Are we being oppressed?

There’s no question that rights are being limited under this lockdown. The only question is justifying the extent of the limitation.

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.

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.

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 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?

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.