Thoughts on freedom

The concept of freedom has been the focus of much discussion recently, particularly around 'freedom of expression’.

This follows the tragic incident a few weeks ago in Paris where some humans violently ended the lives of some other humans because they fundamentally disagreed with what the other humans said.

I have a few random thoughts on this, which are still being formed, but I wanted to express them here (thankful that I enjoy the freedom to do so). And before I say anything else, I need to clarify that I do not condone the use of violence for any reason, and I grieve for the loss of human lives, whatever their religion.

The assumption in 'the West' is that people (should) have the freedom to express their opinion. Okay. But what does this mean? (See David Ould’s blog about this.) But what is freedom? Is it really the ultimate value that people are making it out to be?

From what I understand, the perpetrators of violence in this case may not have disagreed with the right to freedom of expression per se. But in their view they did not have the freedom according to the Q'ran to ignore what they perceived as dishonour to the Prophet Mohammed. It was their duty to uphold his honour.

But according to the laws of most countries, ordinary citizens generally do not have the freedom to end the lives of other people for any reason, even if the other people do things you find offensive.

This is a right view of the value of human life, although it gets a bit blurry when authorities such as police end the lives of people without opportunity for trial (as in Belgium, Paris, even Groningen) - but that’s another matter.

Every action has consequences. When we exercise our freedom, we must also be aware of what the consequences of our actions might be, not just to ourselves but to others also. 

A person might deliberately aggravate a crocodile, and claim that it was their ‘right' to do so. But would anyone commend them for it? On the contrary, onlookers would advise them against it and say they were acting foolishly and would reap the consequences. 

The magazine employees were exercising their right to freedom of expression. But in doing so, I believe they lost sight of the wisdom and love that are needed to enjoy freedom responsibly.

Am I offended by the magazine’s (and many others’) portrayals of Jesus - whom I hold not just to be a prophet but God himself? Of course. But I am not free to turn to violence or slander in return. This is not just because of the laws of the country where I live, but also because of the directives of Jesus himself, who teaches his disciples to ‘turn the other cheek’ and trust God, who will bring perfect justice at the appointed time.

So freedom according to what? The law? Popular opinion? Common sense? The Quran? The Bible? An individual's own preference? Some appeal to the ‘harm principle’ as a principle to guide the minimal limiting of freedom; i.e. that freedom should only be limited in order to prevent harming others. But the definition of what constitutes harm can be slippery.

A wise and righteous man once pointed out that there is no law against the virtues of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Let these positive virtues - things we can seek to show towards others rather than try to avoid - be our guides so that we can enjoy our freedom responsibly.

Media priorities: selective compassion?

This week I read a BBC news article on the plight of Syrian refugees in Jordan. As usual, it's a case of the media defining what we should pay attention to and where our sympathies should be directed.

The article described the living conditions of refugee families in Jordan, highlighting problems such as lack of heating (a problem now as the winter is harsh) and a lack of functioning toilets.

It also mentioned how poverty was forcing some children to drop out of school in order to work, and some women were turning to selling their bodies to support themselves.

These are very serious problems, and they are not just restricted to the refugees in Jordan. I'm certain issues such as these are a reality for refugees in many countries (although lack of heating is less of a problem in warmer climates, of course).

This is an ongoing challenge for countries who host large numbers of refugees, especially in refugee camps. And the refugees seem to come from ever more countries of origin and in ever-increasing numbers.

But what struck me was that the problems reported are not only the case for people who have been forced to flee their homeland because of conflict, persecution, or a range of other reasons.

The problems reported are strikingly similar to the everyday reality for millions, if not billions, of people who live in their own homeland. To me, this is an even more serious problem. 

For emergency accommodation to lack what many would consider basic facilities (toilets, heating in cold climates) is one thing. But for a family's regular and only home to lack these things is quite another. 

The UN has designated November 19 'World Toilet Day' in order to raise awareness of the fact that 2.5 billion people in the world do not have access to a toilet. If your maths isn't too good, that's about one out of every three people living on earth!

Even if that figure includes refugees, there is still an enormous number of people who permanently live somewhere without proper sanitation. This is a major contributor to the spread of preventable diseases.

Many children in developing countries, especially in rural Africa, are unable to attend school simply because their labour is required to contribute to the family's survival. This may include basics such as fetching water or digging the family's vegetable garden.

