Personal Identity: the government’s role in stripping it away
Opinion piece by Maria Wehbe and Tala Karkanawi, Staff Writers
November 22nd, 2020
Today, the rules and regulations implemented within our society take a toll on each and every one of us, whether in a positive or negative way. However, one cannot neglect the fact that it strips away part of our identity because our culture reprimands us of acting in certain ways because of its norms and values.
Take Lebanon as an example. Lebanon is a haven of freedom in the Arab world with the liberty of relative openness and freedom of thought and expression that is guaranteed by the constitution. However, the cultural shock the country went through after the civil war, striving to rise within the ashes and the rubble after this disaster, found itself in a challenge. The challenge rose when prevailing forms, questions, content, and the cracks that need to be filled in, when it comes to the basic laws that are supposedly there to protect the citizen and these freedoms, had surfaced.
It is important for every citizen to know their laws and their rights in their country, which is why this article will highlight the important aspects of Lebanon’s constitution, starting with the preamble.
Lebanon is Arab in its identity and in its affiliation. It is a founding and active member of the league of Arab states and abides by its pacts and covenants. Lebanon is also a founding and active member of the United Nations Organization and abides by its covenants and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The government shall embody these principles in all fields and areas without exception.
It clearly states how the government will abide by the rules and the covenants of the Universal declaration of Human rights, and that the government will follow these principles without exception.
The universal declaration of human rights (UDHR) clearly states in multiple articles the notion of freedom.
‘Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.’
‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.’
Now going back to what Lebanon’s constitution states, how did the government reformulate the articles to their own benefit? This is how.
Chapter 2, Article 13 of Lebanon’s constitution states that: ‘The freedom to express one’s opinion orally or in writing, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, and the freedom of association shall be guaranteed within the limits established by law.’
Now, we should not underestimate the severity of ‘within the limits established by law.’ Although the constitution states that ‘the government shall abide by the covenants of the universal declaration of human rights without exception’, this specific line reformulates the entire idea behind the true meaning of the freedom of the individual in having his rights according to the UDHR.
A series of prosecutions have been taking place since the October 17th, 2019 as protests against activists, journalists, and citizens who are a threat to the government and their ongoing corruption of 30 years now, human rights watch said.
Security agencies called in at least 30 people for interrogation concerning charges in regards to insult, defamation, and violations of free speech. Insult and defamation of the government, especially the president, are criminal offenses in Lebanon, with consequences of ending up in prison up to 3 years. It was also conveyed that around 18 minors, were imprisoned, detained and questioned for ripping posters of politicians and the president.
Even though it is said that our freedom is one of our basic human rights, how much “freedom” do we really have?
Let’s give a concrete example: on August 9th, 2020, a Lebanese man was abducted by the authorities because he stepped on a picture of the President of the Republic, Michel Aoun, during protests around and inside the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The government is the one that stated that this is unacceptable and should be punishable by law, but who is to say that this particular man agreed to a law that he did not even have a say in when implemented in the first place?
This brings us to another point: when trying to integrate people coming from such a background into a completely different environment, clearly something is not going to work. It does not come as a surprise that so many problems and conflicts arise when mixing up different people with different backgrounds within one same society. This is because of the way that they were brought up in life, as well as how they were taught to express themselves, which clearly differs from one society to the next.
What does this really mean? Why is this such a problem? Let’s break it down using another tangible case. In France, when Muslim women decide to wear the “Nikab” in public, the government imposes a fine of 150 Euros, although the fine given for not wearing a mask in Public is of 135 Euros. Now, does it make sense that the government sees the “Nikab” as more of a threat than a deadly virus that has taken more than one million lives up until now, all over the world? This sheds light on how different governments have different priorities, which puts limitations on people’s self-expression of themselves, and this is clearly shown when it comes to Islamophobia. Two veiled women were killed in cold blood under the Eiffel Tower in front of their children, simply because of the religion they practice. As well, two Jordanian people were chased and beaten up after French citizens had heard them speaking Arabic. This is supposed to clearly show how hard it is to combine different people of the world within one entity, because the freedom of self-expression of one person may be seen as a threat to another. Trying to integrate ourselves into a different society could pose a threat to our livelihood, simply because of the government’s limits and restrictions on identity representation.
The government is stripping away our personal identity: can you imagine how many people have had to completely change who they are just to assure that their future is secured?
Different governments around the world have their views about what is considered acceptable and what isn’t. This isn’t an issue. What’s problematic is the vast disparity between one government and another. The rules and regulations of each individual government need to be taken into consideration when forming your personal identity within that specific society. Imagine having to travel the world for a living: can you imagine how many modifications you’d have to make to your personality every time you’d need to integrate yourself within a new society?
From what has been previously mentioned, one might think that this is the government’s way of taking control of its people and using them as their own personal puppets. The government is so desperate to keep its citizens within the borders of the country that it is limiting the chance of success, and even survival outside of this society. Now, how is this reflecting our right to make our own choices? Clearly, the government is making them for us and we should no longer accept it.