The Debate on Freedom: Societal Privacy vs. International Conventions
The recent episode of the “Bab Dialogue” program on Al Jazeera 360 has reignited discussions surrounding the concept of freedom in the context of societal privacy and international conventions. The program featured a diverse panel of thinkers and specialists who explored the complexities of defining freedom, emphasizing the need for a balance between universal human rights and the unique cultural and social contexts of different societies.
Professor Younis Rayhan, an expert in Islamic Law, highlighted that freedom can be interpreted through various philosophical lenses. He contrasted materialistic views, which advocate for the removal of all restrictions, with moral perspectives that prioritize ethical considerations. Rayhan referenced historical figures such as Socrates, who viewed freedom as the ability to do good, and Montesquieu, who linked it to discipline enforced by laws.
Graduate student Nour Anwar emphasized the importance of recognizing the diversity within societies, particularly those with significant religious and ethnic variations. She argued for a collective agreement on a definition of freedom that reflects the values and norms of the community. Psychiatrist Hudhayfah Barham added a psychological dimension, suggesting that without regulations, absolute freedom could lead to chaos, coining the phrase, “absolute freedom is absolute slavery.”
Human rights activist Ashraf Yazbek asserted that freedom is an inalienable human right intertwined with morality, advocating for freedoms that encompass expression, belief, and identity. He expressed concern over the shift from political repression to individual repression in many Arab nations. In contrast, journalist Alaa Al-Omari argued that international human rights covenants should serve as the primary framework for defining freedoms, cautioning against the dangers of dictatorial regimes that disregard these standards.
However, graduate student Mariam Hani critiqued the origins of international conventions, arguing that they were largely shaped by Western nations without adequate consideration of Arab perspectives. She defended the right of societies to define freedom in ways that resonate with their cultural and historical contexts. This dialogue highlighted a fundamental division: one side advocates for adherence to international human rights standards, while the other calls for a more localized understanding of freedom that respects cultural specificities.
