Skip navigation

Tag Archives: whataboutery

When those men went into a Paris workplace and gunned down the staff, they committed a crime against humanity. Yes, in that they reduced human beings to mere messages, they were terrorists but it was also a crime against humanity – an act so vile that no talk of war, blasphemy, recent or ancient wrongs can be allowed into consideration.

Too much of the subsequent discussion focussed on freedom of expression, its defence and its limits in a democracy. Part of the discussion revealed some sympathy if not for the gunmen themselves, then for their perspective. This part was anxious to talk about the level of abuse a well-off elite might be permitted to direct at a minority or to what extent religion might be permitted to put topics beyond public discourse or ridicule. With all this in full spate there was little explicit mention of the chasm between expression and blood soaked flooring but at an intuitive level that seems to have been grasped and made clear in the willingness of people who would never utter an offensive word, to express themselves, “Je suis Charlie!”

In other words, faced with a crime against humanity, decent people were prepared to side with vulgarity, insult and profanity. It may not be discussed very often but the majority of people know that there are transgressions so heinous as to offend humanity, so heinous as to exclude nationality, race, religion, conflict and even war from consideration.

Robert Fisk wrote that he knew from the outset that Algeria would figure in this atrocity.* However, he called it for what it was, a crime against humanity, a crime beyond justification but linked to the Franco Algerian War of the 50s and 60s and the Algerian civil war of the 80s. While he emphasises the struggle with imperialism, he reminds the reader that those years were marked by crimes against humanity including the French bombardment of villages. Many of the perpetrators and their associates are likely still living and not on anyone’s wanted list.

There’s been a considerable amount of “whataboutery” too from those either supportive of the murderers in France or anxious to characterise media and people in the developed west as selective in their condemnation. While this is a familiar tactic of those anxious to spread the blame, make light of the offence by pointing to something worse or undermine the hunt for perpetrators and their accomplices, it does highlight something that needs to be addressed.

Many crimes against humanity are not covered by world media. That does not mean, however, that humanity has no interest in pursuing the guilty. What it does is point to the need for an international institution to which a citizen of any country can bring for investigation a crime against humanity.

Far too often the victims of crimes against humanity are forced back into festering resentment in local identity or religion. This will be their only course unless humanity can intervene to make it clear that the crime was against every living, breathing person and that the perpetrators, their commanders and supporters will be hunted for the rest of their lives. They may be protected within their country or by a peace agreement but humanity – as represented by the wider world – wants them in the dock and when possible will have them arrested.

______________________________________________________________________________________________
* http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/charlie-hebdo-paris-attack-brothers-campaign-of-terror-can-be-traced-back-to-algeria-in-1954-9969184.html?origin=internalSearch

Advertisements

Almost everyone – indeed probably everyone without exception – would regard an attack on civilians as gravely wrong. Most would consider it a crime against humanity. In the course of a war it is certainly a war crime. In Gaza the IDF has made attacks on civilians a routine occurrence. Clearly they believe that while they may face moral condemnation, they will never be brought to book for their crimes.

The IDF argue that Hamas launch rockets at civilians in Israel and that the launch sites are positioned to take advantage of human shields. According to the IDF this means that there is no option but to target civilians. They sometimes give warnings, telling civilians to leave or risk attack.

Let’s dispose of this argument in the simple terms it deserves. Should a maniac take over a house opposite yours and begin to fire on your house and family, as long as you are sure that the family opposite had left it would be reasonable to expect the authorities to deal with the situation. If that meant blowing the house to bits, then so be it. If, however, the family opposite were still inside, you’d be fully aware that your own family would have to take cover and wait until the authorities found a way of dealing with the gunman without injuring the family opposite. The situation in Gaza is basically similar.

Israel would appear to have a reliable defensive shield against rocket attack; few if any get through. There is therefore no need for spectacular, destructive counter attacks. Of course rocket attacks on civilians cannot be tolerated but until such time as the attackers can be neutralised without killing their human shields*, Israeli citizens will have to endure, relying on cover and the IDF’s defensive shield.

Ridiculous calls have appeared on-line for the state of Israel to be tried for crimes against humanity.** There is some improvement in calling for the Israeli prime minister to be charged. Two points arise. Firstly, individuals commit crimes and it would appear that quite a number of people in the Israeli chain of command and individual soldiers should fear indictment.

