It’s that time again of a long series of doubts, questions and lack of information. No, I’m not talking about the elections in Cardiff!! I’m referring to the Italian elections being held on the 13th of April. Voting by post, I only have time until the 7th apparently.
I haven’t thought much about it, I haven’t checked the political parties’ websites and know very little about the candidates. It feels very odd given that I’m someone who has no such doubts when it comes to politics in the UK.
Since the last elections, the Italian Parliament has MPs representing Italians living abroad. I don’t know the numbers of those eligible to vote but there are millions of Italians living across the globe!! How can these MPs actually do something for us except the odd law about Italian schools abroad and so on?
I don’t think it was the right thing to do. They should have created an elected representative post for each embassy instead. I would have very much liked someone representing my needs and interests as an Italian citizen in the UK. For example, I’d like someone campaigning for more support for Italian Cultural Institutes (the London and Edinburgh ones are great!) and so on.
Above everything else I’d like someone who keeps in touch and the current Italian MPs currently representing me have sent me no communications until now.
It is possible to choose one candidate among the list presented by each party writing his/her name on the ballot paper. The parties have, of course, chosen their ‘star’ candidate so I have no information on the others. The manifestos are all the same and terribly non-controversial that it’s impossible to make an informed choice. I don’t know what they stand for (aside from the usual stuff for residents abroad such as consulates, culture etc.). None of them have told me what they have been doing and none of them seem to have done any campaign outside Parliament.
So I’m contacting them! So far, I have written to Gianni Farina (PD) and Guglielmo Picchi (Polo delle Liberta’) and asked their view and their party’s view on the refuse problem in Naples and the Alitalia privatisation.
I’m just one vote out of hundreds of thousand, but it counts!
The irony is that even my home town council keeps in touch with me sending their regular magazine (which includes a short article from each party on the Council). They are also more effective: I can change my address online, request to renew my ID card online … local government does it better!!
28 March 2008
26 March 2008
Sex, the media & personal freedom
I realised I condensed a few thoughts in a very short piece in my post Sexy, so here are a few more thoughts.
Dignity: my main objection to the perpetual portrayal of people, mostly women, as sexual objects is that people are deprived of their humanity. I’m fed up with seeing mainstream media trashing our human dignity. Our imagination and psyche are being desensitised to the humanity of those around us. It might lead one to think that it is they who are the objects, not us, however by seeing others as less than ourselves aren’t we diminishing our own humanity?
Furthermore, a negative construction of gender such as that given by many music videos and similar material affects everybody in as much as we are judged against that yardstick/model of femininity or masculinity or feel the pressure to follow those images. Ideas and images surrounding femininity have changed, of course, but the construction of gender is always there to remind us that we do not own our social body.
Liberation vs. Liberalisation: there is the trite and idiotic argument that women working in the sex industry comes from sexual 'liberation'. It’s a rather old and disingenuous argument, which has really past its sell by date. Some, of course, might feel ‘liberated’ by playing at being sexual objects or predators. However, I think it’s more a sign of liberalisation of sex rather than liberation.
It is true that there isn’t only one form of sex work and that not all sex workers ('Prada prostitutes') are victims (although they are the majority). Nevertheless, I think that, as a society, we should strive to ensure everyone’s personal freedom. This means that we should concentrate on those who work in the sex industry as a result of having been trafficked, abused or who are addicted to drugs. I think we should also make more available treatment for sex addiction.
Consumerism: leaving gender aside, the mainstream media have concentrated in reducing us to consumers driven by our appetites and basic instincts (that’s why I refer to my post on the Century of the Self). It’s quite interesting to see that actors smoke far less in films nowadays than they used to in the past. Times have moved on, so why can’t there be a portrayal of sexual relationship and 'roles' that is more positive?