I don't want to minimize the suffering of refugees one bit. But I am concerned for those for whom living 'like a refugee' is their normal daily reality without even leaving home.

With the help of some friends, I'm trying to make a difference in a small way. In a small village in the west of Uganda, villagers (primarily children) walk up to 2 hours each way to fetch water from a swamp. This is their nearest water source, and it's not even clean!

By installing two 12,000L rain water tanks on the village church, Mujjinwa Baptist Church, we hope to provide the village with a safer and closer water source. This will prevent many diseases, give the children more time to spend at school, and provide water during the dry season.

Please consider helping by making a donation this week at our campaign page: http://watertanksandbeesforuganda.causevox.com/

The value of carrots

In recent weeks my students have been learning about the concept of linguistic value (from Ferdinand de Saussure). The differences in value between terms in different languages can have very humorous effects, as I have found on numerous occasions.

I’m currently in the Netherlands on a family visit. Last night we had dinner with my husband’s old school friends, and one of them was telling me (in English) about some dental treatment he had had recently, including some ‘carrot treatment’.

Carrot treatment?

Image from here.

The English word ‘carrot’ is translated by the Dutch word ‘wortel'. But ‘wortel' also means ‘root’ more generally. I found that out a while ago when I was reading a news report or something that mentioned trees being ‘ontworteld’ in a storm. Recognising ‘wortel’ from ‘carrot’ (the first of its meanings that I learnt), I thought ‘upcarroted’? But my husband explained that ‘wortel’ means both ‘root’ generally and ‘carrot’ specifically. The trees were actually ‘uprooted’, then.

So it turned out my husband’s friend had had root canal therapy. In Dutch, as in English, the word for ‘root’ also refers to the roots of teeth, not just plants. It is also used in mathematics (square root, etc) and to refer to the background of something ('my roots are in Scotland'), as in English .

I drew a diagram representing the difference in ‘value’ between the terms in the two languages.

The large rectangle represents semantic space. In Dutch, ‘wortel’ takes up the same semantic space that in English is occupied by two terms, ‘root’ and ‘carrot’. Thus the term ‘wortel’ doesn’t have the same value in Dutch as either ‘root’ or ‘carrot’ in English, although we can say they occupy some of the same semantic space.

Cultural conventions of sympathy

Today I went out in Florence to buy a sympathy card. I went to a number of different card shops and found cards for birthdays, marriages, new babies, retirement, graduation, love - everything but death. I started to wonder (not seriously) if they don’t have the problem of death here in Italy.

Finally I asked a sales assistant if he had any cards for sympathy. My Italian failed me at that point, but thankfully he helped me out by speaking English.

He brought out some small, plain white cards each with a single black stripe across the corner. He said in Italy people usually send these cards. I have learnt since that people often send a flower (or flowers) with the card.

In Australia, sympathy cards usually have soft colours and flowing cursive writing. Unfortunately, many have sappy words that you wouldn’t want to send to anyone. Flowers (roses, lilies, sometimes a whole garden), sometimes doves or butterflies, and swirly abstract shapes are the most common motifs used.

The Italian cards are much more stark. In some ways the semiotic of plain white with a bit of black is very sober and realistic about the finality of death itself.

The floral-ness of the Australian cards is perhaps intended to communicate instead something about the conventions of responding to death, i.e. often by giving flowers. The ugliness of death is hidden behind a curtain of artificial floral beauty.

Bureaucratic Circus

For the best part of the last two weeks, I have spent every weekday morning at one bureaucratic office or other on the infamous quest for the Italian ‘permesso di soggiorno’ - a permit to stay in Italy required of every foreigner who wants to stay for more than 3 months.

Queue of immigrants outside a Questura office (image from here)

I won’t go into all the gory details in this post - the process is still ongoing! When I finally have the permesso in my hot little hand I hope to write something that may be of use to other people like me - Australians married to European citizens who want or need to live in Florence for more than three months.

The relevance of my experience to anyone beyond that narrow designation is questionable at best, because I have heard that every city has a slightly different process you have to go through. It also makes a difference being married to a European citizen (I’m not yet convinced it makes the process much easier) and which non-European country you come from (the kinds of documents you get there and what the system is like).

