-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
I probably didn't make myself as clear as I should have. I understand your comment about muslims in the west. What I meant was how does that explain about terrorist activities in muslim countries, against fellow countrymen/women in particular. I actually wasn't thinking about Iraq in particular. More along the lines of people such as bin laden, from a wealthy family, didn't want for anything etc. And terrorist activities in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Indonesia, Philipines etc. Just trying to find a reason for this and the only reason I can see is that they are pushing their own brand of 'religion' onto others. To me, all other excuses are a smokescreen.Ready said:
I agree that everyone should be able to tell the difference between muslim and muslim extremism. As for muslims being singled out by police because of there faith, I can't see that. Yes, some muslims are being singled but if muslim extremists are committing crimes (or planning or threatening), wouldn't it make sense to question muslims instead of say a hindu or christian? I'm not saying it's right to continually harrass innocent muslims but if a particular section of our society threatens our wellbeing, then that should be who the police look at. To me, most of the harrassment against muslims, is caused by idiots who just want to cause trouble, they should have the book thrown at them as well.
Loving this thread. Keep up the good work PREnders! :clap
I am curious as to why this thread appears to be dominated by those with left-leaning opinions. Are the righties embarrassed to argue for their flawed ideology? Or... are these politcally opinionated righties non - existent within a working class football club's internet forum? :don't know
I am curious as to why this thread appears to be dominated by those with left-leaning opinions. Are the righties embarrassed to argue for their flawed ideology? Or... are these politcally opinionated righties non - existent within a working class football club's internet forum? :don't know
Am interested to know what people think of the Govt resources being used to try and save Van Nuygen's life.
I'm torn in two. Have had friends die because of heroin and Van had enough for 26,000 doses in a country where he knew the death penalty was the price he'd pay if caught. I think heroin dealers are the scum of the earth, yet maybe Van was a tad too naive to even consider the consequences of his actions.
I can't help but feel for his Mum though and wonder how I'd feel in that situation. I'd want everything done to help save my son's life but deep in my heart I think I'd know that if you take on the laws of another country you also have to be willing to suffer the penalties if caught.
Sad situation. :'(
I'm torn in two. Have had friends die because of heroin and Van had enough for 26,000 doses in a country where he knew the death penalty was the price he'd pay if caught. I think heroin dealers are the scum of the earth, yet maybe Van was a tad too naive to even consider the consequences of his actions.
I can't help but feel for his Mum though and wonder how I'd feel in that situation. I'd want everything done to help save my son's life but deep in my heart I think I'd know that if you take on the laws of another country you also have to be willing to suffer the penalties if caught.
Sad situation. :'(
Will preface my remarks by saying that, halfway through my last year, a bloke I went to school with died of a heroin overdose. He'd already dropped out by that stage and everyone knew what was going on, but when I saw him two days before the end it came as a complete shock. He was a walking corpse. Yes, heroin dealers are the scum of the earth.
However.
Let's leave aside any conjecture about Nguyen's motives in this case. He committed a serious offence and deserves to be punished by the law -- by spending an awfully long time in jail. It is indisputable that Nguyen's actions had the potential to cause the deaths of many people. But how anyone's interests are served by the deliberate taking of a human life, the conduct of a killing in the name of vengeance, is unfathomable.
Anyone in any doubt over this should read George Orwell's 1931 essay, 'A Hanging' (in which we never learn the offence the condemned man committed). In its course, the hanging party are walking to the gallows:
"This man was not dying, he was alive just as we were alive. All the organs of his body were working -- bowels digesting food, skin renewing itself, nails growing, tissues forming -- all toiling away in solemn foolery."
This is the crux of the issue. The state is intervening and taking from Nguyen all he has left -- his life. "That which is most precious to him," to borrow from Camus. Death comes as an inevitability, via an accident, through bad luck or as the consequence of poor judgement. But let's not beat about the bush: to kill an otherwise healthy, functioning human being amounts to murder and nothing else.
Some will take a religious angle to the argument, and will say that the condemned prisoner will be judged before God. This ignores the fact that they will be judged before God and their conscience, in their own mind, throughout the course of a lengthy imprisonment. And there is a profound difference between forcing someone to spend the vast majority of their life, perhaps its entire remainder, without freedom, and extinguishing it by deliberate action.
Take a hypothetical case where arguments over the levels of greed, or foolishness, or any other motive you care to name, are redundant because of the heinous nature of the crime. The murder of a child, say. The offender embodies evil in its most shocking and confronting form. By sentencing them to life in prison, perhaps we inflict on them fifty years of the constant torment of remorse. If so, good. If not, and they remain unrepentant, at least we can say this: that although you committed a crime against all of us as a society, we did not for a moment consider emulating your actions. This should let you know what we think of you, and we will let you know it for as long as you live.
