Short and sweet.
What is your most memorable meal?
I once made an incredible, rich lamb stew with lovely roti. Ah, good times.
Today, I had roasted veggies at midday, and an apple in the evening.
– Lele M
Day Twenty-Three
Author: lelemuthali
Chapter III | The Stranger
He returned a week later, though she had replayed their first meeting in her mind every day since. His name, he said, was Asher.
He spoke like a man accustomed to holding secrets gently. His accent was unplaceable—somewhere between Cape Town and Cairo, with a hint of the desert in his vowels. He told her he worked in “strategic intelligence for development” —a phrase that meant nothing and everything.
Their conversations were elliptical. He asked about her book. She lied and said it was fiction. He smiled like he knew the truth.
“Stories are the only real history we have,” he said. “Everything else is propaganda.”
He listened more than he spoke, and when he did, his words felt like scripture smuggled through conversation. He asked about her dreams. She told him of the fire, of the symbols, of Judáh. He nodded gravely, as if recognising a prophecy he had long expected to meet.
Later that week, she dreamed of him. In the dream, they stood in a vast desert where time had no direction.
He handed her a chalice carved from bone, filled with light. “Drink,” he said, “and remember who you are.” When she woke, her lips tasted of salt and honey.
The next day, the café burned down.
Day Twenty-Two
I am grateful.
I’m grateful for God’s faithfulness. He gives me each day, without fail, my daily bread.
What’s the most important appliance in my kitchen?
My kettle. Definitely my kettle, I live on tea. My tin-opener is pretty precious to me too, but the kettle takes it. Easily.
Today, I ate oats at midday and biscuits in the evening.
– Lele M
Day Twenty-One
Freedom.
I am not my own. I was bought with the blood of Christ. I have never felt so free.
If I could eat dinner anywhere in the world, where would it be?
It would be in a small coastal town, on a warm, quiet beach. At sunset, of course.
Today I ate a bowl of roasted vegetables in the afternoon, and an apple in the evening.
– Lele M
Liberty to Lie?
Critical discussions of liberty are typically concerned with the extent to which individual liberty ought to be preserved and protected.
Such a consideration often hangs on the foundation of the principle of individual liberty. John Stuart Mill presents a persuasive account for individual liberty subject to the harm principle. In his argument Mill explores the liberty of expression to indicate when state interference to restrict individual liberty may be justifiable.
This piece will discuss Mill’s proposition that the exercise of state authority over individuals against their will may be warranted in the case of freedom of expression in accordance with the harm principle – using a recent South African case study. It will examine Mill’s position that state protection of individual liberty is contingent upon consequentialist utilitarian principles.
In doing so, Mill demonstrates that there are indeed instances where state interference with individual liberty can be justifiable; including in the case of legislation which outlaws fake news.
In the first instance, Mill does not base the principle of individual liberty on fundamental rights but rather on its instrumental value. Its value in achieving a desired end. Mill appeals to the utility of individual liberty as the basis for its extensive protection, unlike the Rawlsian appeal to natural rights. Individual liberty of expression, Mill posits, is worth extensive protection because it facilitates and maintains a public good.
The liberty to express diverse views allows for a competition between views for a clearer perception of the truth. It allows for the exchange of error for truth as well as a more cogent understanding of the truth. When a truth is held without engagement with counterviews it goes unchallenged and therefore never requires defense. It is held as true, not by the merit of its argument, but by virtue of being uncontested. It is ‘true’ by default.
Whereas, the expression of diverse views initiates discourse. Through this, opposing views are able to engage in a challenge for the truth or share the truth between themselves. Alternative views may share the truth between them, Mill postulates, as a dissenting view is often necessary to provide the remaining facets of the truth. This exercise of engagement between competing views is valuable for numerous reasons.
Firstly, it illuminates the truth by ensuring that any prevailing truth is be able to withstand challenge as to its veracity. It is no longer enough for a view to merely be expressed as truth. It ought also to defend itself according to the merits of its case in the face of counterarguments. Moreover, the freedom to express alternative views makes sets a standard for truth. An objective truth threshold.
A poignant analogy is that of the marketplace of ideas. Here, shoppers in the marketplace behave like those in a grocery marketplace where shoppers scrutinize goods often picking them up to assess the weight, colour, and overall quality of the goods prior to making a purchase. They evaluate and scrutinize each idea that attracts their interests at the marketplace of ideas before consciously deciding to adopt it as truth.
