From: Brett Paatsch (bpaatsch@bigpond.net.au)
Date: Sat Aug 30 2003 - 00:32:59 MDT
Spike writes:
> There is a woman in Nigeria who may be stoned to death
> for extramarital copulation.
There was an Amnesty International petition I posted to the
list back on August 14. They claimed that a previous petition
had saved another woman from the same fate.
http://www.extropy.org/bbs/index.php?board=67;action=display;threadid=56774
The 27th of August seemed to be a key date according
to the petition organisers. I'm now note the hearing has been
posponed until the 25th of September so folks can still sign it
if they want to do something concrete on a personal basis.
http://www.amnesty.org.au/e-card/petition.asp ]
> If she is, do you suppose the rest of the world will stand idly
> by and let that happen?
I don't think it is useful for us to think in such broad terms as
"the rest of the world". As individuals we have, or can have,
more power than that.
> If we do, will we be able to face ourselves in the mirror?
> Should we not rush in there and topple the "government"
> that would carry out such a reprehensible act?
No Spike "we" shouldn't. Not in my opinion. Not unless we
understand the wider ramifications. The wider ramifications
of usurping the UN and the sovereignty of countries is not
something we should do unless we know what it is that we are
doing.
I do not think the majority of people who "supported" the US
led invasion of Iraq understood what was being given up. Probably
neither did the majority of those (in the world) that opposed it.
We can't triage well unless we can see the costs as well as the
benefits.
I did not think the US should have invaded Iraq against 1441
and the UN because I did not think the end justified the means.
I still don't.
I spent quite a bit of time messing about (or actually I was being
quite serious) trying to find game theoretical solutions to the Iraq
problem as it was unrolling. I thought I found it but I could not
communicate it. The problem in communication was in part
because the issues were complex and peoples emotions were
up, but in large part it was because most folks (including me until
too late) did not have a sufficient understanding of the UN charter
and of the nature of sovereignty to weight the arguments properly.
If we are going to start asking ourselves how we will look at
ourselves in the mirror if we don't take action maybe we also
start asking ourselves how well we appreciate such important
topics as say the US constitution (and the UN charter though
I think the UN charter is pretty much a dead duck now). If we
are not ready, and cannot bring an adult understanding to such
topics then our emotions and prejudices are unlikely to equip
us to do the triaging that is necessary.
Without having a view on international law that has some
coherence, I can't see that one can responsibly advocate either
rushing in against international treaties and the principle of
sovereignty or not doing so.
I think it behoves those who are intellectually, economically
and geographically able to inform themselves of at least the
basic principles of existing international law and of the US
constitution so that they can be better lobbyists and triagers
within the system that currently prevails.
Regards,
Brett
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 30 2003 - 00:45:23 MDT