On the other hand
Dec. 1st, 2005 10:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andrewduckerI realise that having deliberately pointed you away from something earlier, in the full knowledge that this would guide you inevitably towards it, I shouldn't now be trying to guide you towards something.
However, every so often someone says something that bloody well needs saying.
This is one of those things.
It begins:
In half an hour, the Sovereign State of Singapore will murder an Australian Citizen, Van Tuong Nguyen.
However, every so often someone says something that bloody well needs saying.
This is one of those things.
It begins:
In half an hour, the Sovereign State of Singapore will murder an Australian Citizen, Van Tuong Nguyen.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-12-01 10:46 pm (UTC)Nguyen Truong Van, 25, was arrested at Singapore's airport in 2002 with 400g (14 ounces) of heroin
Singapore has some of the strictest drug trafficking laws in the world, and anyone found with 15g of heroin faces a mandatory death penalty.
The news is full of murder, rape, child sex, millions starving, prostitution, war and lies on an international scale.
You choose to comment and take exception to someone being punished for committing a crime. He broke the law. I don't have a problem with this. I have a problem with you posting this and not posting in addition about the far, far worse things in the news just today.
The fact that the news only covered for about 24 hours the fact that a country's government had an outspoken critical person forcibly institutionalised (very probably to be given psychotropics against her will) for a second time.. for the crime of speaking out against the government. This was covered in the world media but was forgotten a day later. I have a problem with that. I have a problem that the West (in their role of arbiters of what is allowed and what's not) are allowing a totalitarian regime to take power without doing anything, while objecting to less abusive governments because they are not pro-US.
People are dying by the day because not enough was done in relief efforts in Pakistan/India. I have a problem with governments being told "we need relief now" and then promising to send helicopters "in two weeks time".
I have a problem with a judge saying "This was a racist attack of a type poisonous to any civilised society." when I can't think of a day in the last two weeks when I haven't seen racist attacks being covered in the UK news.
I have a problem with this too: "Swaziland, which has the world's highest rate of HIV infection, has cancelled events to mark World Aids Day, shocking activists.
A royal decree was issued just a day before the prime minister was due to give a speech, saying it would clash with a traditional ceremony.
Some 38% of Swazi adults are HIV positive, rising to 56% for women in their late twenties."
I also don't believe the death penalty is a deterrent. But that doesn't mean I don't believe in it.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-02 01:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-02 04:36 am (UTC)There's also something of the Darwin Awards about it - you've got to be an idiot to smuggle drugs in a country where they'll so readily execute you for it.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-02 07:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-02 08:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-02 08:58 am (UTC)I have a problem with pretty much everything you've mentioned above. And so, I assume, do most other reasonable people. I read about them, and when people say something interesting about it that's not immediately obvious, or already spread across the papers, I sometimes pass that on too.
I was posting a link to a well written thing I'd read. As it happens, I fucked the link up, but that's pretty much beside the point. There's a thousand things I hate about the world, and if you need me to point them out, then that seems a tad odd. When I see something that speaks particularly to me, I sometimes mention it. Which isn't to say I don't care about many other things.
Oh, and I don't particularly care that he broke the law - I don't believe that "what the law is" is the arbiter of what's right and wrong.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-02 10:56 am (UTC)And how much of Livejournal, or the conversations we have in our daily lives, about any of those things in relation to the amount of time we spend whining about inconsequential drama?
Your point that we *should* be focusing on the larger picture is certainly valid, as is the selective coverage of the media (there was, for instance, a similar case to Terry Schiavo in Texas which got minimal coverage), but few of us do.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-02 11:22 am (UTC)I think execution may be too harsh a crime (possibly) but this guy was smuggling drugs in a country where you get executed for doing so, he is guilty and so I have little sympathy for him.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-02 04:17 pm (UTC)Does that mean if he were to be caught in another country which did not have the death penalty but for some reason he did get killed for it that you would then have sympathy for him?
I can’t lack sympathy for someone because they are unlawful because I don’t agree or believe in a lot of laws and I certainly consider my own morality better than what the law considers ‘right’
According to dictionary.com murder is "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice". The killing is lawful and therefore not murder.
I find the definition of murder will be arbitrary, of course the law are never going use the word murder even if it is. Arguing semantics will help them get away with it because it was lawful, it is still the taking of someone’s life no matter what you call it and just because the law allows it does not make it right.
I think execution may be too harsh a crime (possibly)
I think it is definitely too harsh.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-02 04:29 pm (UTC)I would have more sympathy for him yes. He is responsible for what happened to him, he was bringing drugs that would have caused the misery of a lot of people to a country where he did or should have known that the penalty for doing that could be his death, and that's just what happened to him.
I can’t lack sympathy for someone because they are unlawful
As I said I thought the penalty was harsh, but presumably it is there because of the incredible suffering caused by these drugs - it's there to act as a deterrant. We don't live in a world where there are perfect solutions.