Moralisers vs. sexual freedom: some object that to see stripping or half-naked women as degradation is bigotry. The argument is flawed on three accounts. Firstly, to think of lap-dancing or soft-porn music videos as separate from the sex industry is naïve, especially given the rise in sex addiction. I am not arguing for censorship but for responsibility by those who produce videos and films.
Secondly, isn’t degrading to be seen as body parts (mostly women) or as sex-driven robots (mostly men)?
I seriously doubt that, in the majority of cases, sex workers choose freely the profession. By the way, free choice is more than lack of coercion.
Thirdly, to the risk of patronising the body parts & the robots, isn’t this just the acting out of hegemonic images? (see Gramsci!) Doesn’t labelling detractors as moralisers suit the narrative of the ‘producers’ of ‘sexy’ material? Doesn’t it equate to being a product in the consumerist chain?
The media control the media: those working in the ‘media’ often shy away from taking responsibility hiding behind the usual lame excuses, such as the trend in depicting sex & violence being widespread and the public wanting it. Images of greed, egotism and objectification are widespread, but who shapes the trend?
The idea that it’s the public who want to be fed rubbish is nonsense. After all, the public got fed up with being fed junk food at McDonald’s and McDonald’s had to switch to ‘healthier options’. How about using imagination for once rather than the trite bad taste images that fill our space?
Masculinity and femininity might be in crisis (finally!), so what? Why can't we be human? :)
Dignity: my main objection to the perpetual portrayal of people, mostly women, as sexual objects is that people are deprived of their humanity. I’m fed up with seeing mainstream media trashing our human dignity. Our imagination and psyche are being desensitised to the humanity of those around us. It might lead one to think that it is they who are the objects, not us, however by seeing others as less than ourselves aren’t we diminishing our own humanity?
Furthermore, a negative construction of gender such as that given by many music videos and similar material affects everybody in as much as we are judged against that yardstick/model of femininity or masculinity or feel the pressure to follow those images. Ideas and images surrounding femininity have changed, of course, but the construction of gender is always there to remind us that we do not own our social body.
Liberation vs. Liberalisation: there is the trite and idiotic argument that women working in the sex industry comes from sexual 'liberation'. It’s a rather old and disingenuous argument, which has really past its sell by date. Some, of course, might feel ‘liberated’ by playing at being sexual objects or predators. However, I think it’s more a sign of liberalisation of sex rather than liberation.
It is true that there isn’t only one form of sex work and that not all sex workers ('Prada prostitutes') are victims (although they are the majority). Nevertheless, I think that, as a society, we should strive to ensure everyone’s personal freedom. This means that we should concentrate on those who work in the sex industry as a result of having been trafficked, abused or who are addicted to drugs. I think we should also make more available treatment for sex addiction.
Consumerism: leaving gender aside, the mainstream media have concentrated in reducing us to consumers driven by our appetites and basic instincts (that’s why I refer to my post on the Century of the Self). It’s quite interesting to see that actors smoke far less in films nowadays than they used to in the past. Times have moved on, so why can’t there be a portrayal of sexual relationship and 'roles' that is more positive?
Moralisers vs. sexual freedom: some object that to see stripping or half-naked women as degradation is bigotry. The argument is flawed on three accounts. Firstly, to think of lap-dancing or soft-porn music videos as separate from the sex industry is naïve, especially given the rise in sex addiction. I am not arguing for censorship but for responsibility by those who produce videos and films.
Secondly, isn’t degrading to be seen as body parts (mostly women) or as sex-driven robots (mostly men)?
I seriously doubt that, in the majority of cases, sex workers choose freely the profession. By the way, free choice is more than lack of coercion.
Thirdly, to the risk of patronising the body parts & the robots, isn’t this just the acting out of hegemonic images? (see Gramsci!) Doesn’t labelling detractors as moralisers suit the narrative of the ‘producers’ of ‘sexy’ material? Doesn’t it equate to being a product in the consumerist chain?
The media control the media: those working in the ‘media’ often shy away from taking responsibility hiding behind the usual lame excuses, such as the trend in depicting sex & violence being widespread and the public wanting it. Images of greed, egotism and objectification are widespread, but who shapes the trend?