I urge everyone to read 'A Hanging'. It draws awareness to the brutal nonchalance with which the state can destroy a human life. We are all alive and sometimes need to be reminded of the fact. Whatever your religious belief, for the moment at least it is the one thing you have that no-one should ever be able to take from you. No matter what you do, no matter how monstrous your actions, no matter how much the rest of us despise you. It is incontrovertibly yours.
It may be perfectly legal for Singapore to kill Nguyen Tuong Van, but is is morally wrong.
However.
Let's leave aside any conjecture about Nguyen's motives in this case. He committed a serious offence and deserves to be punished by the law -- by spending an awfully long time in jail. It is indisputable that Nguyen's actions had the potential to cause the deaths of many people. But how anyone's interests are served by the deliberate taking of a human life, the conduct of a killing in the name of vengeance, is unfathomable.
Anyone in any doubt over this should read George Orwell's 1931 essay, 'A Hanging' (in which we never learn the offence the condemned man committed). In its course, the hanging party are walking to the gallows:
"This man was not dying, he was alive just as we were alive. All the organs of his body were working -- bowels digesting food, skin renewing itself, nails growing, tissues forming -- all toiling away in solemn foolery."
This is the crux of the issue. The state is intervening and taking from Nguyen all he has left -- his life. "That which is most precious to him," to borrow from Camus. Death comes as an inevitability, via an accident, through bad luck or as the consequence of poor judgement. But let's not beat about the bush: to kill an otherwise healthy, functioning human being amounts to murder and nothing else.
Some will take a religious angle to the argument, and will say that the condemned prisoner will be judged before God. This ignores the fact that they will be judged before God and their conscience, in their own mind, throughout the course of a lengthy imprisonment. And there is a profound difference between forcing someone to spend the vast majority of their life, perhaps its entire remainder, without freedom, and extinguishing it by deliberate action.
Take a hypothetical case where arguments over the levels of greed, or foolishness, or any other motive you care to name, are redundant because of the heinous nature of the crime. The murder of a child, say. The offender embodies evil in its most shocking and confronting form. By sentencing them to life in prison, perhaps we inflict on them fifty years of the constant torment of remorse. If so, good. If not, and they remain unrepentant, at least we can say this: that although you committed a crime against all of us as a society, we did not for a moment consider emulating your actions. This should let you know what we think of you, and we will let you know it for as long as you live.
I urge everyone to read 'A Hanging'. It draws awareness to the brutal nonchalance with which the state can destroy a human life. We are all alive and sometimes need to be reminded of the fact. Whatever your religious belief, for the moment at least it is the one thing you have that no-one should ever be able to take from you. No matter what you do, no matter how monstrous your actions, no matter how much the rest of us despise you. It is incontrovertibly yours.
It may be perfectly legal for Singapore to kill Nguyen Tuong Van, but is is morally wrong.
'A Hanging', by George Orwell. First published in Adelphi, August 1931.
http://orwell.ru/library/articles/hanging/english/e_hanging.html
http://orwell.ru/library/articles/hanging/english/e_hanging.html
Thanks Ready. I agree with what you've so elouquently put. The trouble is what's morally wrong to us is acceptable in Singapore.
I'm in two minds about the Government intervention. I don't think they can sit there and do nothing but it must be costing taxpayers a lot of money.
As with the Shapelle case I wonder if there would be as much attention and action if the story wasn't so media friendly.
If it was a down and out junkie trying to finance his habit and with no family to plead through the media I wonder if the govt would be doing as much as it is for Van.
I hope they can save his life and the death penalty is finally abolished worldwide.
I'm in two minds about the Government intervention. I don't think they can sit there and do nothing but it must be costing taxpayers a lot of money.
As with the Shapelle case I wonder if there would be as much attention and action if the story wasn't so media friendly.
If it was a down and out junkie trying to finance his habit and with no family to plead through the media I wonder if the govt would be doing as much as it is for Van.
I hope they can save his life and the death penalty is finally abolished worldwide.
Public money is irrelevant in this case. This is not some capital works project where there are arguments as to its necessity. Similarly, it costs the Singapore government a lot less to string Nguyen up than to assume the cost of his upkeep for thirty years. Here principle overrides financial considerations.
If the Aust Government hadn't intervened then I expect the whole race debate would have arisen, particularly in light of the attention (media & government) given to Shappelle. Its a tricky one, but doesn't change the fact that he's going to hang and I'm sure the Government have known that all along despite its perceived efforts. Very sad.
