is called “breast ironing”, and is meant do serve a similar purpose as FGM, though not quite in the same manner. Rather than having the women mutilated to the point where she is unable to feel pleasure from having sex, breast ironing destroys the breast tissue as it is developing, scaring and disfiguring the child. The desired outcome being that the girl will not want to pursue men and, as a result, stay “pure” until marriage. The practise of this form of mutilation is mostly carried out in the nation of Cameroon, but is practised in other nations as well.

It is time for society to come to grips with the fact that women are far more than the traditional roles they have been groomed for since birth. The idea that a young girl must have a portion of her anatomy mutilated because of how a man might react to her shifts the responsibility of our actions away from the perpetrator of the aggressive act onto the individuals being victimized. As long as we continue to view women as the “weaker” or “fairer” sex we continue to subjugate them in our minds, weakening them before even engaging them in a dialogue. How can we advance as a society if our very mode of thought prevents us from viewing women as equals to men? Is that equality possible when our language serves to weaken them, implying that they need the strong hand of a man to aid them in their times of trouble?

After the mutilation of women's bodies in order to control their sexual lives and sexuality comes the recent attempts in the United States by the GOP at completely controlling every aspect of women's reproductive rights, down to their ability to control whether or not they will be able to receive counselling for family planning through one of the most trusted organizations in existence. Planned Parenthood has come under the same type of attack in the Congress of the United States that resulted in the defunding of ACORN, an organization that was wrongfully accused of wrongdoing through a “sting operation” that turned out to be less of a “sting” and more of an “operation”, being sponsored by a neo-conservative entity on the Blogesphere who likens himself to a journalist (no link is provided to the ACORN videos for the simple reason that I refuse to direct attention to that individual; it is easy enough to find if you are interested).

The GOP attacks on women and their essential rights, unlike the attacks on ACORN, seem to be driven by their desperate attempt at discrediting anything and everything that President Obama stands for and what his administration represents. The 112th Congress of the United States consists of a total of 541 elected officials from 50 states, five territories and the District of Columbia, divided into the 100 member Senate and the 435 member House of Representatives, which has 6 non-voting delegates. Of these 541 elected officials only 88 are women. With this disparity of representation it is hardly a surprise that the agenda of the GOP has been allowed to become one aimed at overtly oppressing the rights of women, by denying them access to health care and services that are uniquely designed for their particular health issues.

Contrary to the myths being perpetuated by the noise machine of the right wing, Planned Parenthood does much more than merely providing for women's preventative health care than anything else, providing a wide variety of services, including mammograms and screenings for cervical cancer as well as numerous other services making it one of the most trusted health care providers in America. At least one in five women has used Planned Parenthood once in their lives as a means of maintaining their health, and the majority of the work done by Planned Parenthood is aimed at preventative health care, working towards the prevention of unwanted pregnancies. If the GOP, which claims to be “pro-life” is really as anti-abortion as they say they are, what they should be doing is increasing the funding to an organization like Planned Parenthood for the simple reason that they actually prevent the overall number of abortions by providing women with choices before they become pregnant.

The myth is that Planned Parenthood uses abortion as a form of birth control. This is an ugly, obscene fallacy that is being used by those on the right to hack away at the funding of women's health. This is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt at placing another element of control over the reproductive cycle, from conception through to the end. It goes hand in hand with the attempts, by some legislators, to redefine the access that women have to abortions in certain instances so that victims of incest or date-rape would not be forced to carry any children resulting from these brutal acts to term.

No woman should be forced to make that terrible choice, but it is their choice to make, guaranteed under the law. The Republicans have no right to act as the “moral guardians” when they were not given a mandate for this act. The 2010 election were about jobs, not reproductive rights; it's time to get the agenda back on course and stop trying to oppress women just because that's the traditional role of the GOP.

There can be no denial, not then, nor now: “The rising of the women means the rising of the race”. One hundred years after it began International Women's Day is as important a symbol for women across this planet as it was when it was first started. For women living in risk of mutilation, at risk of contracting HIV/Aids from husbands or boyfriends who view them as sexually inferior, believing that promiscuity is acceptable for males, for women who work for less than men: International Women's Day is a symbol of hope that must never be forgotten until every right has been won. It is true that after 100 years much has changed, for the better, but there is so much more that needs to be done; regardless of the gains that may have been made, the struggle has not ended ... and the battle has been joined.