Inside a Questura office- the one I went to in Florence looks more dingy than this, though! (Image from here)

I have been reading in Genesis where God spoke to Abraham (then Abram) and told him to leave his country, his people and his father’s household and go to the land that God would show him. That land happened to be the ancient land of Canaan.

The other day my husband and I were discussing this complicated process and the seemingly ridiculous documents we have been asked to produce. We reflected on how in days gone by people didn’t have to go through this kind of process, and we thought of Abraham and others in the Bible who had to go to a different country to live. It made me imagine what might have happened if Abraham had had to deal with Italy’s (or probably most countries’) immigration system, assuming Abraham had identification documents...

Canaan Immigration Officer: Signore, Signora, can I see your passports?
Abraham: Here they are.
CIO: Your passports only give your names as ‘Abraham’ and ‘Sarah’. Do you have a marriage certificate to show that you are married.
Abraham: Certainly. Here-
CIO: Hmmm... This says your names are ‘Abram’ and ‘Sarai’. Do you have a document that certifies your name change? I need to verify that you are the same people as on the marriage certificate?
Abraham: Um, no...
CIO: Under what circumstances did you change your names?
Abraham: God gave us new names.
CIO: Hmmm.... Well, that doest appear to be on this list of valid reasons for name change. I’m afraid I can’t process your request. You will have to go back to your home country and get all the necessary documentation, and then come back and try again.
Abraham: But I’m 75 years old and we’ve walked all the way here from Haran with everything we own.
CIO: I’m sorry, sir. There’s nothing I can do. You have to supply the appropriate paperwork.

Now of course, God himself could have come down with the name change certificates and waved them in the officer’s face, but he sometimes chooses not to act immediately in order to teach us perseverance and patience (James 1:2-4). This is what we have been learning.

The semantics of tragedy

The events of the last 24 hours, with Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 falling from the sky having been shot by a missile over the Ukraine, has raised again the semantic distinction between ‘accident’ and ‘crime’. One tweeter called it a ‘crime against humanity’ because of the ‘tens of AIDS researchers’ killed. Many tweets made reference to ‘the MH17 accident’, while others wanted to steer clear of that nomenclature:

JCH999: Has flight #MH17 been classified an accident now? All media are saying it "crashed" yet I'm pretty sure it was SHOT DOWN. BIG DIFFERENCE!

KJBar: PM on #MH17: 'This is not an accident. This is a crime. It was shot down. It did not crash.' http://tinyurl.com/pnemnfg v @abcnews

   shadowb0lt: Calling #MH17 an "accident" is a bad joke. This is nothing less than an abominable act of war.

sh1bumi: #MH17 recorded talks between Seperatists and Russian Gov: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbyZYgSXdyw … Shooting was an accident

MarkTregonning: Where is #Abbott's evidence this is not an accident? That Russian-backed forces did it? He may be right-but evidence shld be given.

danielrhamilton: #MH17's crash is looking more like a crime than an accident. If so; what a wicked and evil act. The perpetrators must be found. #Ukraine

A ‘crime’ is “an action or omission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law” (Oxford). An ‘accident’ is “an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly or unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury” or “an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause” (Oxford). These definitions do not rule out an overlap between accident and crime, as the first definition of ‘accident’ could constitute a crime if it is something punishable by law.

Australian PM Tony Abbott was reported as saying adamantly that the MH17 incident was no accident (at least by the second definition above). Rather, he said, “it was shot down. It did not crash. It was downed, and it was downed over territory controlled by Russian-backed rebels. It was downed by a missile which seems to have been launched by Russian-backed rebels.”

Here, apart from in the second sentence, Abbott consistently uses verbs that express processes of deliberate action that require a ‘doer’ (Agent) - to shoot, to ‘down’. Only in the last clause does he specify the Agent: a missile.

A missile does not have its own volition. It must be operated by a human being. But Abbott is careful not to be too categorical about who the human being(s) might have been. He mentions them only as part of the description of the missile (which missile? one that seems to have been launched by Russian-backed rebels). And he chooses ‘seems to have been launched’ instead of ‘was launched’ to allow for the fact that the details of the incident are still quite hazy. He presents it as a suggestion or speculation rather than an assertion.

