Two Types of Freedom - Report Example

Running Head: FREEDOM AND Freedom and of the of the Freedom and All of us love to have freedom. Everbody enjoys it. This is something everyone would agree. But what exactly and accurately is this freedom? Not everybody is aware of exact meaning of this small word. Experts defined Freedom as a state where every person of the society have full control on his or her own belongings. (Farber, 2006) Two types of freedom have been demonstrated by the experts of the field. Berlin described negative freedom as a lack of intrusion or oblige from others in the society. If somebody forces someone to do something in his or her own way, it will decrease negative freedom. One can also be stopped from Negative freedom by others’ objection from action. The intruder can be a person, or may be collective like any law passed by the Government. (Berlin, 2002) Berlin believed that a major debate in political thought was the very issue touched upon earlier by Selznicks (2002). Negative freedom does not reduce due to lack of capability. For example, if an individual is unable to read or write, it will not change their negative freedom. But if somebody robs someone’s asset, it does. Moreover negative freedom remains unaltered by an individual’s personal preference. Like, we all hold the negative freedom to cast vote in election; but if someone decides not to do so, their negative freedom will remain unaffected. On the other hand, positive freedom usually involves an act. It shows the aptitude and tendency to get potential and have an individuals own preference. One can say, if negative freedom is to have a book and positive freedom is to read and implement it’s learning in one’s life. To give vote to one’s preferred individual in election represents positive freedom. Only external factors can affect negative freedom, whereas positive freedom has the potential to get reduced due to one’s own capability. Thesis Statement ‘Every nation of the world has its own democratic and intellectual explanation of positive and negative freedom’ In practice, value pluralism, in a nutshell, has five elements, a) it claims to be the reality of the normative universe, b) it is based upon minimal societal conditions which provide a moral floor and therefore is not mere relativism, c) it states that there amongst many qualitatively heterogeneous goods there is no common universal measure of value, hence, d) values cannot be ranked as there is no agreement amongst all individuals, and lastly, e) human action does not have one overriding set of values for all circumstances (Galston, 1999). Unlike Hobbes, Marx, and others who proffered a harmonious moral universe Berlin did not believe it was in freedoms best interests to seek value harmony in a society, even if such a goal was possible which he believed that it was not, as it could result in those tragedies which had plagued the twentieth century, fascism and communism, that had caused such great human misery. As an aside, he was perhaps ahead of his time, as today many postmodernists would agree that there is no one best value and certainly not a hierarchy amongst them. However, to accept value pluralism as the norm in society is to accept the inevitable collision of values amongst its citizens. Berlin believed that this was the price to be paid if one believed in the ability of the individual to transform her or his life through free choice, in an existential sense but not a nihilistic sense of rejecting all communal values. Negative freedom is, after all, a value in itself and makes sense only when referenced to the other individuals in society and their rights. The key to such freedom was what Berlin called negative freedom (hereinafter referred to as negative freedom). Positive freedom seems relatively easy to comprehend as an assertion of specific rights such as freedom of religion. However, negative freedom requires an explanation. It refers to the restricted use of others positive freedom in that when exercising ones rights one must not interfere with others rights. Considering positive and negative freedom of expression in the United States and Canada, Americans and Canadians have much in common, and experience with the U.S. Bill of Rights was influential in Canadas decision to adopt the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But freedom of expression is accorded very different protection by government in these two countries, and these differences yield important lessons. The story of positive and negative freedom of expression - usually referred to, as freedom of speech - in the United States is for many Americans a source of pride. For non-Americans, it is a source of wonder. The government of US in The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of expression in the United States. How is it that the freedom of expression has come to be understood as protecting the expression of neo-Nazis, calls to violence, and careless defamation of public officials, among other things? (Farber, 2006) Freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter is not cast in the negative injunctive terms of the First Amendment, but this has not proven to be significant in its interpretation. From the outset, that Court has endorsed the rationale traditionally adopted by American courts for protecting negative and positive freedom of expression. The government of Canada has interpreted the positive freedom of expression broadly, holding that it protects anything that attempts to convey meaning, provided that the meaning is conveyed in a form that is not violent. The importance of equality in litigation under