Raping with Words – the Attack on Lara Logan

After watching events unfold in Egypt, and particularly in Tahrir Square – “Liberation Square” – the world rejoiced as the people of Egypt were given what they had been demanding for 18 days. This was a revolution unlike any that had been seen before, and certainly unlike any of the revolutions that we know of from our textbooks. The American & French revolutions were bloody affairs, as was the Russian revolution of 1917 and many other historical revolutions. There was some violence in Egypt, to be sure, and some people did die, but most of the violence was perpetrated by the government, by supporters of the harassed and confused “President” Hosni Mubarak. This was an historical event not only for the reason that the people of Egypt drove out their despotic dictator, but for the fact that they did it without resorting to violence.

The brutality that everyone was expecting to come out of the Egyptian revolution, from those expecting such things, did not manifest itself, and this must have been a terrible disappointment for those who constantly bang on the drum that Islam is the Seed of the Devil and will destroy us all, and that all “Islamists” are “terrorists” and seeking to be martyrs in one way or another. Which is why, I am certain, so many pundits, right-wing bloggers, and, quite frankly, unhinged individuals, have taken some sort of perverse pleasure from the attack on Lara Logan. It is understandable that some people do not like others, particularly because of disagreements along partisan lines, but at the same time, there is no need to leave civility behind. This issue was addressed by President Obama in the speech he delivered in Tucson after the tragic assassination attempt of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ).

Image © by Ben Heine
When President Obama spoke in Tucson part of his concluding comments included these words: “I believe we can be better. Those who died here, those who saved lives here - they help me believe. We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another is entirely up to us. I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us.”

The fact that we may not believe the same thing that our neighbour has never been the issue; the issue is that they are our neighbour and we must live next to them, in peace. The idea that we should be revelling in the suffering of others is, in a word, perverse. There is nothing positive about it, and it is indefensible. There is even a word in German for taking pleasure from the misfortune of others; they call it “Schadenfreude”. The people that have taken pleasure from the attack on Lara Logan have revealed far more about themselves than they can possibly imagine: by mocking a woman who has been brutalized and raped they demonstrate just how they view women, and what value they place on women in society.

At the same time that the new Congress has decided to focus their energies on making access to legal abortion, for any reason, the highest thing on their agenda, you have to wonder, why do these people hate women so much ... especially when some of them ARE women? Anyone who would mock the brutal assault & rape of Lara Logan is likely the same type of individual that supports the political “redefining” of rape, & denying women access to life-saving medical procedures.

Some of the most vitriolic comments came from an individual named Debbie Schlussel (I'm not going to link to her site as I doubt she would return the favour). She boasts of her appearances on the Bill O'Reilly Show, and a claim to having single handedly caused Starbuck's Coffee to have one or their best quarters ever as a result of what she said at one point. Obviously, Debbie Schlussel has a solid connection with reality. Ms Schlussel, in her comments on the attack on Lara Logan, makes the point of accusing Muslims specifically of the attack, using the attack as an opportunity to vilify all Muslims, claiming that “This.Is.Islam.[sic]”. She referred to the demonstrators in Tahrir Square as “animals”, essentially stating that Ms Logan had called this attack upon herself for going back to Egypt so soon after the departure of President Mubarak.

While there's nothing funny about an assault on anyone, especially a rape, using a sexual assault to promote a political agenda is especially heinous. The idea that this was an attack perpetuated by “Muslims” is pure and absolute conjecture: news services showed that Tahrir Square was filled by Egyptians of both the Islamic and Christian faith (and quite a few non-believers I would imagine given the age of the demonstrators). The fact that Muslims surrounded Christians so they could pray without fear of attack, after the Christians had surrounded the Muslims, the day before, demonstrates that people from both religions were cooperating in this revolution. It was NOT an “Islamist” revolution, as people like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh would have you believe, it was a revolution of the Egyptian people, and that's what Lara Logan was there to report on.

Saying that this crime was an act committed by a specific group is not only a gross generalization, it is overtly racist and exemplifies the worst in what has become an increasing “Islamophobic” attitude in the west that climaxed during the second term of George W. Bush. The fact that George W. Bush contrived the story we were given that propelled the United States into a war against a nation that had not attacked them in any way whatsoever is lost on those who call all Muslims their enemy; they have decided that Islam owes them a level of civility that the west is not provided them with. These critics of Islam want Muslims to go off and hide, pretending that they don't exist, but they forget that so-called “Christians” have acted as badly, or worse, than Muslims through the course of the past two thousand years.

