Lorraine Mallinder, writing in New Statesman (17th February 2017), illustrates a particular case of what is a growing problem.* She tells of Ebrimah Jammeh who like many lost family in the Gambia. He now wants not simply peace and reconciliation but retribution. The likelihood is that he will not get this within Gambia because those who have committed crimes against humanity will be given an amnesty. This is not a problem for Africa; increasingly, it seems, that a free pass is a price paid for a peace agreement. Such a deal formed part of the Good Friday Agreement. The Irish and British states gave amnesty to those who had placed bombs in public, and respectability to their leaders and associates.
A crime against humanity is so called because it is beyond the scope of any state; it is a crime against all of us and for that reason we have international courts. As hideous local deals proliferate it is time that participants were made aware that they cannot absolve or be absolved in the name of humanity. In other words, for the sake of peace a perpetrator may walk free within a state or region but he or she should face justice if ever they leave their sanctuary and that risk should dog them for the rest of their lives. The best that Ebrimah can hope for is that Gambian perpetrators will some day be arrested in the name of humanity in another country.
We have reached that time when there are few Nazi war criminals left to pursue. There is no knowing how many made it quietly to the grave without facing justice. The last of the Nazi hunters are now old and close to packing it in.* Our times, however, are marked by crimes against humanity (Crimes often accurately recorded by improved media.) and it would be terribly wrong to allow the age of the relentless hunter to close and those whose brutality was later than WW2 to relax. The truth is that international hunters are still needed.
Hunting old men and women across the globe affirmed three things.
There are crimes so heinous that i) borders ought not provide refuge for the guilty because wider humanity demands justice; ii) minor participants and supporters are horribly guilty**; and iii) miscreants should be pursued for the rest of their lives.
Let two examples suffice. Under duress and in return for peace, decent people in Ireland and the UK made a pact with mass murderers, their facilitators and supporters. Citizens of other countries face no such duress and they should consider themselves morally bound to seek justice on behalf of humanity.
Secondly, the IDF visited crimes against humanity on the citizens of Gaza. There was international condemnation. Someday when peace comes to the region, the vile talk – made familiar by Sinn Féin and others – about terrible things happening in war will be applied to Gaza. That may suit Israel or even the region generally but humanity is not local and needs its hunters for justice.
Though local deals, agreements and states may provide a sordid refuge, perpetrators of crimes against humanity together with their commanders, facilitators and supporters should – at the very least – fear travel lest they be apprehended and charged in the name of humanity. Moreover, they should know that they will be hunted for the rest of their lives.
I watched last night’s Dispatches doc. on Channel 4 about the dreadful outcomes of close-relative marriages. http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-68/episode-1
It surprised me that such marriages are commonplace in some cultures which have become part of British society. By coincidence this morning I read Samira Shackle’s article “The mosques aren’t working in Bradistan” in New Statesman (20th August 2010) which mentions the problem of first-cousin marriage among Mirpuris and others whose culture values clan loyalty. http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2010/08/bradford-british-pakistan
Other Pakistanis frequently accuse Mirpuris of confusing culture with religion. Stemming from a lack of education, this manifests itself in cultural norms – such as the primacy of honour, or the mistreatment of women – being accorded religious significance. I speak to Khadijah, 18, in an empty playground as she looks after her younger sister. She hopes to enter Bradford University this year. “I can make the distinction between Islam and patriarchal culture,” she says. “But your average lad on the street won’t worry about which bit comes from scripture. It’s loaded in his favour.”
The implication is that norms based in religion should have a higher status than those based in culture. Odd!
Most people will express the need for tolerance towards the religion and customs of others. However, it is very easy to insert the wedge that is genital mutilation. Other barbaric practices can then be used as hammer blows to drive home the wedge. At some point there will be mild resistance. It might be on circumcision or ritual slaughter, perhaps because these are not thought too bad or because they are coming closer to home.
Having lots of nationalities, cultures and religions is great; they bring new tastes, colour, expression and other positives. Religion is interesting when it’s a matter of colourful ritual. Then they go and ruin the fun by wanting to be cruel and nasty. But, we have home grown nastiness too.
Would a majority of people be prepared to say the following?
“I don’t care where you are from or what God says, you are not teaching children that homosexual behaviour is a grave sin or that men and women have different roles, you are not going to cut a child or deny medical treatment and you are not marrying your cousin!”