Intelligence and Ignorance

Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi is free. Causing a bit of a controversy, that. The one man convicted of Britain’s worse terrorist incident, the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, has been freed on compassionate grounds by the Scottish authorities. And pretty much everybody is complaining about it.

I’ve taken a bit of a break from blogging on political issues in the last year or so. There have been many significant political events and controversies over the last twelve months, but I’ve bit my tongue and held my silence. Perhaps I should do that in this case too, or perhaps I’m ready to reengage with my former, ranting, self. Who knows; but I’m diving in here…

As far as I can work it out, the political decision was based on a recommendation by the judicial authorities, by the court and the parole board. There were also some representations from the police about the cost of necessary policing, were Megrahi released into Scotland instead of to Libya. The controversy? The controversy seems to be that the Scottish Justice secretary followed the advice given, and went with the recommendations of the parole board, and granted a compassionate release, because Megrahi is dying of cancer.

The Americans, especially, are rather pissed off. This tends to happen, in cases like this. As far as I can work out, America has a different understanding of “justice” than we do. In that they seem to replace the word with “vengeance” in most cases.

As I’ve said in the past, vengeance and justice are not the same things. It is not legitimate to kill terrorists, because they have killed people. It is not legitimate to deny compassion to a prisoner that we believe did not give compassion to others. The point of the law is to remove the natural desire for retribution, by providing a fair, impartial judgement and handing down a statutory sentence. It is fair because it is impartial and it is impersonal. The decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, and the feelings of the victims, or of the general public, are essentially irrelevant.

If a public minister, such as Kenny MacAskill, changes an impartial decision of justice because of the emotive feelings of the general public (or the equally emotive desires of a foreign government) it fundamentally changes the nature of the justice system. It can’t happen. If it did happen, it would be very, very wrong.

Of course we are appalled by the Lockerbie bombing. Of course we wish the perpetrator brought to justice. We may even feel, very naturally and understandably, a wish for some form of vengeance.

Questions over Megrahi’s guilt aside, there has been justice here: there has been a trial, a conviction and a sentence, a large part of which has been served. Perhaps Megrahi should have died in prison, but compassionate release, on medical grounds, is a right afforded to every prisoner under Scottish law, provided they meet the relevant conditions. Obviously, Megrahi did. To not grant him the release that is his by right, would be fundamentally unjust.

So, the American’s can go whine. I don’t care. Perhaps MacAskill can buy Clinton a dictionary, and helpfully flag the word Justice for her. It is the UK politicians I am appalled by, who seem to have decided, almost unanimously, that the opinions of the Sun and the Daily Mail are more important than actual justice. To them, I have two words:

Grow up.

Its May Day, it’s Fiona Parker’s birthday, and its time for elections!
If you’re in London, you can exercise your democratic rights by voting for the Mayor, the Policeman, or the Blonde Imbecile (not that I’m trying to influence you or anything).

If you live in London and don’t vote today, then you have no right to complain about whatever bad decisions the man in City Hall makes over the next 4 years. Polling stations are open from 7am – 10pm, so you really have no excuse.

Get out there and vote!

So, much in the news this last weekend about Catholic bishops criticising the forthcoming embryology bill… The issue? Mainly that of making human-animal ‘hybrids’; scientists say its good progress, and will help develop useful new treatments; the bishops didn’t like it, one going so far as to call it ‘Frankensteinish’. 

Since then, there has been much too-ing and fro-ing between scientists, clergy and politicians on this issue. [Some key quotes can be found here.] This is a thorny issue and I don’t want to go in to it too much, because I have neither the time nor the ability to treat it with the care it deserves. What I do want to comment on is the fundamental difference in perspective between the bishops and the scientists, which was touched on by the Today programme this morning, and can’t be over-emphasised.

When a scientist in this field looks down their microscope at the small bundle of cells they are working on, they see a small bundle of cells. These are the Lego-bricks of life, but grouped together in too small a bunch to actually build anything. To the scientist these amazing micro machines are of great interest, even wonder, but the difference between a small bundle of cells (with no opportunity of implantation) and a human being is immense.

For many people of a religious persuasion (and in fact, for many non-religious people of non-scientific backgrounds), when they look down the microscope at the same bundle of cells they see something similar, and yet profoundly different. They look at the same cells with the same wonder and interest, but see something more: they see life, or at least the potential to become life. That potential is in itself something sacred, something of great mystery. Whether those few cells constitute life or not may be up for debate, but if those few cells were implanted in a womb they could continue to grow and divide and develop and become something wholly more wondrous.