Rape is only one small example of the crimes that have been used as a weapon against women in countries where men claim to be “Christians”. Rape is a crime that has been well practised in the west, a predominantly “Christian” area, it could well be argued that the attackers of Ms Logan were, in fact, not followers of the Muslim faith but Christians (not very good ones, one should point out, but that's another point as well).

Saying that Lara Logan was raped by Muslims assumes facts that can only be known by one who was on the scene, with the perpetrators of the act. Facts and evidence, that's what's important here, not the wild conjecture and overt prejudices of people who hate Muslims, regardless of what they have done. Facts and evidence are the two things that are lacking by those who want to vilify “Islam” as the all-consuming evil that it must be in order to validate their place at the apex of civilization. But, that hasn't stopped the pundits before. As the saying goes, “never let the facts interfere with your arguments”. After all, if you allow facts to enter the fray you just might find yourself persuaded by your opponent's argument ... the one using the facts.

All the while they ignore the facts that are known. Facts that do not need any special skills to discern, they are right out in front of us. The 1st fact: Lara Logan was brutally assaulted and raped; that's the first FACT that we have. The 2nd fact: She was saved by a group of Muslim women & about 20 members of the Egyptian Army; that's the Second FACT that we have. There has been absolutely NOTHING released on the nature of the criminals who attacked her; nothing about their identities, or their religion.

Image © by Ben Heine
So, why do the attackers have to be Muslim? Do Americans, people claiming to be “Christians” never commit the crime of rape? Have not American soldiers, while on active duty in Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq and probably Afghanistan been accused of, charged of and convicted of raping and murdering civilians? If you want to condemn all of Islam for the attack on Lara Logan, then you must do the same to all of Christianity for the crimes perpetuated by those who have slaughtered “in the Name of the Lord” over the last thousand years, or Jews who have killed in the name of “HaShem”.

Ultimately we must remember that rape is not about sex; it isn't about love: it is about the domination and complete control of a victim. Rape victims are not only women or girls; men are raped often in prison and boys are often the victim of sexual assault. Unfortunately, due to the stigma surrounding the reporting of sexual assaults, many of these events go unreported or under-reported, making accurate reporting on numbers difficult to come by. What rape is about is an intellectually impotent male who is so sexually frustrated he feels his only choice is to take control over someone that they are able to physically and/or emotionally dominate. There is nothing romantic about rape, nor is there anything “sexy” about it; it is the ultimate degradation of humanity, removing any possible element of beauty from the sexual act. Mocking a victim of this type of crime serves to continue the victimization, creating an atmosphere of hate that foments more and more hatred until some unseen line is crossed, moving toward some “critical mass” of hatred that will eventually lead to all out war. At least, that would be the ideal for the Islamophobes; their “worst case” must include an Islamic war with the west, a war with Christianity (as though “Christianity” is an organized “force” which will do battle).

I'd also like to remind those who disagree with me - and I know that people disagree - American soldiers - "Christians" - in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and MANY other fields of battle committed acts of rape and barbarism - if you want to condemn all of Islam for the attack on Lara Logan after this attack, then do the same to all of Christianity for the crimes perpetuated by those who have slaughtered "in the Name of the Lord", or Jews who have killed in the name of "HaShem".

Freedom Defined

The word “Freedom” is tossed about in contemporary political rhetoric quite often and yet it is poorly understood. It is heavily loaded with both partisan and sentimental value for those who use the word, and it cannot be easily defined for it not only represents the foundation of what the United States was ostensibly founded upon, but it is the watchword for all “democratic” nations. “Freedom” is our aspiration; in its absence we are enslaved, in its presence we are jubilant ... but what does “freedom” really mean?

