Freedom demands firmness

The history of this motto takes us back to the years preceding the independence of the United States. In 1754, Benjamin Franklin published in the Pennsylvania Gazette an engraving depicting a snake cut into segments, accompanied by the words “Join, or Die”. The initial purpose was to promote the union of the colonies in the face of the dangers of that time. The snake would later acquire a particular symbolic force in the resistance to British rule.

In 1775, the flag design associated with Christopher Gadsden appeared, South Carolina’s representative to the Continental Congress: on a yellow field, a coiled rattlesnake, ready to defend itself, and the motto “Don’t tread on me”. In the first months of 1776, Commodore Esek Hopkins, commander of the Continental fleet, flew that standard. On 9 February of the same year, Gadsden presented a copy of it to the South Carolina Provincial Congress, where its description was entered into the record.

In the patriotic reading of the time, the rattlesnake stood for vigilance and defensive courage. The image suggested a firm disposition in the face of a threat: the warning came before the reaction. That was the message addressed to anyone who might seek to subdue the colonies by force.

It is in that idea of defensive firmness that I find the lasting value of the expression.

As a Portuguese man living in the United States, I value a political tradition that grants the individual a sphere of freedom and responsibility of his own. The possibility of building a business, acquiring property, raising children and expressing convictions requires guarantees that protect the person against arbitrary power. Enterprise flourishes where there is confidence that effort will be respected and that the rules will be applied predictably.

That freedom calls for maturity and obedience to the law in every sphere of life in society. Whoever wishes to direct his own life must accept the consequences of his decisions, meet the obligations he has taken on and recognise equal dignity in others. Respect for the legal order is a condition for trust between citizens to endure. I expressly include immigration in that principle. I support immigration that is legal, orderly and responsible, accompanied by respect for the institutions and the obligations of the host country. Admission, residence and the exercise of a profession must observe the legally established requirements. Those who seek a better life deserve to be treated with humanity and must, in their turn, obey the law.

My own condition as a Portuguese man living abroad reinforces this conviction. I know what it means to build a life away from one’s native land, and I recognise the value of the opportunity granted by another country. That opportunity carries duties: to respect its laws, to observe the required procedures and to contribute honestly to the community that receives us.

I consider it unjust to belittle the effort of those who follow the legal steps, bear the attendant costs and wait for the competent decisions. A serious immigration policy must preserve the confidence of those people and ensure the consistent application of the rules, with respect for the legal safeguards of each case.

The freedom to disagree with a law makes it possible to argue for its amendment through the proper institutional channels. Personal conviction, however firm, confers no individual exemption from complying with it. This principle should hold for those who govern and those who are governed, for nationals and foreigners, for employers and workers.

I therefore understand the motto as carrying a demand that begins with ourselves. Whoever claims respect must know how to grant it. Whoever demands that his rights be recognised must act with the same regard for the rights of others.

Institutions are given powers in order to serve the community, and they must answer for the way they exercise them. Legitimate authority earns its standing through competence, impartiality and restraint. The citizen, in turn, needs to retain the possibility of questioning decisions, demanding explanations and seeking redress when he considers himself wronged.

In this conception, respect for law enforcement holds an essential place. Everyday freedom depends on concrete conditions of tranquillity: being able to open a business, return home without apprehension, take one’s children to school and use public space without fear. I recognise the service of those who take on the responsibility of protecting those conditions, and I consider it indispensable to provide them with training, resources and institutional support.

The application of the law demands firmness, discernment and respect for human dignity. Authority must act within its powers, subject to competent oversight; the citizen must meet his obligations and turn to legal means when he wishes to challenge a decision. On this reciprocity rests the credibility of the rule of law.

There is also a personal dimension to this reflection. Composure in dealing with others, openness to dialogue and a preference for conciliation can coexist with clear limits. A well-mannered person has every right to refuse humiliation, to contest an injustice and to defend his honour by the legitimate means available to him.

Over the course of a life, circumstances arise in which silence leaves doubt as to what we are prepared to accept. In those moments, clarity becomes an obligation towards ourselves and towards those who depend on us. That is how I read “Don’t tread on me”: an affirmation of freedom accompanied by the willingness to preserve it with character, discernment and responsibility. So I try to treat each person with the consideration I hope to receive. I demand respect for my freedom and I acknowledge the duties it imposes on me. Among them, obedience to the law holds a fundamental place.

This is an opinion column by its author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the newspaper.