The line between oppression and inconvenience

As calls to end the lockdown or aspects of it grow, so too does the quip, “You’re not being oppressed, you’re being inconvenienced,” find expression.

As far as sexy rhetoric goes, that’s right up there with “have you ever [insert depressing/tragic circumstance here]? No! So don’t act like you know.”

But sexy rhetoric does not a good argument make … and certainly not a valid argument from a legal perspective.

Unfortunately, the concept of “oppression” has rarely been unpacked by our courts unless it’s to do with minority shareholder rights, which is far from what we’re dealing with here. It’s one of those words we often hear punted around, but just what constitutes “oppression” is difficult to strictly determine. To overcome the lack of a solid legal perspective, I took to social media and queried my networks but a definitive response was not forthcoming. I did get a lot of examples comparing being unable to walk my dog being a fair price to save lives, but that’s just cheap framing to win a rhetorical argument without answering the question: what is the line between oppression and inconvenience?

To answer this, we do need to admit that the question is somewhat unfair since I would suspect all oppression to be inconvenient. However, how it crosses from inconvenience to oppression is worth noting because by ignoring what is oppression and merely dismissing people who feel oppressed by a flick of the Mighty Wand of Rhetoric is an abusive and dangerous tactic wielded by some of history’s most shadowy people … so even if the feeling of oppression is invalid, it needs to be pointed out more definitively.

The issue isn’t a comparative exercise. One cannot fall into the trap of thinking “so I’m getting my full salary and working from home but others are worse off than me so I shouldn’t complain”. There is no automated acceptance of oppression merely because others may be more oppressed or simply worse off. In the apartheid state, the Nats established the tricameral parliament to give some limited political expression to Coloured and Indian representatives, though not much.

Similarly, that they had more privilege than Black South Africans who had no representation does not make their continued oppression any more right. One cannot look back and say, “I don’t know why the Coloureds and Indians were upset and claiming to be oppressed, they had some politically insignificant seats in parliament, which is more than what the Black folk had. That argument is simply inconsistent.”

I now welcome the attacks from people who want to shout at me to claim that political expression is not a privilege, it’s a right – to which I would respond, “Exactly!”

There’s no question that rights are being limited under this lockdown. The only question is justifying the extent of the limitation and, if you consult any dictionary worth a game of Scrabble, you’d find that the common thread in all definitions of ‘oppression’ contain the term ‘unjust’.

Any form of unjust limiting force placed on a person would be considered oppression regardless of how many houses they own, what they eat for breakfast and whether they care about other people.

I have privilege, maybe not as much as some bankers, but I have it. Does that mean I should just shut up and accept the limitations? Worse, does it mean that I may not be concerned about the poor in the townships who may not in a year’s time be able to afford the inflated prices of basic goods?

Ultimately, does any form of privilege compel one to shut up and just accept the opinions of the least privileged as gospel? It certainly shouldn’t so dismissing a person without being able to engage on the assertion of whether or not they’re being oppressed and dismissing with rhetoric is nearly the most absurd thing about all this second only to the fact that we allow it to happen.

But none of this equips us to determine whether the current lockdown is an unjust limitation, and that is because we’re mostly kept in the dark about the justification. How is it that the state can shut down an entire industry, only to be threatened with impending litigation before it releases reasons for its decision and, even then, the reasons will only be delivered days later? One would expect that reasons would be available prior to a decision being made, especially if the “consultative processes” are to be believed.

Worse, if the justification of the limitation is purely on saving lives and/or flattening the curve, where is the evidence of that? The effectiveness, even if not apparent, must be there, otherwise how does one justify the limitation? Sure, we’re shooting in the dark, so I’ll offer some leniency to err on the side of caution, but to what extent would it be necessary if we have nothing/unjustifiably little to show for it?

Rights have value, regardless of one’s privilege. One is entitled to them, so the attempts to dismiss access to rights because some may wish to exercise them differently or because they have a bigger house finds no substance in law. The primary legal question is whether a limitation is justified.

Perhaps there will be overlap.

In the social media discussion, I was informed that there is a large incidence of cigarette sharing in many communities and, while the availability of cigarettes will likely cause no harm to me it would be harmful to a large portion of the nation.

That’s not a matter of my privilege. That’s a matter of sound justification (for now let’s just ignore the political implication of a paternal state that won’t trust its citizens to not share smokes if so instructed).

And yes, some people do not consider others when attempting to impose their rights. As annoying as it may be, they require defeat in engagement, not dismissal, lest we allow ourselves to reach the point of arrogance where we accept dismissal as manner of engagement.

People have rights that stand regardless of class, social standing and assets. The rights exist by virtue of the person existing in South Africa, and that’s the primary qualifier. Those rights need to be protected as far as possible and, where limited, justified on their own merit.

To attempt to take those away because they can be dismissed as an inconvenience is an attempt to take us back to a time when rights only mattered to some.

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.