Understanding the concept of “freedom” is easier when you can comprehend what it means to live without freedom: to appreciate the lack of something permits us to better appreciate what it is like when it is made manifest in our presence. A perfect example of this can be found in 20th century history in the nation of South Africa and the tumultuous times of the Apartheid regime that imprisoned Nelson Mandela for 27 years. Nelson Mandela was only one of the political prisoners who lost his personal freedom in the battle for freedom for his people; that was the sacrifice that he made in order to see the hateful Apartheid system end, and for a nonracial system of government to come into being. The fruits of his freedom were manifested through the first “one-person-one-vote” elections in 1994, which marked the true end of apartheid. The subsequent establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was emblematic of this freedom as well. It was convened for the sake of creating a public record about what took place under the apartheid regime, to rehabilitate the nation after living through the ravages of the racist apartheid regime and, more importantly, to compensate those who had been abused under the old apartheid system rather than meting out revenge against those who had perpetrated the offences.

According to Nelson Mandela, freedom can only exist when everyone is free. In other words, freedom in not a personal issue, it pertains to the collective state of the people. Inequality is a great hindrance to true freedom as it creates distinct divisions (or classes) amongst the population that transcends traditional class structures. Having any class system in society, either according to job classification or based on religious belief, you will find that the issue of freedom is stunted by the idea that there is anything that differentiates one individual, or group of individuals, from others. One of the things that you discover by studying the situation that took place in South Africa, and the story of Nelson Mandela, is that freedom and racism are integrally related. When a man can have 3 decades of his life stolen from him because the state opposes the way he thinks, or his dream to live in a free state that does not treat him and his people like 2nd class citizens, that is when you know there is no freedom to be had. Freedom in South Africa, before the end of Apartheid, was an illusion for the simple reason that it was something that only white citizens were able to partake of, so long as they adhered to the barbaric laws of the apartheid regime.

When Nelson Mandela walked out of prison after 27 years he was a free man, but he would not know true freedom until he had the opportunity to cast his vote in the first “one-person-one-vote” election in South Africa on April 26, 1994. Over the days that the polls were open nearly 20 million South Africans of all colours cast their votes for who would represent them in the first non-white-only government. The African National Congress won the majority of support with 62.6% of the vote and, on May 9, 1994, Nelson Mandela was unanimously elected President by the National Assembly. The days of the elections were so important to the people of South Africa that the 27th of April was declared a public holiday: Freedom Day.

As the president of the “new” South Africa it is likely that Nelson Mandela did not, at that point, feel very much like a free man for the simple reason that his time was not his own, something that every head of state would likely agree with were they asked the question of their own situation. In his book “Long Walk to Freedom” Nelson Mandela wrote that “a leader often sacrifices personal freedom in order for a leader to serve the needs of his people” (paraphrased). It is a variation of the idea that personal sacrifices must be made in order to help others. That is the essence of being a truly great leader, of being a truly great human: someone must be willing to give of themselves for the betterment of others. In answering the question, “am I my brother's keeper”, the response is “yes”, without hesitation, even if that costs something on a personal level.

True freedom, after this model, comes from the expression of an individual's interpretation of a rather esoteric ideal, an expression that is almost impossible to define in traditional terms as it encompasses so many definitions. People ultimately cobble together their own interpretation of the word, regardless of whether or not it is close to being an accurate definition. When it comes to an individual's idea concerning freedom there really is no “right answer”, and the truth is an altogether different and irrelevant point to those who believe that “freedom” is a “God-given right”, guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States (for those living in the United States ... Canadians have the “Charter of Rights and Freedoms”).

Alas, this is where the idea of “true freedom” enters the concept of relativistic or situational definitions. Some might argue that true freedom is an absolute that cannot be measured against perceived rights and “freedoms” that are conferred upon an individual by the state. At the same time, true freedom cannot be represented by anything that the state can confer upon a citizen for the simple reason that rights and freedoms conferred by the state can be taken away just as easily as they were granted; that does not make the idea of freedom very concrete if it is something that can be removed by a court decision or governmental decision, it makes it sound more like a vague concept that is “open to interpretation” rather than an entrenched right. Take, for example, the right of “Habeas Corpus”, which has been an important part of common law since before the Magna Carta (1215). This “right” was taken away from people in the United States, with the stroke of a pen, after President George W. Bush decided that terrorists did not deserve the same rights as those guaranteed under the constitution to all other defendants.

One of the main problems encountered by people attempting to formulate a concrete definition of the idea behind “freedom” comes when an individual's expression of their freedom impinges upon another person's ability to enjoy their life. The problem with individual freedom is that, for the most part, people do not live their lives in such isolated situations that make it possible to do anything they want without having to be concerned with the ramifications of their actions. True freedom does not necessarily mean doing anything you want, whenever you want; it means that you are free to make choices to do the right thing, those things being things that do not interfere with the lives and livelihoods of others. What is truly important is that we are given the ability to make the proper choices when it comes to the exercise of this freedom which is why education is one of the most important things in a “free” society. Without an educated population it is impossible to have a citizenry who understand what their responsibilities as citizens are and, subsequently, what their freedom represents.