I find the definition of murder will be arbitrary, of course the law are never going use the word murder even if it is.
No this is where you are wrong. Words have meanings. People can talk about execution / capital punishment / or killing by the government that's fair enough - those words all apply. Murder does not because murder by definition is illegal killing, and this killing (in context) was not murder. The word murder I can only presume is used because it invokes stronger emotions because it implies that the killing was not legal. I'm not going to say he was raped then get annoyed at someone for pointing out to me that I've changed what the word raped means.
You can argue that you don't agree with their laws, but you can't say he was murdered because he simply wasn't. If you want to use the word murder fine, but please be aware that you are misleading people who read your words as they are not aware of your updated definition.
it is still the taking of someone’s life no matter what you call it and just because the law allows it does not make it right.
I didn't say it was right. Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. I don't know. I don't think the situation is black or white morally, and I don't think morals are absolute in any case.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-02 06:47 pm (UTC)I will freely admit that I don't necessarily agree with all the laws of this country, or indeed of many countries. Some are too weak, some are too strong, some are just stupid. However, my belief system is not one that assigns absolute moral values for others. I have my own person beliefs, and I believe -very- strongly that I should or should not do certain things, or allow certain things to happen etc etc. I would -like- other people to feel the same way about the same things, but I am aware this is not likely much of the time or for most people.
I do believe, however, that laws are a necessity (given my often stated views on people/society in general).
And, as far as there are laws, they should be both absolute and obeyed. Exceptions merely allow cracks in the dam, if you will. And while letting some water slip through (to continue this pained allusion) might be good occasionally.. and sometimes there might be reasons for it, you should still be able to say "water will not get through" and build your dams to avoid this. Fuck this imagery, back to regular words.
I'm not getting on a high horse here - I will happily admit I have broken the law. Even laws I felt were right. I know I'm not perfect. However, I judge myself just as harshly on these things as I judge others. I do not respect many of my own actions, just as I would not respect those of others making the same bad choices.
Essentially, the laws are what we have, and if you don't follow them, the penalty built into those laws should follow.
There was a well-written article? That makes more sense, rather than just the sentence.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-02 06:57 pm (UTC)People want new things, new stories, new bad things too. The UN (maybe?) were talking about how people were tired of seeing images of famine in Africa so stopped donating money. Unless there are new things to show, even terrible news stories drop out of sight ever so quickly.
The relief efforts in Pakistan and India are a good example here for a large scale event - people said "it's winter soon, something must be done, relief is happening but not enough..." then a few days later it was off the front page, out of the news roundups and relegated to a secondary story because it wasn't as immediate, as fresh. As exciting.
I suppose it's a cumulative effect. If you pick a random day and watch just the headlines on the TV news, there's a damn good chance of all of them being "bad" news ie wars, crime, death and the like. Sometimes I just want to hear the newsreader say "And all the news today is bad. Sorry. It's how the world is."
And because there are so many stories, and because there's only so much space, airtime, or only a certain amount that people will read - stories that aren't huge get missed. Be they the case you're talking about in Texas, various aspects of the situation in the Middle East, some of the trouble in former Soviet Union countries, or close to home news here in the UK.
If the news was to deal with everything it should do, even a 24 hour news station could barely cover it, and few would want to see. Those in power or in the know (whether in the press, or in the government or police/medical/military/charity roles) who do see and have to deal with vast amounts of this get my sympathy.
I mean, it's partly why they put in the "human interest" items at the end of the news, so at least you can finish on a laugh, or an "aw!" or something.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-03 05:34 am (UTC)Sorry I think we misunderstood each other here. I'm not calling the law in this case murderers in fact I try to avoid using the word because of the definition. What I meant that was that arguing the meaning of the word detracts from the act itself which could lead to a justification for the law killing someone. Justification might be the wrong word, acceptance perhaps? Forgive me it's 5:30 in the morning :)
. I don't think the situation is black or white morally, and I don't think morals are absolute in any case.</i? Of course, when I say I don't think something is 'right' I do not mean morally right in an absolute sense. I mean that I don't believe in it
no subject
Date: 2005-12-03 05:38 am (UTC)p.s. I'll remember to finish my comment this time. Did i mention it's 5:30 in the morning..
I don't think the situation is black or white morally, and I don't think morals are absolute in any case.
Of course, when I say I don't think something is right, I don't mean that I think it is morally wrong in an absolute sense. I simply mean that I do not believe in it.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-03 01:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-03 01:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-03 04:07 pm (UTC)I think they should use incarceration as a solution to buy time to deal with the crime (by which I mean examining the cause of it), which I don't really believe in either, but like you said; this world doesn't have perfect solutions.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-03 04:42 pm (UTC)