Secondly, ridiculous calls for trial or keeping demands for trial at the highest level are often carefully considered. Their aim is to ensure that no one ever faces trial. They prepare the ground for opposing charges against any individual unless some top person is charged first, i.e. they prepare the ground for the familiar whataboutery that leaves the majority of such murderers walking free. As soon as it is suggested that an Israeli soldier or officer should face an international court for a crime against humanity, the whatabout will go up: “What about Benjamin Netanyahu, what about Tony Blair, what about Iraq, what about Afghanistan …?” Most of the whatabouters know exactly what they are doing: they want to seem as if they are opposed to crimes against humanity while trying to ensure that none of the criminals they support will see the inside of a court.

Few ordinary citizens would support the proposition that no criminal should be charged unless all similar criminals are charged. This sort of thing is a mad parody of the notion of fairness. Axis Second World War criminals are pursued to this very day. It is certainly true that there were Allied criminals who never needed to worry about charges. The argument that Nazis who killed civilians should not be hunted because other killers are not hunted is indefensible.

It may be galling to watch a minor official in the dock while his or her commander or prime minister is still strutting about but the trial should go ahead. The defence of “I was obeying orders because I was in fear of my own life” is legitimate and a court can decide.

This is it: a crime against humanity – specifically, bombing or shooting civilians – is inexcusable. A perpetrator, his or her commander (direct or remote), facilitator or supporter must know that for the rest of their lives they will be wanted by an international court of justice. No ceasefire, no peace agreement between local agencies which may include a sordid deal can or should give them international protection.

Either support for Hamas or the effectiveness of the Israeli missile shield meant that there were few if any calls for international justice to be meted out to anyone who would fire a rocket at civilians. Israeli criminals must be comforted by that.

Closer to home Irish citizens are enduring the sick spectacle of Sinn Fein condemnation of Israeli slaughter of civilians.

The world at present is far too safe and cosy for those who murder civilians. From the soldier/volunteer/militia person who presses the trigger, delivers or detonates the bomb, missile or drone right through the chain of command and support all should be made to know that international justice awaits them if they can be isolated and captured.

“A target-rich environment” is an offensive military term referring to efficient use of bombs and bullets. It can be turned here against the killers of civilians. By all accounts the incidence of this crime has been high in Gaza. The IDF slaughter provides a target-rich environment for those who want justice. Gaza would be a good and fruitful place to make it clear that there will never be rest for anyone involved in the killing of civilians.

________________________________
* Journalists in Gaza have reported that they could find no evidence of Hamas using human shields.

** It is intended to ignore the offence of war crime in what follows. The reason will become clear. In brief an emphasis on a state of war may allow some perpetrators to escape the criminal net.

There’s no point in attacking Frank Flannery or indeed Angela Kerins. His argument needs to be addressed. What he is saying is that because Rehab is a private company which sells to the HSE among others, the State has no business looking into its internal affairs. The problem is that the way things are he’s right.

Let’s leave aside the question of supplying citizen services through a private company and consider implementing public policy by way of placing conditions on the awarding of state contracts. We do this already in that companies seeking state contracts have to prove they are tax compliant.

If ludicrous salaries paid within companies working for the state are to be addressed, it will have to be a condition of the contract. A condition of a state contract could be that no employee or director or pensioner of the company has an income in excess of some multiple of the lowest paid employee or perhaps the legal minimum wage or the median wage in Ireland.

It’s really a matter of deciding whether or not we want to do anything about ludicrous salaries. If we do, it will necessarily mean discussing and deciding on an amount above which we do not want our state to facilitate.

Apart from stratospheric incomes like those of the top 1%, rich people tend not to consider themselves rich or to be in receipt of ludicrous salaries. They think their pay is moderate and that they’re worth it. They need to be disabused of that view.**

They also tend to resort to “fairness” to oppose any move to reduce inequality. They argue that it would not be fair to do anything to anyone until all of those similarly situated can be treated equally. Like all forms of “whataboutery” this argument should be vigorously resisted.

___________________________________________________________
* http://www.irishexaminer.com/analysis/faith-hope-and-clarity–the-rehab-saga-276392.html#.U9DIpmjKHkg.facebook

** https://colummccaffery.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/limited-outrage-discussion-of-the-crc-scandal-avoids-the-central-problem/