The potential human agents, ‘Russian-backed rebels’, are in turn identified by political affiliation (Russian-backed) and orientation to the law (rebels), rather than by any other feature or characteristic. This is perhaps not surprising as the perpetrators have not been specifically identified. But it is interesting that the action is construed politically, rather than morally. For example, Abbott could have chosen to say ‘a missile which seems to have been launched by irresponsible or careless or murderous individuals’.

Abbott’s construal of the event is as a non-accidental tragedy. An accident would not involve the sense of human volition or the use of processes that imply deliberate action. It may have been accidental in the sense that the perpetrators didn’t mean to shoot a commercial passenger plane, but the action of shooting itself was presumably not accidental. 

But as another tweeter pointed out, the labelling of a significant incident such as this as accident or not often depends largely on political agendas:

dellcam: U.S. agenda dictates response:

* #MH17: Not an accident.

* 4 kids children on #GazaBeach: A terrible accident.

My heart is grieved by this tragic loss of many lives, and I pray that God will bring comfort and peace to the families and friends of those who died and somehow turn this terrible situation to good. But let us not lose sight of other tragic losses of life, whether ‘accidental’ or not, that occur every day in other parts of the world where people don’t have the means, opportunity or ability to get on an aeroplane and go somewhere else.

Reflections on a patron saint

On Tuesday 24th June, Florence celebrated a public holiday for the ‘Feast of St John the Baptist’ (San Giovanni Battista). According to this link, John the Baptist has been the patron saint of Florence since sometime during the 6-8th centuries. Before Florence became ‘Christian’, they had upheld Mars, the Roman god of war, as the city’s protector.

I wondered about the point of a patron saint - spiritual guru? protector? model for living? [See also my post on saints from a few years ago.] Reflecting on the third possibility, it’s not hard to spot some marked contrasts between the life of John the Baptist (JtB) as presented in the gospel accounts and the character of modern Florence, Florentines, and the feast day celebrating their patron saint.

The San Giovanni Battista Baptistry in Piazza del Duomo, Florence

1) JtB hung around in the wilderness (Matthew 3:1, Mark 1:4, Luke 1:80) and wore clothes made of camel’s hair (Matthew 3:4, Mark 1:6). He was hardly the kind of urban, fashion-conscious guy that Florentines seem to value so highly. He did wear a leather belt around his waist, though...

2) JtB ate locusts and wild honey (Matthew 3:4, Mark 1:6) and was not allowed to drink alcohol (Luke 1:15). This would be anathema to Florentines, who love drinking their aperitivi in the piazzas on summer evenings (who could blame them?!), not to mention the excellent local chianti wines with lunch and dinner, and seem fairly committed to eating delicious Italian food. I don’t get the impression that they are very adventurous when it comes to eating other cuisines (if you could call locusts and wild honey ‘cuisine’!).

3) JtB was constantly on about repentance. He told people to ‘repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near’ (Matthew 3:2) and ‘produce fruit in keeping with repentance’ (Matthew 3:8, Luke 3:8). He also urged people to be baptised (a service he provided himself, hence the name) as a sign that they repented of their sins, so that they could be forgiven (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3).

In most places I’ve lived, repentance is far from people’s minds (what on earth would I have to repent from? I’m a good enough person, aren’t I?). In Florence, those of the older generations whose lives are still heavily influenced by the Catholic Church are probably more aware of the fact of sin and the way it separates us from God. But they have been told (contrary to the gospel) that they can do penance and achieve forgiveness that way. Among the younger generation, I think it’s more like the case in Australia, but perhaps with more acknowledgement of ‘a God out there somewhere'.

4) JtB was not at all interested in his own fame, but kept telling people someone greater and more powerful was coming after him (Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:7, Luke 3:16, John 1:27). (I think the impressive 35-minute fireworks display on Tuesday night in San Giovanni’s honour would have embarrassed this humble man.) The person coming after him was going to baptise people also, and not just with water but (eminently more impressive) with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8). And he was going to somehow bring judgement also (Matthew 3:12, Luke 3:17).

But this was considered good news (Luke 3:18), probably because the one who did come after John was Jesus. When John saw him, he said ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’ (John 1:29), and later testified that Jesus was ‘God’s Chosen One’ (John 1:34).

May the people of Florence honour their patron saint by listening to his words and considering his call to repent and seek forgiveness, especially now that the one who can take (and now has taken) away sins - Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God - has come.

San Giovanni Battista fireworks over the Ponte Vecchio in Florence