For many people of a religious persuasion, the idea of experimenting on these cells is already a controversial, to some even immoral, one. This is especially true when the cells in question are of human origin; especially human embryonic origin. How can we treat as mere mechanisms the very cells from which we all began? Those that in a different context could well become another person like ourselves?

The suggestions in the bill coming before parliament take this already-thorny issue much further, by legislating the provision of creating chimera from the fusion of human adult cells and animal (probably bovine) eggs.

To the scientist, these chimera are merely useful alternative mechanisms on which to test their theories. An egg, stripped of its DNA is to them simply a vessel in which the mechanics of the human cell can function; the blank framework in which to mount the cogs. The resultant ‘cell’ is to them no different from the other cells on which they work, because all these cells they see down their microscopes are the same Lego bricks, the same clockwork contraptions.

I wonder if the scientists are actually able to understand the opposition from the Catholic bishops and others? Most of the reporting I have heard over the weekend suggests that those questioned simply think the issue is of a lack of appropriate education on the part of the bishops: if the science was only properly explained to them then they couldn’t possibly object so vociferously…

To me, this shows a fundamental inability to grasp the basis of the disagreement. I really don’t believe that those bishops that have spoken out have failed to understand the situation. I think they understand the science perfectly (or at least, as perfectly as any laymen can). It seems to me that it is those scientists that have been in the news that have the lack of understanding, because they have quite evidently failed to comprehend the basis of their opponents position.

If you look at a bundle of cells down a microscope and see them as devoid of life (in a meaningful, rather than technical sense), then there are going to be few manipulations of those cells that you would object to on a moral basis. In fact, it would be quite hard for you to connect that small bundle of cells with the concept of morals at all. If you look down that microscope and see something greater than the sum of the parts, see some however-distant reflection of yourself, then you are going to believe quite strongly that there needs to be a moral basis to working with such cells; that there are possible manipulations that should not be permitted.

While there have been many in the news who have criticised the bishops position, it is the voices of the scientists that I have heard that I feel I must criticise. Gentlemen, please lift your gaze up from your microscopes, rub your eyes, and try and understand the world around you. There are many, religious and non, in our society who have great qualms with the work that you do, because they fail to separate themselves from the small bundles of cells you work with as fully as you do. Please try to understand that, before you dismiss the objections of your detractors.

Words are important: in so many forms of modern human communication, they are all we have to convey meaning to each other. Yet too often, in the hands of politicians and the media words and phrases that have very specific meanings are twisted or diminished, almost to the point of becoming meaningless.

I have been appalled to hear how, in the last few days, the words ‘ethnic cleansing’ have been used by US and UN officials to describe the current unrest in Kenya. In my mind this is a clear degradation of meaning by people simply trying to attract media attention. People who should know better.

The current unrest in Kenya is of grave concern, and in writing this post I in no way want to diminish the seriousness of events in that country. We have been following events closely at work, keeping track of friends and colleagues working with our partner Church there. The violence in Kenya is serious and it is tribal; but it is also sporadic and localised; by no means is the whole country affected (at this stage).

The term ‘ethnic cleansing’ however, has a very specific meaning. It describes a deliberate and systematic attempt to completely wipe out a specific people group.
The Cambridge Dictionaries define the term as:

“the organized attempt by one racial or political group to completely remove from a country or area anyone who belongs to another particular racial group, using violence and often murder to achieve this”

Merriam-Webster defines it as:

“the expulsion, imprisonment, or killing of an ethnic minority by a dominant majority in order to achieve ethnic homogeneity”

 What we are seeing in Kenya at the moment is profound inter-tribal violence, and the displacement of people because of this violence. This is disturbing and a profound tragedy. The current violence is however pitching Kikuyu against Luo and Kalenjin; tribes fighting against each other. No one tribe is on top. As severe as it is, it cannot be described as ethnic cleansing: it is not systematic or deliberate.

To use such a loaded, specific term inappropriately is to see it gradually lose it’s meaning. ‘Ethnic cleansing’ was coined as a term to describe one of the most appalling crimes that can be committed, such as that seen in Rwanda in the ‘90’s. Politicians, especially those in the UN, should be careful not to use it inappropriately, either to inflame already serious tensions on the ground, or to diminish the profound seriousness of some of the worst crimes imaginable.

Lets call the current situation in Kenya what it is (shocking, serious, inter-tribal violence), even if that doesn’t produce quite as good headlines.

So after tons and tons of speculation, media hype, and plenty of comment from ministers, it looked by Friday morning that we were certain to have an election in the next month…

…and then Gordon saw the polls.

