Freedom Isn’t Easy

SWAPO’S Chief Whip in the National Council is not the first to have thought, “this is too much” or “this is unwarranted” at the hysterics and non-sequiturs that characterise the writing of the NSHR’s Director.

The response proposed this week in the National Council, while an unsurprising response to the maligning of a cherished icon is, nevertheless, undesirable even if the envisaged legislation does not turn out to be, as MISA has already presumptuously declared it, “brutal” and “repressive”. The freedoms enshrined in our Constitution (among them freedom of speech, media and association) are not to be respected only when the words and deeds they manifest are agreeable and uncontroversial.Should we regard as deserving of our respect the right to say only that with which everyone agrees or offends no one? To do so would constitute a most egregious corruption of the very principle of free thought and expression.In that respect, Phil ya Nangoloh represents a test, a test of our commitment to the principles enshrined in Article 21 of our Constiution.Principles, we would all do well to remember, that are direct result of a liberation struggle led by our Founding President, Sam Nujoma.Can we really defend him and his legacy but underminie his work (and, by extension, that very legacy)? That is what was, in essence, proposed this week.To curtail the very freedoms for the attainment of which Sam Nujoma led the fight (and for which many others gave the ultimate sacrifice).It will do our Founding President no honour to undermine this achievement just to shut Phil ya Nangoloh up (however much we may wish he would do just that).It will honour his legacy to remain steadfast in our commitment to the principles for which he struggled even when challenged by those who exploit them to further their own personal vendettas.If that means respecting the right of Phil ya Nangoloh to rant and rave….if freedom was “easy” it would not be worth the sacrifice.H Gurirab WindhoekThe freedoms enshrined in our Constitution (among them freedom of speech, media and association) are not to be respected only when the words and deeds they manifest are agreeable and uncontroversial.Should we regard as deserving of our respect the right to say only that with which everyone agrees or offends no one? To do so would constitute a most egregious corruption of the very principle of free thought and expression.In that respect, Phil ya Nangoloh represents a test, a test of our commitment to the principles enshrined in Article 21 of our Constiution.Principles, we would all do well to remember, that are direct result of a liberation struggle led by our Founding President, Sam Nujoma.Can we really defend him and his legacy but underminie his work (and, by extension, that very legacy)? That is what was, in essence, proposed this week.To curtail the very freedoms for the attainment of which Sam Nujoma led the fight (and for which many others gave the ultimate sacrifice).It will do our Founding President no honour to undermine this achievement just to shut Phil ya Nangoloh up (however much we may wish he would do just that).It will honour his legacy to remain steadfast in our commitment to the principles for which he struggled even when challenged by those who exploit them to further their own personal vendettas.If that means respecting the right of Phil ya Nangoloh to rant and rave….if freedom was “easy” it would not be worth the sacrifice.H Gurirab Windhoek