The idea that it’s the public who want to be fed rubbish is nonsense. After all, the public got fed up with being fed junk food at McDonald’s and McDonald’s had to switch to ‘healthier options’. How about using imagination for once rather than the trite bad taste images that fill our space?
Masculinity and femininity might be in crisis (finally!), so what? Why can't we be human? :)
20 March 2008
Sexy
I keep on coming across appalling music videos where women act or are paraded as if they were for sale. There seems to be a very fine line between what is deemed 'sexy' in a woman and the debasing display of body parts.
Men (and women) are fed an awful lot of nonsense about what a man is supposed to like and what women are supposed to be like. The driving force is supposedly sex, which is reduced to the physical act and deprived of everything I would personally define as sexy. We are constantly being told that half-naked women behaving like idiots are sexy, that men like that and find confident women intimidating. It might be the case for many, but I believe many more are simply victim of these messages. A few considerations:
What is sexy? No, I don’t find half-naked people sexy. I don’t like body parts, I like the whole person. I find people sexy when they have sense of humour and are comfortable with themselves. I like warm clear voices and sincere smiles. I think sense of humour is the basis of attraction.
Yet, we are fed an ugly narrative that deprives us of our humanity, of our imagination and personhood. If women (or men) are reduced to body parts or men (or women) to their basic sexual instincts severed from desires, imagination and mind, what are we?
Nothing to do with sex. Research shows that men who go to lap-dancing clubs, pay for sex and so on, are not simply reacting to basic sexual instincts, they are seeking power. The idea of sexy as portrayed in a million billboards, music videos and films is one that is constructed around the dynamic of power and powerlessness. A confident woman is intimidating because she is not powerless. Music videos seem to be the worst with half-naked women crawling around with no dignity. It is a rather pathetic spectacle.
Addictive images. The ‘producers’ do not respond to a need, rather they create a dependent consumer by perpetuating a view of the world based on the old-fashion power relations. They create identities based on domination and debasement. And they are not even subtle at that! It’s advertising after all, Bernays-style!
Sex addiction is on the increase, will advertisers start thinking about the health implications of the junk they produce?
...on addiction to sex, see this from the FT. Addiction seems to be dependent on genes. However the constant exposure to the same messages, the same iconography, the same narrative habituates us to viewing the world in a certain way, anaesthetises the brain and creates a need. We banned tobacco advertising and are trying to tackle junk food, why not junk sex? For the record, I'm not advocating censorship, just responsibility. After all, the media control the media!
Men (and women) are fed an awful lot of nonsense about what a man is supposed to like and what women are supposed to be like. The driving force is supposedly sex, which is reduced to the physical act and deprived of everything I would personally define as sexy. We are constantly being told that half-naked women behaving like idiots are sexy, that men like that and find confident women intimidating. It might be the case for many, but I believe many more are simply victim of these messages. A few considerations:
What is sexy? No, I don’t find half-naked people sexy. I don’t like body parts, I like the whole person. I find people sexy when they have sense of humour and are comfortable with themselves. I like warm clear voices and sincere smiles. I think sense of humour is the basis of attraction.
Yet, we are fed an ugly narrative that deprives us of our humanity, of our imagination and personhood. If women (or men) are reduced to body parts or men (or women) to their basic sexual instincts severed from desires, imagination and mind, what are we?
Nothing to do with sex. Research shows that men who go to lap-dancing clubs, pay for sex and so on, are not simply reacting to basic sexual instincts, they are seeking power. The idea of sexy as portrayed in a million billboards, music videos and films is one that is constructed around the dynamic of power and powerlessness. A confident woman is intimidating because she is not powerless. Music videos seem to be the worst with half-naked women crawling around with no dignity. It is a rather pathetic spectacle.
