THE MASK OF FREEDOM
Boundaries are the norm
The specter that haunts under the name Covid-19 (Corona) leads to all kinds of heated discussions. In the discussion about whether (and in which cases) a mouth mask should be worn, reference is often made to the concept of ‘freedom’. The mandatory wearing of a mouth mask is seen as a deprivation of freedom, or at least as a restriction of ‘our’ (fundamental) freedom. This is then usually countered by the argument that, for example, the compulsory wearing of a helmet on a motorcycle or a seat belt in a car is also a restriction of one’s freedom. The idea behind these kinds of restrictions is a desired level of protection for the person concerned and/or others.
A society without a multitude of citizen-binding regulations is (now) unthinkable. There are (tens of) thousands of rules that we, as citizens, must abide by. Every obligation is in a sense a restriction of freedom. But doesn’t that already begin with the nevertheless fairly generally accepted norm that in a society, in which we are all part of a community of individuals, we must take account of others? This is a norm that we (should) impose on ourselves, but compliance with which is also expected of us.
The discussion prompts a reflection on the concept of freedom. Total freedom, in the sense that each individual in full consciousness can determine for himself what he does and does not do, is not easily conceivable. Already self-interest necessitates consideration of others, i.e., a certain limitation of one’s own freedom. This was already true in the days when man did not yet think about the concept of freedom, and it is no different today. In the course of history, we see all kinds of rule-makers (chiefs, kings, governments and you name it) who have to a greater or lesser extent restricted the freedom of individuals. This happened, among other things, in the context of oppression, but also to regulate and promote a certain social order, as well as to protect citizens. In a world of ‘every man for himself’ it is up to you whether you will be able to protect your possessions, and how, for example, but if you are currently a victim of theft you can report it, which will (hopefully) be followed by an investigation and prosecution.
Our freedom is dear to us. And we are willing to fight for it. But living in freedom is simultaneously living in bondage. The survival of the human race depends in part on the extent to which we obey rules and on solidarity with our fellow man. Whoever claims his or her “freedom” should think carefully about what it means and what limits must be set to it in the world in which we live, and especially live together. It should be remembered that we owe the freedom we enjoy to the society in which we live. Members of that society may be asked to contribute to the protection of the group. The key question at this time is therefore whether you should be allowed to choose for yourself whether or not you pose a risk to the health and even the life of your fellow citizen. Do you choose for the group or exclusively for what you see as your freedom?
Finally, a thought for those who do wear masks and who do get vaccinated but are called “sheep”. A sheep is a herd animal, similar to people who are (and want to be) part of a human community. When the flock is threatened, sheep try to survive as a group. Comparisons (almost) always fail somewhere, but in this case, I would take the label “sheep” as a compliment!
Karel Frielink
(Lawyer/Attorney)
(12 August 2021)
.
Sir Hugh Wooding, Chief Justice of Trinidad and Tobago:
“My first observation is that individual freedom in any community is never absolute. No person in an ordered society can be free to be antisocial. For the protection of his own freedom everyone must pay due regard to the conflicting rights and freedoms of others. If not, freedom will become lawless and end in anarchy. Consequently, it is and has in every ordered society always been the function of the law so to regulate the conduct of human affairs as to balance the competing rights and freedoms of those who comprise the society.“
Source: Court of Appeal Trinidad & Tobago 27 January 1967 (West Indian Reports / Volume 12 / Collymore And Abraham v The Attorney-General – (1967) 12 WIR 5).
.