the Canadian Charter is not limited to the Charter conception of equality, which focuses on prohibited grounds of discrimination. Sometimes the motivation for limiting the freedom of expression reflects broader egalitarian concerns. A good example here arises in the context of regulating elections, another example of the difference between American and Canadian conceptions of the freedom of expression. Equality and expression are seen as coming into conflict in Canada in the way that Isaiah Berlin thought inevitable and typically the reconciliation works in favour of equality. (The ACT Human Rights Act, 2004) Although it is often asserted that there is no hierarchy of Charter rights, There is no doubt that the Canada is more likely to uphold limits on both positive and negative freedom of expression than on the right to equality, and no doubt that the government regards the pursuit of equality - even in the private sphere, where the Charter does not apply directly - as a compelling reason for the establishment of limits on freedom of expression. (Campbell, 2004) The states motivation for positive and negative freedom of expression is essentially paternalistic: the people cannot be trusted to respect equality if they are exposed to the offending expression. This approach is condescending, yet it is largely uncontroversial in Canada. In a paper praising the freedom of expression jurisprudence, June Ross makes this point in passing: ‘It is a basic assumption of a system of free expression that members of society possess the necessary capacities and skills to operate within such a system and benefit from it. However, the presumption that the maturity and intelligence of the populace will withstand the potential harms of expression has limits, as does the freedom. For example, government is not required to assume that Canadians, or all of them, have sufficient maturity and intelligence to resist the harmful effects of hate propaganda’. (Cooke, 2004) The serious consequence under American law of concluding that expression has been regulated on the basis of its content - unconstitutionality, regardless of the reasonableness of the regulation does not follow on the Canadian approach. (Fried, 2005) In a number of cases the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the constitutionality of content-based limits on the freedom of expression limits that would almost certainly be considered unconstitutional under the First Amendment. (Stone, 2005) In conclusion, differences in positive and negative freedom reflect differences in the political culture of the nations. Proponents of bills of rights appear to be taking a cautious approach to the protection of the positive freedom of expression under democracy. The report recommending the adoption of the Victoria Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities extolled the virtue of judicial review on rights based questions, yet it recommended the establishment of substantial limits on the power of courts. In addition, at several points the report proposed draft language to avoid results that have obtained in litigation under similar provisions in other jurisdictions. Value pluralism and its protection in society is the reality of social life. Today it may sound reasonable to some members of a community and be politically correct to restrict the rights of the Christian, Sikh, or gay minority but tomorrow it might be politically correct in restricting the freedom of Serbian or Albanian Canadians or, as in the past, Japanese Canadians. Value monism is simply not acceptable in a pluralistic society nor is it consonant with the reality of societal life. The recommendations reveal the real difficulty faced by proponents of bills of rights. Once it is admitted that certain interpretations of rights are undesirable, such that they should be avoided, it is not surprising to find steps being taken to stave them off. But proponents of bills of rights know, or ought to know, that it may be impossible to do so, and in some ways illegitimate in any event according to their own theory of democracy, which tends to regard positive and negative freedom of expressions as organic or living instruments. References Berlin, I. (2002). Two concepts of liberty. In H. Hardy (Ed.), Liberty (pp. 166-217). Bryant. M and Sossin. L, (2002) ‘Public Law’ Palgrave, Pg 98-112. Campbell, T (2004) ‘Separation of Powers in Practice’ What the Law Is: The Constitution in the Supreme Court’ Pg 49-77. Cane. P and Tushnet. M (2003) Judicial Review of Legislation The Oxford Handbook of Legal Studies. Cooke. R (2004) Lord Cooke and the Bill of Rights Pg 295, 303. Farber. D (2006) The First Amendment, Pg 31 -49. Fried. C (2005) The New First Amendment Jurisprudence: A Threat to Liberty The Bill of Rights in the Modern State Pg 225. Galston, W.A. (1999, Dec/ 1). Value pluralism and liberal political theory. American political Science Review. Selznick. P. (2002). The communitarian persuasion. Baltimore MD: The John Hopkins University Press. Stone, A (2005) Defamation of Public Figures: North American Contrasts Rev 9, Pg 23-4. Stone. A and Williams, G (2000) Freedom of Speech and Defamation: Developments in the Common Law World Pg 362. The ACT Human Rights Act (2004) and the Victoria Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities 2006 include protection for freedom of expression. There is no bill of rights in the other Australian states or territories or at the federal level. Tushnet. M (2003) Judicial Activism or Restraint in a section 33 World Pg 50- 55. Williams. G, Mason. (2004) A Freedom in the War on Terror. http://www.justice.vic.gov.au Read More