My thoughts on Injustice and fear.

Well! It has taken me quite a while to get this far in writing a new post! My “muse’ had temporarily abandoned me – I experienced what I assume is “writer block”. I know that my one loyal reader will have been very disappointed but during the last month or so I have tried to write about any number of topics but stopped after a few paragraphs.

I am not sure if it is age creeping up on me or the fact that it has taken me quite a while to adapt to retirement; to the fact that I had little regularity in my day to day activities; that I had to, as it were, entertain myself. Now I have never been frightened of being alone and I enjoy my own company – as long as I can read, listen to music and can, when so inclined, go out and re-join the world and engage with people. I – we all – need the company of others of our kind to keep our sense of identity and to maintain our humanity but I prefer to choose when I do so.

This talk of people brings up a topic which has always – since I was child – engendered a sense of outrage: injustice. Injustice leads on to fear and these two – fear and injustice - inevitably have corruption as a third “ingredient”. Whether corruption causes injustice and fear or whether fear causes the other two is immaterial. The result is suffering, human grief and pain (emotional and physical) and also, I might add, the same for other sentient beings that inhabit this planet with us.

It is the mental aspect of this suffering that concerns me more than anything else. I mean just imagine the suffering that refugees, the alleged “boat people” suffer, particularly females. They would have lived in a violent society – where ever their “home” may have been. Maybe I should use another word rather than “home” with its connotations of peace and respite – possibly this place should be referred to as “their place of birth”. Whatever, they have suffered and now have an earnest desire to move to a safer place, as would I if the situations were reversed.

I am outraged at the shrill calls for the “boats to be turned back” or for the conditions made so unpleasant – waiting their “turn” in the queue that these unfortunate people would be glad to return to their place of birth. This well documented tactic, to dehumanize prisoners (for that is effect what these refugees become) then blame the victims for their sorry condition is unworthy of a country like Australia. These tactics were used by the Nazis, by Stalinist Russia and are still used by the Chinese, North Koreans, the Americans (see Guantanamo Bay Prison) and I am sure there are others that I cannot recall at the moment.

For God’s sake Australia was founded upon the inhuman and degrading policy of transportation of prisoners from England! This current “victim blame” is abuse pure and simple. 

At the very least Australia is in breach of the Declaration of Human Rights (see the following Articles of the Declaration):

Article 9

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 14

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

These refugees having suffered sufficiently to force them to find a safe haven (Australia) then suffer a horrendous and dangerous journey only to be intercepted by Australian Customs or Border Patrol Authorities and then transported to either Christmas Island,  Manus Island or Narau for “processing”. This process can take years.

Such a process is not only degrading, it is unjust (see Declaration of Human Rights Articles above), it may cause fear and abuse of process – corruption.

Treat these unfortunate people as human being in distress and need of succour. There is no alternative to treating people the way you would like to be treated in similar circumstances.  

Injustice and conflict never end – why?

Injustice will never end because there will always be people who consider themselves better than others, or different, or they will somehow justify their actions by believing they have a special need that no one else could conceivably have. Possibly more pervasive is the “belief” that a particular gender, skin colour or religious persuasion gives a “right” to persecute or denigrate those not of that gender, that skin colour or not of that religious persuasion.

This type of “injustice” happens everywhere. Take for example Israel’s flouting international law and ignoring United Nations requests for them to stop their annexation of Palestine, by stealth, with their continued building of new Jewish settlements in occupied lands. (I choose to mention Israel as their apparently intractable difference with the Palestinians affects us all and Israel is a topical issue in Australia at the moment vide “Prisoner X” and the apparent injustice of this incident).

The differences (at least in the Middle East), and the injustice, appear to stem from a strict adherence, by their followers, to the required observances written in two books – the Old Testament - the Jewish Torah, and the Koran – the book of Islam, and to the sacredness or otherwise of the land now claimed by both Israelis and the Palestinians.   

If the situation was reversed I am sure that Israelis would defend by every means at their disposal their “right” to claim what "should" be theirs. But they deny the Palestinians that very “right”.

There are always two sides to every story, as the saying goes, and the Palestinians are not blameless in this. They apparently object to a Jewish presence in their “homeland”. All this may be relevant and true but it is important to go behind the need (if that is the correct word) for injustice, whomsoever the perpetrator and wherever it takes place.

All humans are diminished – the human family is diminished - by injustice. In this regard it seems almost impossible for humans generally to accept the fact that we need each other; that we cannot live in total isolation; that our “needs”, our desires and wishes are much the same as those of everyone else.

