The Invisible Shackles of Freedom

By Bekkai Mohamed Al-Mortada

A person’s belief in their absolute right to freedom often stems from arrogance and blindness to the rights of others. They see themselves entitled to say whatever they wish—even when their words carry injustice or harm toward others.

They demand freedom for their own voice while denying it to their opponents, hiding behind excuses like “personal boundaries” or “avoiding offense.”

But is freedom of expression merely the right to say what we want? Or is it the courage to open the door to critique and debate—so that our words become part of a collective conversation, where voices of agreement and dissent coexist?

When a person tries to break the chains of silence imposed by those in power—or by society itself—they often adopt a discourse of liberation to defend their cause. Yet soon they realize that a voice alone is not enough, and that true struggle requires more than words.

It needs an aware front, capable of standing firm against oppression.But this front is struck first from within, as it faces a complacent public that believes the rumors branding it as “extremist.” The fight then becomes not just against authority, but against distorted concepts and a manipulated consciousness.

Ultimately, speech remains bound by the legitimacy of “the higher hand,” which allows freedom only so long as it does not touch the honor or symbols of the system.

Thus, freedom of expression remains conditional—some see it as a “boundary” that preserves order, while others see it as a “shackle” that restrains thought and blurs vision.

No regime can satisfy all the needs of its people. Even a just government is criticized for the smallest faults—like a company attacked for selling one defective bag of flour, even when the fault lies with the factory, not with it. Yet the company bears the blame simply because its name is on the label. So it is with states: the people are free to criticize, and the authorities are free to ignore them—until speech turns into action, and power steps in.

But what if we replaced the “company” with the “government”? Would criticism still have value? Yes—if it were allowed to exist in the first place.

Some regimes prohibit political criticism under the pretext of “national security,” as though the citizen lives with his head inside the mouth of a lion—too terrified to think, let alone speak.

Yet is absolute freedom even possible? Giving it to the ignorant is like handing a weapon to a madman—both are dangerous. Still, ignorance can be restrained by fear; punishment sometimes serves not to suppress truth, but to contain chaos.

People possess both the freedom to think and the freedom to speak—but rarely both at once. Thinking without expression is silent madness; expression without thought is empty noise. The gravest suffering is to ache in silence, unable to make one’s pain heard.

Regimes fear the union of these two freedoms—because conscious thought combined with speech ignites a spark that can shake the very foundations of power. Those who truly think understand the risk of trying to awaken a dead social conscience.

One day, a crow flew past a house and saw a parrot locked inside an iron cage. Curious, it landed nearby and asked why he was imprisoned.The parrot replied simply: “Because I speak.”

He had stepped outside his natural instinct to sing—and paid for it with his freedom.

“Speak to me politely and lower your voice—you’re talking to a citizen who gave you his vote!” This phrase reveals that freedoms are never equal, and that courage in speech can, for a fleeting moment, rival authority itself.

But those moments are precious—they show the true meaning of free expression when the word becomes a defense of justice.

The story of the farmer who confronted the French president—though fabricated—illustrated how a single act of courage can stir an entire nation’s conscience.

Yet one must ask: do people still truly believe in freedom of expression? Or do they remember it only when their interests are at stake?How many causes have been buried because their advocates were too few?

Silence has become habit, blind imitation a social norm, and meaningful debate almost extinct. Conformity is now destiny.Those who teach faith are accused; those who seek reform are condemned; the oppressor is pitied, and the oppressed forgotten.

Forgive me… perhaps I’m rambling.

Or perhaps—for once—I’m finally saying what’s long been silenced.

Bekkai Mohamed Al-Mortada – Algerian writer and novelist

The opinions expressed in this article are solely the author’s and do not represent the views of Nisaba Media.