Addictive images. The ‘producers’ do not respond to a need, rather they create a dependent consumer by perpetuating a view of the world based on the old-fashion power relations. They create identities based on domination and debasement. And they are not even subtle at that! It’s advertising after all, Bernays-style!
Sex addiction is on the increase, will advertisers start thinking about the health implications of the junk they produce?
...on addiction to sex, see this from the FT. Addiction seems to be dependent on genes. However the constant exposure to the same messages, the same iconography, the same narrative habituates us to viewing the world in a certain way, anaesthetises the brain and creates a need. We banned tobacco advertising and are trying to tackle junk food, why not junk sex? For the record, I'm not advocating censorship, just responsibility. After all, the media control the media!
16 March 2008
Religion, blind faith and lost beauty
I find John Gray’s critical review of the new ‘atheists’ a little sweeping and weak. He rightly points to their lack of self-understanding and their little knowledge of religion and indeed science and liberalism. That’s the easy bit though. What the article lacks, although admittedly it would have become an essay, is a deeper understanding of what religion is; what faith is and why it’s coming back; and the difference between religious faith and ‘blind faith’. For the record, ‘blind faith’ is NOT faith in something that cannot be proven. Blind faith is belief in something about the physical world despite contrary evidence.
Gray suggests that religion is back due to the retreat and defeat of XX ideologies, such as fascism and communism. More to the point, ideologies replaced religion, albeit for a relatively short period of time.
Now religion is back, although it’s difficult to tell what shape it’ll take. It is back because people need meaning and answers in front of the confusion that is enveloping our world. We’re possibly at the climax of a technological revolution, which is shattering our convictions and identity just as much as the Industrial Revolution did.
The Industrial Age ushered a new world where power was reinterpreted (Marx), where society was dissected (Weber) and where even our inner self was analysed (Freud). In such an uncertain multifaceted world, people sought certainties and unity. Fascism and Communism dominated our understanding of modernity while threading upon dissent and liberty.
People need again certainties and meaning. Perhaps there will always be people, be it Grayling, Dawkins, Dennett or religious fundamentalists, who need dogmatic certainties. It matters little whether such dogmas have a religious or ‘scientific’ flavour. In actual fact, I don’t particularly mind other people’s dogmas as long as these are not imposed on others.
Personally, I thrive in doubt. I like complexities and don’t mind contradictions because this is life. Life goes beyond categories. This, I believe, is what it means to be liberal: to continuously challenge oneself and one’s understanding of the world and morality. Liberal theology has no dogmas and liberal science has no forgone conclusions. Of this mysterious world the dogmatic mind most resents its poetry and contradictory truths that cannot be categorised and labelled. Let’s hope this new revolution will not be dominated by dogmatic minds. Let's hope they will not succeed in taking away our sense of beauty. For all, then, would be lost.
Gray suggests that religion is back due to the retreat and defeat of XX ideologies, such as fascism and communism. More to the point, ideologies replaced religion, albeit for a relatively short period of time.
Now religion is back, although it’s difficult to tell what shape it’ll take. It is back because people need meaning and answers in front of the confusion that is enveloping our world. We’re possibly at the climax of a technological revolution, which is shattering our convictions and identity just as much as the Industrial Revolution did.
The Industrial Age ushered a new world where power was reinterpreted (Marx), where society was dissected (Weber) and where even our inner self was analysed (Freud). In such an uncertain multifaceted world, people sought certainties and unity. Fascism and Communism dominated our understanding of modernity while threading upon dissent and liberty.
People need again certainties and meaning. Perhaps there will always be people, be it Grayling, Dawkins, Dennett or religious fundamentalists, who need dogmatic certainties. It matters little whether such dogmas have a religious or ‘scientific’ flavour. In actual fact, I don’t particularly mind other people’s dogmas as long as these are not imposed on others.