The press are having a field-day, which they quite deserve. It hasn’t been the political writers driving the speculation of the last couple of weeks, it had been the Labour party. I cannot believe quite how spineless our current Prime Minister seems to be. This is going to do huge damage to his political reputation, proving that he doesn’t have the instinct of his predecessor. And, in my eyes, it shows him as unfit to govern…

…if only the other guy was up to scratch…

This story has saddened me, and is beginning to wind me up.

Learco Chindamo is a young man who, over 12 years ago (at the age of only 15!) made a stupid, stupid mistake to be part of a gang. That gang membership led to a fight outside a school where a brave teacher tried to intervene. Chindamo stabbed him, and he died.

The death of Philip Lawrence was incredibly shocking at the time. It was one of those cases that ‘fits’ the media/political temperament of the moment, and ends up with wall-to-wall coverage. I’m still not sure why these things happen, but its something to do with the ‘human interest’ element, and probably also whatever agenda Murdoch is currently pursuing…

I want to make it clear that I think the death of Philip Lawrence was and is a tragedy. Human life is incredibly precious, and to have it snatched away in such a violent manner is a terrible thing. Learco Chindamo was guilty of a crime, and he deserved to pay for that crime. He was caught, charged, tried and found guilty, sentenced and jailed. He has served 12 years in prison. He has done his time.

Only, for some people, this isn’t enough. There is currently some consternation in the UK media, as the Government has just been told that they can’t deport Chindamo as they had hoped. Born in Italy, but raised in the UK since he was 6, this country is the only one he has known. It is the culture he is immersed in. It is where all of his family and friends reside. Yet we want to send him away, to throw him out of the country of his upbringing, even if its not of his birth.

A Home Office Minister, Tony McNulty has said Chindamo

“had forfeited his rights because of the seriousness of the crime he committed.”

Excuse me?!?

This appals me. It appals me as much, if not more, than the original crime. When did we decide that a crime was so severe that it obliterated the Human rights of the individual?? When did we decide that murderers no longer deserve to be treated as human?

Murder is a heinous crime. It can never be sanctioned or justified, whether by individuals, or tribes, or governments. It is, and always will be, in all circumstances, wrong; both morally and legally. Thankfully the British justice system has always recognised that. The murder of Philip Lawrence was wrong.

There was a price that was to be paid for such a crime, and under the laws of this country Learco Chindamo has paid that price. He has served his time. If he is judged to be rehabilitated, if he is judged repentant, if he is judged to be of no more danger to the community (and we have very well trained people who make these decisions for us), then he should be released back into the community. That is how justice works.

But that isn’t enough here, because Learco Chindamo is not just a criminal. He is not just a murderer. He is a High Profile murderer, of a High Profile victim. Because of this, because Sun readers don’t understand what the word justice means, suddenly all concept of due process, of proportionality of punishment goes out the window. And our Government is so afraid of the Sun and the Daily Mail that they have to posture in such a ridiculous manner.

Learco Chindamo is not a serial killer (or even a cold-blooded killer). He is not a terrorist. He has not been judged a danger to the community. He is a kid who made a stupid mistake, which he probably deeply regrets.

In this country we enshrine in law a concept of retributive justice, not one of vengeance. I cannot believe that it is necessary to destroy the entire life of a young man who made a tragic mistake at the age of only 15. We have already taken away nearly half his young life. Why do we need to take away his family and his home as well?

***

Much has been said in this case, and others like this, about the rights of the victim. I feel the need to emphasise that I do believe that the victim also has rights, also needs to be treated as human; treated with dignity and respect. Frances Lawrence has experienced a terrible loss, one I can barely imagine. I am deeply sorry for her loss, and the continued pain she must feel as this case is dragged back into the media spotlight again.

Yes, victims have rights. Yes, victims feel a terrible sense of loss, and a deep desire for retribution. But ‘vengeance is mine, says the Lord’.

I don’t say that as a pat answer, it really isn’t. Real justice will never be seen in this age. We have to wait for the True, Just judgement of the one true Judge. Until that time, we trust in the law of the land.

Believe it or not, the laws we have in this country are built on the principle that God will judge, but that until that time someone has to stand in between the family of the victim and the accused. Someone has to deflect the desire for vengeance and retribution and instead dispense some form of imperfect justice, some foreshadow of the justice to come. That is what our courts have done.

Frances Lawrence understandably feels much pain and loss and grief. I feel deeply for her. But because of her deep loss, she is the last person to be able to judge impartially on the fate of the young man who so cruelly snatched away the life of her husband. And those tabloid readers who empathise with her so understandably are similarly misplaced.

We are talking about the life of a young man. One who was but a boy when this crime was committed. Lets stop playing politics with peoples lives.