In other words we need to observe the “Golden Rule” - to treat others as we would like to be treated. ALL religions, ALL moral teachings and ethical concepts have the “Golden Rule” as the cornerstone and principle for ALL effective human relationships.

For those who believe in the importance of “differences” this may be an unpleasant idea and difficult to accept. It is important, however, for them to realise that theirs is an intellectual resistance to Nature which seems to demand that mankind include others in their schemes lest their selfish desires lead to general chaos and destruction. But even with Nature’s inner demand and all the centuries of ethical and moral teachings it is patently evident that mankind (to paraphrase Jung) “has only very imperfectly learned that it is in his own interest to consider his neighbour and that it is impossible for him to ignore the needs of the body social of which he is a part”.

It is necessary to remember that conflict (more often than not the result of some injustice) can never be resolved at the level at which was created – at that level there can only be winners and losers – not reconciliation. Resolution and reconciliation needs a greater understanding of human nature and a higher level of awareness and education.

Resorting to laws, rules and regulations or ancient texts (however sacred) with the same mindset that held at the onset of the conflict (or the injustice) will not resolve anything.

Written on the gravestone of Paul Robeson (African American singer April 9, 1898 – Jan 26, 1976): “The artist must elect to fight for freedom or slavery. I have made my choice. I had no alternative.”

This is why without real education for all (not just “book learning”) we face the rather depressing idea that injustice will never end.

New Beginings

While recently moving house and “binning” unwanted stuff I came across an old wallet of mine in the back of a drawer. I checked to see if I had left anything in it – there was nothing except a fortune cookie from some long forgotten Christmas past. It read as follows:-

“You will enjoy good health – that will be your form of wealth”.

I was rather taken aback at having this thrown in my face, as it were. It is true that I am fortunate in that I do enjoy good health and I certainly appreciate the fact that no amount of money can “buy” good health but I was surprised to have this presented to me in this manner. It was the last thing I expected but then Nature, at the time and place of its choosing, has its own way of reminding us of important facts.

This last fact – that Nature has its own way of presenting things - led me to reflect on what Al Ghazali said (he was a Muslim jurist, theologian and mystic born in Iran and who lived 1058-1111 CE) - we can learn from everyone!!:

“Punishment is the natural working out of consequences, and not an arbitrary infliction imposed ab extra.”

From this statement, by a somewhat circuitous route, I arrived at a point where I was thinking about current events in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria (Al Ghazali spent some time in Damascus). If punishment is the result of consequences - the natural flow of events from cause to effect - then the suffering being experienced by the peoples of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria (and by extension many of the Allied military) would be, logically, the result of some previous circumstance or circumstances (the cause).

If we examine Afghanistan for example we find that, certainly in recent times, they have had the beliefs and wishes of others imposed on them – first the Russians and now the Americans and their allies.

The Russian incursion into Afghanistan lasted nine years from December 1979 to February 1989. As part of the Cold War (the West vs Soviet Russia) the conflict between Soviet led Afghan troops fighting multi-national insurgent groups (predominantly Muslim but US aided) known as the mujahideen was very violent.

The mujahideen won and the Russians were forced out in 1989.

Now for the Americans and their allies (including Australia) the Taliban are the “enemy” in Afghanistan – but both the mujahedeen and the Taliban had their origins in the original Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and are indirect creations of the US from their attempts to weaken the Soviets during the Cold War.

Also, indirectly, it has been alleged that the early foundations of al-Qaeda stem, at least in part, from the relationships, the weaponry and the billions in US aid that was given to support the mujahedeen in their fight to expel the Soviets.

The Afghan people are a tough and independent lot – they resent any incursion by anyone.

What goes around comes around!

Then there is Iraq. I know the Saddam Hussein was a very unpleasant character but he unified and modernised Iraqi society and facilitated the education of millions of Iraqis (both male and female) to such an extent that he was even given an award by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Everything worked, people had food, employment and a level of social services that were unprecedented among Middle Eastern countries in what was an (admittedly enforced) secular country.

Now it is a disaster. Iraq is a mess of sectarian violence. Tens of thousands of Iraqis died as did thousands of Americans and their allies in the invasion of that country. For what? Bombs and general shootings are still killing hundreds of these unfortunate people. And to make matters worse previously reliable electricity and water services are now somewhat problematic and the previously excellent social services are virtually non-existent and there is high unemployment. Also it is not a “Democracy” such as would be approved by the “West”.

Syria is something else again. The current civil war (upward of 40 000 have died and millions have fled their homes) appears to be an extension of the “Arab spring” movement but would seem to have been high-jacked by the “Muslim Brotherhood” which had its origins in Egypt and others apparently affiliated to Muslim extremists and al-Qaeda.