Personally, I thrive in doubt. I like complexities and don’t mind contradictions because this is life. Life goes beyond categories. This, I believe, is what it means to be liberal: to continuously challenge oneself and one’s understanding of the world and morality. Liberal theology has no dogmas and liberal science has no forgone conclusions. Of this mysterious world the dogmatic mind most resents its poetry and contradictory truths that cannot be categorised and labelled. Let’s hope this new revolution will not be dominated by dogmatic minds. Let's hope they will not succeed in taking away our sense of beauty. For all, then, would be lost.
09 March 2008
The immorality of the death penalty
I’ve recently been in a discussion on capital punishment and here are some reflections on the moral issues surrounding it.
[I therefore will not discuss crime as a whole, its causes and what we should do about it. I would obviously want more to be done to tackle the causes of crime, including corporate crime, and create more opportunities for all.]
I believe capital punishment to be morally wrong. It seems to be the product of an inherently deterministic approach to life, be it socio-economic determinism (societal and economic condition leading to crime) or biological (genetic predisposition).
I believe in free will, the capacity to choose between right and wrong so I cannot accept determinism. Whilst I accept that socio-economic conditions, upbringing, DNA etc. can influence one’s life and lead to certain directions, I believe we can choose how to act, no matter how difficult it might be. Not all people with the same/similar upbringing, who have lived in deprived conditions or who have a tendency towards violence, act violently.
Furthermore, people change over time and gain understanding and responsibility. To sentence people to death implies denying our changing nature. It implies that none of us gain understanding, maturity and deepen our conscience over time.
It seems to suggest that one becomes an adult when turning 18, or even before, and there is no change, no redemption afterwards. Therefore, to kill the killer means depriving the person of the opportunity to change and to repair.
However, I shall consider the contrary opinions. Opposition to the above argument is generally predicated on two main considerations:
1. Retaliation: many supporters of capital punishment argue that the perpetrator of the crime needs to atone his/her crimes by getting the just deserts or an equal punishment. This is Immanuel Kant’s argument based on the principle of equality. For a thorough bashing of it, see Wright.
It is difficult to see the difference between retaliation and vengeance. In the case of capital punishment, retaliation is extreme and therefore the punishment has no other purpose than to punish. If, however, we accept an element of re-education in the punishment of all lesser crimes, we cannot discount such element for very serious ones. Alternatively, one needs to establish what makes ‘serious crimes’ serious? Which yardstick shall we use? If all sentences are simply to punish, it implies that human beings cannot learn anything and change. It fundamentally denies free will.
2. Loss of humanity: according to some, perpetrators of heinous crimes lose their humanity by virtue of committing such crimes. In the words of Thomas Aquinas, the criminal decidit a dignitate humana, ceases to be human, thus to kill him/her is sicut occidere bestiam, like killing an animal.
The idea of loss of humanity is an interesting one although the most contradictory:
1. It potentially negates the idea of free will, which is a key component of our humanity. If the criminal was fully conscious, exercised free will when committing the crime, how can he/she lose it by committing the crime? Do we lose our free will and consciousness when we do something that is wrong? Can we gain it back?
2. Does the criminal lose his/her humanity only by virtue of committing the crime? If so, this implies that social conditioning have no impact on human behaviour. Do they have an impact only on less severe crimes?
3. Was the criminal ‘less human’ before committing the crime due to social or biological conditioning? This leads to pre-crime intervention, be it ‘societal’ (see one of Blair's ideas) or medicalisation (as in A clockwork orange).
4. What crimes lead one to lose one’s humanity? How would these be classified?
5. What is humanity? I assume in this context, humanity is seen as what moves us beyond our ‘lowest’ passions such as hatred, but it is implied rather than explained. It does not address the possibility of us all being deprived of our humanity (through enslavement, for example) although not committing crimes. If, once humanity is lost, it is never re-gained, should the state deprive of freedom those who have lost their humanity through enslavement? Or is it just for those who pose a danger to society?
