"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”
JFK’s rallying cry at his Inauguration tapped into a patriotic strand of the American psyche which lives on. Whereas in the UK, the First World War slogan of ‘Your country needs you’ now sounds curiously old fashioned.
This side of the Atlantic human rights have become the pressing argument. The right to be me, the right to live on my own terms under the banner of a liberal democracy. But (and you can feel there’s a but in here somewhere) rights do not exist without duties.
I can’t remember whether it was John Stuart Mill or Hobbes (Brit philosophers of yesteryear) who said that in a fair and decent society there should be a ring fence of freedom around every individual that extends only in so far as it does not impinge on the rights of others. Tricky line to draw, I grant you. But what it means is that we are free within our own personal space and then start having to be sensitive to our neighbours and to be responsible to the wider society in which we choose to live.
What happens when individuals or groups hold values that run against the national grain? In laissez-faire Britain, the response until recently has been to shrug and look the other way. Misplaced politeness holds us back from condemning beliefs and practices that grate. Fear of being accused of racism and intolerance buttons our lips, except in private where much distaste is aired over dinner tables.
How do you determine what a society’s values are? The freedom to get paralytically drunk, indulge in indiscriminate shagging and hold no respect for older generations is one facet of modern Britain. I can understand why those of certain religious and cultural beliefs shudder in horror and want to protect their young. But freedom always comes at a cost and pushing us back two centuries to a puritanical, misogynist past isn’t the answer.
My notion of British values is freedom and equality of choice for women which includes the right to abortion and protection against abuse (domestic and FGM), respect for LGBT communities, no repercussions against blasphemy, transparent (ie. state-regulated) liberal education.
Looking back over instances where my hackles rose, it was religion which was usually at the root of the problem. Christian landlords and cake-makers discriminating against homosexuals. Roman Catholic antipathy to abortion. The fatwa threatening assassination against Salman Rushdie for blasphemy, much trumpeted in Bradford, which should have resulted in prison sentences. Honour killings and forced marriages are a cultural rather than religious edict, but they stem from that unholy preoccupation of all major religions with controlling women’s sexuality and indeed sexuality in all its forms. Orthodox Jewish beliefs are little different from Islamic ones when it comes to segregation of the sexes. A women’s place is in the home, kitchen and bedroom. Submission is piety. And homosexuality is a no-go area for most of the major religions.
In ancient Egypt Maat, the goddess of justice and harmony, was revered as the mediator in a state with diverse peoples with conflicting interests. Difference was acknowledged but chaos could only be avoided by giving due deference to the values of the kingdom.
Tolerating those who hold different beliefs and outlooks isn’t easy. But when the difference doesn’t tolerate the majority way of life, and in certain cases doesn’t adhere to laws, that causes a greater difficulty. Domination by an invading force will bring cultural norms of their choosing. Whereas integration demands exactly what it says on the label – accepting that the old ways cannot continue unchallenged.
“Freedom and responsibility aren’t interconnected things. They are the same thing.” (Harry Browne).
Follow me on:
BUY my new crime thriller BY the LIGHT of a LIE at:
www.marjorieorr.com
No comments:
Post a Comment