All indications are that Syria will end up as a fragmented failed state despite the efforts of other Arab countries and the “West” who are desperately trying to prevent this.

America and the West cannot hope to impose anything resembling the Western Ideal of Democracy in the Middle East if the peoples concerned are not prepared to embrace it. If they do embrace Democracy it may be a version, a local somewhat altered version, a cherry-picked version. It will be, however, what they choose. Let it be – it will be a “grass roots” from the bottom up movement to allow the local populace a voice in running their country.  It cannot and will not be something imposed by outsiders (and non-Muslims at that).

The West, by trying to interfere in the internal affairs of these countries (something the West would never accept if the roles were reversed) has started a sequence of events that it has no power to control. If the West does not like the results – the consequences – of its interference then the West must look to itself.

As Al-Ghazali said (see my quote above) “Punishment is the natural working out of consequences, and not an arbitrary infliction imposed ab extra.”

The Arabs are not children. They will sort themselves out.  They are an intelligent people some of whom have been caught up in a quasi-religious, quasi-political ideology and, combined with a distorted view of history, are trying to impose their views and to recreate a long lost “golden age” of Arab achievement to match the West. Their “power” comes from a strict interpretation of the Koran and  application of their version of Islamic Law.

Let them be. Leave well alone. The West must learn to take responsibility for, and accept the consequences, of its actions (good or bad).

Remember what goes around comes around!

The Catholic Church and confessions.

In light of the Royal Commission into child abuse – set up by the Australian Government – it is important for the Catholic Church to accept that the world has moved on. The Catholic Church no longer has the influence it exerted in the middle-ages and the confessional is not what it once was.

The World is now, for better or worse, largely a secular world; a world in which spirituality is waning.

The confessional should be a place, a time, when a person admits to God before a witness that they have “sinned”. This may be satisfactory for them as they will have made their peace with God. But this can never be the end of the story. The “sinner” now has to make their peace with society. And society demands justice; society demands justice that is not only done but seen to be done. This means the courts of law to establish the extent of the “sin” (crime) and the determination of the type and extent of the punishment; this means a punishment according to the law as determined by the society in which the “sin” was committed; this means doing “time” or paying a penalty of some kind.

This is Justice.

Now, to have a clergyman, however exalted, say that a confession is inviolable and above the law of the land is plain wrong. It may be sacred (according to the Catholic Church) in the “eyes of God” but people, both perpetrators and victims live in the world; people suffer and will seek redress of some kind. For the Catholic clergy to hide behind the “sanctity” of the confessional and therefore ignore the plight of the victim(s) will not work today.

This is not justice.

If a clergyman – or any person for that matter – is guilty of child abuse of any kind they need to be tried in the courts – they need to pay the penalty.   

This is justice.

Comparing the USA and Buridan’s ass (donkey).

Buridan's ass refers to a hypothetical situation wherein an ass (a donkey) that is equally hungry and thirsty is placed precisely midway between a bale of hay and a bucket of water. Since the paradox assumes the donkey will always go to whichever is closer, it will die of both hunger and thirst since it cannot make any rational decision to choose one over the other. The paradox is named after the 14th century French philosopher Jean Buridan. A variation of the paradox substitutes the hay and water with two identical piles of hay; the donkey, now unable to choose between the two, dies of hunger.

Compare and consider the following:-

The US economy: the US congress cannot collectively decide whether to reduce the country’s level of debt by raising taxes on the very wealthy or by cutting the cost of welfare that will harm the less wealthy and under-privileged – so it does nothing and the level of debt continues to increase!

US gun control: the US congress cannot (or will not) collectively decide to reduce access to high-powered weapons. One side refuses point blank (excuse the pun) to contemplate ANY regulation or law that limits gun ownership. The other wants significant restrictions placed on gun ownership. Therefore collectively they do nothing – and people continue to die from gun related violence!

I believe that the US Congress is in the position of Buridan’s donkey – the congressmen and women cannot make up their collective mind between doing what is best for the country of America or doing what is best for them to preserve their positions in the congress. They are precisely in the middle between these two positions - so they do nothing.

It is to be hoped, sincerely, that intelligent people can and will make statesman like decisions to do the best for all concerned.  I believe the rest of the world finds it hard to believe that the (self- appointed) leading country in the world – it has the most powerful economy in the world and presumes to hold the moral high ground – cannot get its own house (of congress) in order.

So nothing is done and the level of debt increase and people continue to get shot – talk of Buridan’s donkey or ass (if you prefer)!!