6. Who would exercise the supreme right and duty to put the criminal to death? The Leviathan comes to mind. Nevertheless, in the Hobbesian social contract, one negotiates away only the minimum rights to ensure peace. How can the right to life be considered a right that can be dispensed of if necessary to maintain the peace?
7. Does killing the perpetrator lead to peace?
I believe that such arguments leave one only with vengeance. What is vengeance?
1. Vengeance is taking satisfaction from the suffering or death of another as repayment for one’s loss and suffering. It’s the lex talionis, often referred to as ‘eye for an eye’. In reality the Talmud is very explicit in showing that eye for an eye shows a restriction on violence moving towards the taking of the value of an eye for the loss of an eye. The penalty is not the equivalence of the crime suffered by the victim.
2. It’s very human, but it can also be seen as brutalising and dehumanising the one who seeks vengeance. Cesare Beccaria argues that it desensitises us from suffering. Beccaria, together with the Verri brothers, was perhaps the first modern criminologist and certainly the most important advocate for the abolition of capital punishment.
3. It doesn’t lead to peace, instead it seems to lead to cleansing.
In conclusion, I believe that those who advocate capital punishment are after something else. They are moved by the primordial need for justice, for purity, which becomes only vengeance. By taking away the humanity of the perpetrator of the crime and thus his/her possibility of redemption, capital punishment symbolises the cleansing of our collective crimes and conscience. According to this logic, those who attack our purity by committing crimes need to be killed just as the sacrificial lamb represents the community’s sins. It is a communal catharsis where the society is cleansed by killing the bogey man. An important element is missing: repentance. The sacrificial lamb does not atone the community unless the community (and the perpetrator of the crime) repents. Some perpetrators might never repent; some of them do enjoy the pain and fear of their victims, but who is this Leviathan who scrutinises the soul and condemns it forever?
death penalty
morality
[I therefore will not discuss crime as a whole, its causes and what we should do about it. I would obviously want more to be done to tackle the causes of crime, including corporate crime, and create more opportunities for all.]
I believe capital punishment to be morally wrong. It seems to be the product of an inherently deterministic approach to life, be it socio-economic determinism (societal and economic condition leading to crime) or biological (genetic predisposition).
I believe in free will, the capacity to choose between right and wrong so I cannot accept determinism. Whilst I accept that socio-economic conditions, upbringing, DNA etc. can influence one’s life and lead to certain directions, I believe we can choose how to act, no matter how difficult it might be. Not all people with the same/similar upbringing, who have lived in deprived conditions or who have a tendency towards violence, act violently.
Furthermore, people change over time and gain understanding and responsibility. To sentence people to death implies denying our changing nature. It implies that none of us gain understanding, maturity and deepen our conscience over time.
It seems to suggest that one becomes an adult when turning 18, or even before, and there is no change, no redemption afterwards. Therefore, to kill the killer means depriving the person of the opportunity to change and to repair.
However, I shall consider the contrary opinions. Opposition to the above argument is generally predicated on two main considerations:
1. Retaliation: many supporters of capital punishment argue that the perpetrator of the crime needs to atone his/her crimes by getting the just deserts or an equal punishment. This is Immanuel Kant’s argument based on the principle of equality. For a thorough bashing of it, see Wright.
It is difficult to see the difference between retaliation and vengeance. In the case of capital punishment, retaliation is extreme and therefore the punishment has no other purpose than to punish. If, however, we accept an element of re-education in the punishment of all lesser crimes, we cannot discount such element for very serious ones. Alternatively, one needs to establish what makes ‘serious crimes’ serious? Which yardstick shall we use? If all sentences are simply to punish, it implies that human beings cannot learn anything and change. It fundamentally denies free will.
2. Loss of humanity: according to some, perpetrators of heinous crimes lose their humanity by virtue of committing such crimes. In the words of Thomas Aquinas, the criminal decidit a dignitate humana, ceases to be human, thus to kill him/her is sicut occidere bestiam, like killing an animal.