Education is the cornerstone of a free society insomuch as it serves to provide a level playing field for every citizen, regardless of their position in society. Where there is an educational system that treats its students with dignity and respect you will find a citizenry that appreciates their freedoms without seeking to violate the rights of others; civility is as much an element of cultural decontamination as it is a part of the permissive nature of the society from which an individual is from. When people believe they are allowed to do anything because it is their “right” to do so, that they are exercising their freedom, the violation of the rights of others will take place more and more frequently for the simple reason that they will not care whether or not their actions have ramifications outside of the immediate moment in which they are operating. This is the great conundrum of freedom that may never be fully satisfied: is one individual's freedom more important than the freedom of all? What happens when your freedom interferes with another person's life? Is the pursuit of the one supposed to supersede the other or, are you to alter your plans to accommodate the society of which you are a member? Perhaps the definition of freedom has to include the word “sacrifice”.

The very concept of freedom, from the beginning of modern history, is fluid as can be seen through the history of the United States and its Declaration of Independence. In the Declaration of Independence there are the famous words declaring that we are all endowed with the unalienable rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”. One may infer that “freedom” was on the tip of the tongue of the writers of the Declaration, even if it was not actually written down: the words chosen are all synonymous to freedom. However, it must also be remembered that the Declaration of Independence was aimed at a particular crowd: white, male landowners. Women and people who were not white were not considered in the same category as the landowners, nor were they given the right to vote or speak in government. Freedom was not for all; not then, or now.

The very idea behind the “pursuit of Happiness”, for example, can cause contention amongst those who do not share similar views of what that pursuit may actually entail. While one person may feel the pursuit of happiness includes the playing of drums in the middle of the night, their neighbours would likely feel somewhat differently about that expression of freedom and ask the drummer to change their schedule for the sake of community harmony. By playing their drums at another, more appropriate time of the day, it is possible for the drummer to have his pursuit of happiness – to have his expression of freedom – without having his neighbours want to burn down his house in the process.

Freedom is something that will be debated for generations, but the true definition is really not that difficult to find as it relates to the entire human condition; it must be seen as a relativistic term in regards to how we all live, or it holds little personal meaning: if one person thinks themselves to be free while their brothers or sisters are not, what is the value of their freedom? Unless we are all free, unless we are all endowed with the same rights and privileges that every citizen is entitled to enjoy, freedom will remain nothing but a concept to be discussed in university classes and high school civics classes.

When Nelson Mandela spoke to 120,000 supporters in the First National Bank Stadium in Soweto, South Africa, he addressed the fact that there had been problems with crime in the township. Crime had to end, Mandela pleaded, for “Freedom without civility, freedom without the ability to live in peace, was not true freedom at all.” In the end, freedom is more about the things we decide not to do than what we decide to do; it means we are free to live our lives in harmony with each other, regardless of colour or creed, in peace, because that is the way we should be living. It isn't about doing things that risk the lives of others so that we can have a fleeting thrill. Irresponsibility is not an expression of freedom, it is an expression of immaturity. Freedom is something that, after 27 years in prison for political beliefs, Nelson Mandela could say he understood by virtue of the fact that he could have a meal when he pleased and sleep when he wanted. The little things become precious when you have had everything stolen from you.

Ultimately freedom is what you make of it, it is the lifeblood of our democratic system: we are free to vote, to choose those who will represent us in government and ultimately shape the course that our nation takes in national and international affairs. Our greatest task as freedom loving citizens begins at the ballot box whenever there is an election: if we fail to vote we fail our nations. We abdicate the responsibility that our government expects from its citizens. If we do not vote, if we do not use our freedom to express our opinions at the polls, how can we be surprised when a reactionary political entity is elected that wants to curtail those personal rights and freedoms? Any right conferred by the state can be taken away: we must never allow this to happen. The only way to prevent it is by speaking through our votes. If we do not vote, if we allow apathy to overtake our love for freedom, the damage will have been done. Just remember, if you do not vote, you are entrusting your freedom to the people who do.