Ideas adopted in this way are less likely to be dislodged because they undergo a process of critical inspection and challenge against alternative views and prevail based on their merits. Also, the shopper is making a conscious decision to adopt the view which is most persuasive because the process requires active critical engagement.
In this way, the the standard is twofold. The prevailing view must be persuasive on its own merit, and defensible against counterviews.
The liberty to express diverse opinions is a public good which is facilitated by free expression. Therefore, it satisfies both consequentialist and utilitarian principles because it is an instrument used to maintain a public good. The value of this public good, Mill posits, is such that it necessitates the invention of dissenting views when none exist.
There are, however, instances when the state may be justified to legally restrict free expression. These instances are those in which the harm principle applies. The harm principle provides simply that the only time the state may be justified to interfere with the individual liberty of expression is to ensure the safety of others who may otherwise come to harm.
This aligns with the pluralist view to which Mill subscribes. The harm principle is concerned with restricting individual liberty only in the case of protecting others from harm. Also understood as other-regarding actions. Self-regarding actions are in the private sphere of activity where state inference is not usually permissible.
Two issues immediately arise. First, the distinction between self- and other-regarding actions is not always clear. Secondly, although the harm principle is a necessary condition for legal restrictions on individual liberty, it is not adequate in itself as a condition to justify state interference. Harm does not provide a fool-proof criterion for when individual expression may be curtailed.
However, offense is not a harm that justifies prevention. Offense is not a harm protected by the harm principle. Instead, expression is evaluated based on its use or harm which derive from its truth and falsehood respectively.
Mill exposes that a claim of harmful expression is itself a subjective evaluation and a matter of opinion. Moreover, sometimes opposing views share the truth between them. We ought to always be reluctant to interfere with free individual expression. Dissenting views are often valuable as they provide the remaining facets of the truth. This is when contesting views share the truth between them.
This is distinguishable from a pluralist position which rejects the existence of a single dominant metanarrative. This discussion informs the exploration which follows. It considers the decision of the National Coronavirus Command Council (NCCC) to legislate against fake news.
In response to the COVID-19 global pandemic, South Africa’s NCCC (empowered by the Disaster Management Act 57 of 2002) gazetted regulations which effectively outlawed participating in the creation and transfer of fake news relating to the Coronavirus pandemic.
Namely, the COVID-19 virus; the COVID-19 infection status of any person; and any measure taken by the government in addressing the COVID-19. This enquiry will consider Mill’s view on this legislation in accordance with the harm principle in a contemporary context.
At first glance, Mill would say that even fake news about COVID-19 is valuable to the extent that it gives significance and clarity to the truth about COVID-19 and the Coronavirus pandemic. In a way, it illuminates why the truth is true.
Secondly, the three categories of expression specified by the legislation are other-regarding actions. The regulations are concerned with the act of publishing a statement in any of the above three categories on social media and any medium with the intention to deceive another person. The provision required the intention by one person to deceive another about the COVID-19 virus. This is a prohibition of a specific other-regarding action. It is thus within the realm of justifiable interference. Depending, of course, on utilitarian consequentialist principles – to which I now turn.
As a utilitarian consequentialist, Mill would consider keenly the justifications offered by the NCCC for the legislation against fake news. The Council argues that viral misinformation and fake news pose ‘the biggest’ risk for the spread of the Coronavirus in South Africa.
The Council holds that a solid strategy is necessary with regard to the socio-political and economic discourse around the Coronavirus and the global pandemic. The publishing of fake news and deliberate misinformation about COVID-19, the NCCC says, will lead to the deaths of many.
The NCCC is submitting utilitarian grounds for the restriction of free individual expression. South Africa is considered a developing country. It also exists in the context of a global pandemic.
Moreover, the history of spatial planning in South Africa means that areas which are densely populated are usually also peri-urban areas which lack access to information. These high risk areas are townships which are populated by middle to low income earners who are lack resources to verify information, or lack exposure to credible news sources altogether.
It is vital that discourse around the COVID-19 pandemic be controlled and limited to information verified as factual. This socio-econo-political context means the harm that may come from the intentional deception and viral misinformation about COVID-19 in South Africa could be fatal on a significant scale.
False expression, in this instance, is harmful to a greater extent than it is valuable to the discourse around the COVID-19 virus. The overall adverse consequences of intentionally deceiving others about the highly infectious Coronavirus during a global pandemic far outweigh the overall benefit of the publication of such expression . Having considered the above, Mill would consider South Africa’s fake news legislation a legitimate temporary interference with individual free speech. It is justifiable in accordance with the harm principle.