The idea of loss of humanity is an interesting one although the most contradictory:
1. It potentially negates the idea of free will, which is a key component of our humanity. If the criminal was fully conscious, exercised free will when committing the crime, how can he/she lose it by committing the crime? Do we lose our free will and consciousness when we do something that is wrong? Can we gain it back?
2. Does the criminal lose his/her humanity only by virtue of committing the crime? If so, this implies that social conditioning have no impact on human behaviour. Do they have an impact only on less severe crimes?
3. Was the criminal ‘less human’ before committing the crime due to social or biological conditioning? This leads to pre-crime intervention, be it ‘societal’ (see one of Blair's ideas) or medicalisation (as in A clockwork orange).
4. What crimes lead one to lose one’s humanity? How would these be classified?
5. What is humanity? I assume in this context, humanity is seen as what moves us beyond our ‘lowest’ passions such as hatred, but it is implied rather than explained. It does not address the possibility of us all being deprived of our humanity (through enslavement, for example) although not committing crimes. If, once humanity is lost, it is never re-gained, should the state deprive of freedom those who have lost their humanity through enslavement? Or is it just for those who pose a danger to society?
6. Who would exercise the supreme right and duty to put the criminal to death? The Leviathan comes to mind. Nevertheless, in the Hobbesian social contract, one negotiates away only the minimum rights to ensure peace. How can the right to life be considered a right that can be dispensed of if necessary to maintain the peace?
7. Does killing the perpetrator lead to peace?
I believe that such arguments leave one only with vengeance. What is vengeance?
1. Vengeance is taking satisfaction from the suffering or death of another as repayment for one’s loss and suffering. It’s the lex talionis, often referred to as ‘eye for an eye’. In reality the Talmud is very explicit in showing that eye for an eye shows a restriction on violence moving towards the taking of the value of an eye for the loss of an eye. The penalty is not the equivalence of the crime suffered by the victim.
2. It’s very human, but it can also be seen as brutalising and dehumanising the one who seeks vengeance. Cesare Beccaria argues that it desensitises us from suffering. Beccaria, together with the Verri brothers, was perhaps the first modern criminologist and certainly the most important advocate for the abolition of capital punishment.
3. It doesn’t lead to peace, instead it seems to lead to cleansing.
In conclusion, I believe that those who advocate capital punishment are after something else. They are moved by the primordial need for justice, for purity, which becomes only vengeance. By taking away the humanity of the perpetrator of the crime and thus his/her possibility of redemption, capital punishment symbolises the cleansing of our collective crimes and conscience. According to this logic, those who attack our purity by committing crimes need to be killed just as the sacrificial lamb represents the community’s sins. It is a communal catharsis where the society is cleansed by killing the bogey man. An important element is missing: repentance. The sacrificial lamb does not atone the community unless the community (and the perpetrator of the crime) repents. Some perpetrators might never repent; some of them do enjoy the pain and fear of their victims, but who is this Leviathan who scrutinises the soul and condemns it forever?
death penalty
morality
06 March 2008
Gerry Adams commends Ian Paisley
Yep! I've never thought I would come across a headline such as this one. There may be many reasons why Adams has commended Paisley, including political strategy. Is the great enemy defeated? However, it's irrelevant. Things are being understood in a different way now, even radicalism is changing. Adams calls Paisley 'a fascinating, gracious man'. He was certainly impressive. The most impressive part, however, was the Northern Ireland where I was lucky enough to work, albeit for a very short period. For many, such as Martin McGuinness, the war is over and they are passionate about delivering good services. This is, ironically, what seems to have led to Paisley's downfall. Have the DUP and Sinn Fein gone too far in cooperating?
I hope the Assembly will not plunged into distrust and divisions. I hope they'll get on with the job of delivering democracy and silence the trouble-making minority that wants failure at all costs.
I hope the Assembly will not plunged into distrust and divisions. I hope they'll get on with the job of delivering democracy and silence the trouble-making minority that wants failure at all costs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)