by Maria Bratikova

. . . and is voluntary fasting. It is not a sentence nor a punishment. It is a self-imposed deprivation of food and food-intake . It is not unlike a kid throwing a fit threatening his mum or dad that he‘s going to hold his breath until he‘s blue in the face unless either or both parents give in to his whims, caprices and unnecessary meanness. 

To die at the doorstep of a perceived offender was a disgrace for that perceived offender. That is so middle-agey. A happy aside to this is that there is no record of hunger strike resultingin death. To date.

What does hunger strike aim to achieve? 

It is supposed to be a non-violent action of protest. Its purpose is to provoke a feeling of guilt in others. 

THAT is the crucible. 

To follow the rationalé of a hunger strike is  to understand that one seeks to make people who have nothing to do with his/her  own actions to feel guilty. It‘s like soliciting empathy and pity. It is recruiting common decency to bend or break to accommodate one‘s callowness.

A person who wants to harm himself first publicises it in broad sheet. . . tomorrow i‘m going to k¡ll the life of moi. What does that make?  A child stomping its feet for tantrums, a juvenile act of  terrorism to make another bend to allow for one‘s disregard to what is right. 

It is the coward‘s way to go around a stiff question of legality that would and could surely nail his/her allergy to telling the truth when properly processed through the wholeshebang. 

Freedom of speech is not about blabbing to libel or slander. Freedom of speech carries the burden of reponsibilities. Freedom of speech is, ergo, responsible.

Man up. Or woman up.