I can't see it as black and white Ready. I have very mixed emotions over this one. The laws of other countries have to be taken into consideration too no matter how barbaric they appear to us. Van deliberately broke those laws, assumingly knowing the penalty.
Sigh....This almost belongs in the too hard basket of my mind.
Sigh....This almost belongs in the too hard basket of my mind.
Well written Ready - hits the nail square on the head.
A couple of points -
Our morals are vastly different to theirs - be they better or worse - who is to judge - suffice to say that their are millions of Asians whose Governments have little or no respect for individual life. A cultural issue borne from many many previous generations.
Next, spending Australian Government money - the money we are paying Public Servants to represent us to the Singapore Government in this matter - would have to be paid anyway - the Public Servant gets paid every fortnight whether he/she was doing this task or others. (Maybe the other regular tasks that they do would be more productive from a whole-of-Australia point of view - but then again who is to say defending the rights of a countryman is not good for all of us?) The cost of flights etc. are minimal compared to the whole scheme of Government Expenditure.
Lastly - why the press and the Government are making noise over this issue compared to the David Nicks fiasco is beyond me. Yes Nguyen is sentenced to death - but at least he has had a chance in a judicial systems (somewhat flawed due to the control over it by government) Hicks has been kept imprisoned without being charged for years now - that is against the very foundation of our individual rights. If it was North Korea or China that was doing this to Hicks we would all be screaming foul play!
I hope and pray that there is an 11th hour reprieve for young Nguyen and that Asian governments begin to realise the enormous value of the individual.
I hope David Hicks gets freed and sues the American and Australian governments for the attrocities they have done to him.....cheers RT
A couple of points -
Our morals are vastly different to theirs - be they better or worse - who is to judge - suffice to say that their are millions of Asians whose Governments have little or no respect for individual life. A cultural issue borne from many many previous generations.
Next, spending Australian Government money - the money we are paying Public Servants to represent us to the Singapore Government in this matter - would have to be paid anyway - the Public Servant gets paid every fortnight whether he/she was doing this task or others. (Maybe the other regular tasks that they do would be more productive from a whole-of-Australia point of view - but then again who is to say defending the rights of a countryman is not good for all of us?) The cost of flights etc. are minimal compared to the whole scheme of Government Expenditure.
Lastly - why the press and the Government are making noise over this issue compared to the David Nicks fiasco is beyond me. Yes Nguyen is sentenced to death - but at least he has had a chance in a judicial systems (somewhat flawed due to the control over it by government) Hicks has been kept imprisoned without being charged for years now - that is against the very foundation of our individual rights. If it was North Korea or China that was doing this to Hicks we would all be screaming foul play!
I hope and pray that there is an 11th hour reprieve for young Nguyen and that Asian governments begin to realise the enormous value of the individual.
I hope David Hicks gets freed and sues the American and Australian governments for the attrocities they have done to him.....cheers RT
This one is getting so much media time because its getting to the pointy end. Hicks has been in Guantanamo for four years now and the progression of his case has been painfully slow. It has been left to his father and lawyers to put it back in the public consciousness from time to time. Newspapers can't print "David Hicks still locked up" every day. He should have been extradited back here straight away. If the US wanted to question him, then by all means send some agents to Australia and we'll be happy to supervise so we can guarantee his rights. Now we're still going around in circles with no end in sight and no-one from either government can back down or they'll lose face.
The death penalty in Singapore is left over from British rule, the Singaporean govt are merely making use of an outmoded law.
Like they are doing business with and propping up through their money a regime in Burma that uses the drug trade to fund it's anti democracy stance.
Great posts Ready and Remote. :clap :clap
Like they are doing business with and propping up through their money a regime in Burma that uses the drug trade to fund it's anti democracy stance.
Great posts Ready and Remote. :clap :clap
nitrotiger
" lets play like the tigers of old ! "
Flamin Bracksy,s a pussycat supporter,isnt he?Im gonna have him sorted when >
I get down there.......
I get down there.......
Gee the Biff can't keep out of trouble. I understand his annoyance at having a camera focussing on him when he's on a private outing with his kids and I think it would take enormous restraint to ignore in your face photographers in that situation.
I find it very amusing though that despite smashing up a $12,000 war-proof camera he still didn't damage the memory card containing his pics which is now in the custody of police.
Would have been better to just open the camera, if possible, and flush the memory card down the dunny. :rofl
I find it very amusing though that despite smashing up a $12,000 war-proof camera he still didn't damage the memory card containing his pics which is now in the custody of police.
Would have been better to just open the camera, if possible, and flush the memory card down the dunny. :rofl