The harm principle requires that state interference with individual liberty be in the interests of the safety of others, as well as adhere to utilitarian consequentialist principles. The South African case study above depicts a circumstance when it is indeed justifiable for government to pass laws against fake news. This restriction to the liberty of individual expression is warranted and is aligned with the harm principle.
Thus, Mill is likely to concur with the decision to legislate against false expression about the COVID-19 virus.
– Lele M
Day Twenty
Between deadlines.
Safe space, right? I don’t know how I would survive without God’s grace.
How will I notice when I’m in the middle of generating an excuse?
I will be vigilant for the feeling of ‘okayness’ with possible loss or defeat.
Today I ate a bowl of oats and banana in the morning, and a chocolate in the evening.
– Lele M
Day Nineteen
Oh sugar!
I have a confession to make. I’ve been relatively preoccupied recently and I find myself skipping prayers before meals. My fuller thighs and waist are evidence enough. I repent, Lord. Save me from myself.
What fears do I have for sticking to an eating plan for life?
At the moment, none. But before I decided to begin this journey, I feared the feeling of an unfamiliar commitment. I was intimidated by what seemed like having to reorient my entire existence to accommodate this decision. Ultimately though, it was the desire for new, and indeed for more, which was more persuasive.
Today I ate a banana, and baked potatoes in the morning, and swiss roll in the afternoon.
– Lele M
Day Eighteen
I’m feeling uninspired.
I feel as though I’m lacking inspiration for meals. I don’t cook as often as I’d like to. This is proving to be a tricky state of affairs because I require lifestyle changes surrounding the kinds of healthy, tasty meals and meal preparation techniques which would work effectively with my routine.
Dear body, I love you because…
… you’re so strong and so human. You feel so much, and endure even more. You are resilient. You are beautiful, completely glorious in your imperfection. You are teachable, flexible, young, and playful. You’re my interface with the vast world around me, I experience this exciting life through you. I love you because you are my gift from God.
Today I ate a veggie burger meal at midday, and crisps in the evening.
– Lele M
Chapter II | Ashes and Water
The fire had begun three months before the story began—at least, that was what the police reports said. But Noluntu remembered no smoke, no screams, only light. Blinding light. When she woke, her hair smelled of frankincense and burnt cedar. Her hands bore no burns. She was told she was lucky. She didn’t feel lucky; she felt chosen.
Fragments of her past came back in flashes: her mother’s laughter during marches; the red berets of the Azanian Socialist People’s Movement; the chants of “Amandla!” echoing against government buildings. Her parents had been revolutionaries once—before the revolution was commodified, before slogans became hashtags. Her father had written pamphlets; her mother had written prayers. Together, they had believed in a South Africa that could be holy again.
And yet, their movement had disappeared like smoke after the flame. Corruption swallowed it whole. Some comrades became ministers, others moguls. Her uncle—beloved, feared, and enigmatic—had become a legend in exile. When he died, men in black coats and gold rings carried his coffin through the township, their tattoos glowing faintly in the sun. It was only then she learned he had been part of The Ring, one of the continent’s most notorious underworld networks.
It was said The Ring had financed revolutions and bought politicians. It was said they trafficked both weapons and dreams. It was said they’d been blessed by witches of the old lineages—those who walked the thin veil between matter and spirit. And Noluntu, with her amnesia and strange visions, began to wonder if the blood of that covenant ran through her veins.
By day, she worked in a café on Commissioner Street, serving imported lattes to disillusioned poets. By night, she wrote. Or perhaps was written. Her journal filled with strange diagrams: interlocking circles that resembled constellations, symbols of ancient priesthoods she did not recall studying. And always, in the margins, one word repeated in another hand: Judáh.
One evening, as rain bruised the horizon, a man entered the café. He carried the kind of stillness that made the air hold its breath. His eyes—grey, but warm—met hers briefly, and the world rearranged itself. There was something unbearably familiar in him, something from before the fire.
He ordered tea, left a generous tip, and a note on the saucer: “You’re not losing your mind. You’re remembering.”
Day Seventeen
A steady rhythm.
What brings me pleasure in mindful eating?
Mindful eating allows me to enjoy my experience of eating by keeping a presence of mind. I take pleasure in setting up my eating space, tray, and meal with care. I get to take in those precious moments of solitude in a gentle ritual.
Today I had a bowl of oats and banana in the morning, and a packet of crisps and a chocolate in the evening.
– Lele M
Lele Muthali 