Well, following what has been described as a ‘humiliating’ defeat for Cameron over his proposal to use military intervention against the Syrian administration due to their use of chemical weapons, should we perhaps take this opportunity to review the morals/ethics associated with such actions.
For a moment, if we can ignore the ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ position on the use of chemical weapons under any circumstances and maybe just concentrate on the proposals for intervention by such states as UK, USA and France, I sometimes have difficulty in understanding why there is a belief that these states have the right or ‘obligation’ as they sometimes put it to intervene at all.
While the use of such weapons under any circumstances is abhorrent to me, do the UK, USA, France etc etc etc have any right to intervene in any way, let alone in a military manner that by definition, will cause more death and suffering, albeit in a more selective and ‘honourable’ way?
Do these other states have the moral high ground in these situations bearing in mind their own aggressive, colonial pasts?
The UN is purported to be the supreme arbitor in these matters, yet is again shown to be toothless and influenced, if not dependent upon, the internal and opposing political stances of the members to each other, largely ignoring the actual issue in question.
Before any voting had taken place I could easily have predicted that Russia and China would support the Assad regime and UK/USA would support the ‘rebels’. Or is UK supporting the USA and Russia and China simply taking an eternal opposition to UK/USA position, forgetting any analysis of the Syrian conflict in the meantime.
On a smaller scale, could the same be said about Labour’s opposition to the Tory position in the UK?
Morally we have a right or even a requirement to be outraged that such horrendous weapons can be unleashed upon the citizens of a country by that country’s ruling cadre.
Ethically I have difficulty condoning slaughter of any kind as a response to slaughter, particularly by countries with no real legal right to do so.
A difficult one that I’m sure we’ll hear more of in the coming days/weeks.
Further to my views on the dynamics and practicalities of modern demographic deployment – Are there a set of ‘Rules’ for immigration and or emigration that could satisfy the criteria of both the home nation of the emigree AND the proposed new host nation?
(I am, at least on this occasion ignoring political asylum issues and looking at relocation by choice).
Currently, there probably isn’t – at least not to the satisfaction of all involved.
There are elements of propriety and reasonableness, surely, in the USA/Australian/New Zealand model, where potential immigrants are required to swear allegiance to their adopted country and its society. If you are unable to do so, then are you really suited to becoming a citizen or even resident of that country?
I think probably not.
If you are choosing to emigrate to a country in order to improve your prospects, be it in terms of employment, social stability, education, standard of living etc. then surely you should readily assimilate the social criteria of that country in order to contribute in a worthwhile manner to that society.
This does not require that you lose your own identity entirely. It only requires that you adapt the good things of your identity to promote, support and further your development within your adopted country – thereby improving both yourself and the host society as a result of your positive input.
I speak from experience where I emigrated to another country for a period of 5 years though remained firmly and patriotically a Welshman, I quickly learned to speak the mother tongue and accept the slight behavioural changes that were necessary to ‘fit in’ while not losing my individuality. As a result of this approach I found that my hosts were as inquisitive about my home way of life as I was about theirs and we freely discussed both. I found this to be a perfectly normal way of assimilating new societal norms and behaviour while imparting some detail of my homeland, of which I remain extremely proud.
I would not, however suddenly begin to try and forcefully assert my societal norms and behaviour upon my hosts. If I believed that they were the ONLY acceptable behaviour and could/would not accept any deviation therefrom, then I should definitely stayed at home.
I’ll have to think a little more deeply about this and add to the blog later.
For now, that’s it.
SBK The Sophist
So yet again a defenceless child has been abused – starved and beaten to death by monsters masquerading as human beings (parents even).
An outraged judge has sentenced the pair, Mariusz Krezolek and Magdelena Luczak to 30 years imprisonment.
Sorry, not impressed they should die!!
Yet again it is obvious that the people who are employed to protect the well-being of defenceless children like Daniel failed miserably in the most basic of their job functions – TO PROTECT.
In my opinion, ALL the school teachers, the headmistress, the social workers who were involved in this case failed in their duties to a criminal extent and deserve initially to be placed in jail for gross criminal negligence and to be stripped of any qualifications or professional standing they may have, so that when they get out of prison they will never ever be allowed to fail a child as dismally as they did Daniel.
Equally, why was this ***hole Krezolek allowed to stay in this counry despite committing offence after offence. The criminal ‘Justice’ system has to carry at least some of the blame for this kiddie’s death and should be thoroughly ashamed of what they have allowed to happen as a result of their indifference.
The laws and systems are in place to protect these children it is only the indifference and incompetence pf those discharged with policing and enforcing them that allows this type of atrocity to happen. I hope those involved never enjoy another decent night’s sleep – EVER!
As for the monsters, I’m sure their fellow incarcerates will mete their own form of justice at some stage – I hope!!
SBK The Sophist – (A very angry man currently)