Morality on Manoeuvres
‘There Is No Possibility of Mistaking Midnight for Noon, But At What Moment Twilight Becomes Darkness Is Hard To Determine’
I followed the on-line conversations regarding the assassination of Osama Bin-Laden with grim fascination. Certainly he did, or rather the ideology for which he became such an iconic poster boy, represent a danger to all of us – and I would stress the ‘all of us’, for his followers have massacred as many Muslims as they did Infidels.
There was justification aplenty available on-line for the notion that in some circumstances it was perfectly OK to alight from the sky in a foreign land and shoot an unarmed man in the middle of the night; we even had last year’s winner of the Nobel peace prize to tell us that he had watched the blood bath from his comfy sofa alongside his friends – with popcorn? – and that it represented ‘justice being served’.
The European Union reassured us that although they were utterly against the death penalty when it had been agreed upon following exhaustive trial and appeal after appeal, this event ‘wasn’t an execution’ and therefore they were perfectly OK with it, and we should be too.
I have read and understood the Parks memorandum which wriggles its tortuous way through article 23b of the Hague Convention and emerges triumphantly to announce that there are certain extenuating circumstances where what may look like the wrong thing to do, is actually perfectly OK under circumstances of extreme stress and threat to public safety. OK, I’ve just about bought that.
Then within 24 hours, we have the coroners report on Ian Tomlinson’s death, and we are told to stand on our head and repeat very, very slowly, that what may look like the wrong thing to do is never perfectly OK even under circumstances of extreme stress and threat to public safety – and we are not even talking about shooting an unarmed man through the eye in the middle of the night, we are talking about an unwarranted push – yes, I agree it was ‘unwarranted’ in a perfect world! – which happened to land an extremely drunk and truculent man on his hideously enlarged liver on a rock hard pavement and result in his death.
Ian Tomlinson wasn’t a threat to ‘us’ – in fact many commentators would opine that it is the police force which is a threat to us. He was, however, ignoring, quite possibly because his drink addled brain failed to comprehend the instruction, the demands of the police officer who was part of the band of officers attempting to control a riot.
Please understand that I am not condoning the actions of a police officer who in an ideal world would not have been pissed off, pent up, resentful at spending his Saturday afternoon off controlling a crowd of anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist demonstrators snarling insults at him – and quite possibly psychologically unsuited to have been rehired to be in that position of authority in the first place.
I am merely noting that we are prepared to nit pick our way through the law and knowledgeably intone ‘you take your victim as you find him’ by way of ensuring that we have the satisfaction of seeing a rowdy police punch turn into a murder charge – and yet we willingly jump through hoops to justify the intended harm caused by shooting an unarmed person in the head.
Either it is wrong to harm another human being or it isn’t. Bin-Laden didn’t personally murder ‘thousands’; he was the head of a group that advocated this happening. He was murdered to cure ‘our’ frustration that we can’t stop it happening. Ian Tomlinson wasn’t personally doing anything more than ignore a police instruction; he was thumped as representative of a group that were ignoring police instructions.
The difference appears to be that Ian Tomlinson was ‘one of us’. Osama Bin-Laden was ‘one of them’; and we willingly suspend our nit picking of the law.
Julie Birchall wrote a wonderful piece years ago that I regret I cannot find on-line today. The gist of it is still in my mind. She quoted facts and figures that showed how much of our taxes were spent on controlling the results of high testosterone levels in young men between puberty and aged 40, from memory. She jokingly proved that if we locked up all the young men in the world in those age groups, we would save something like 90% of our military budget, police budget, court system, complicated suites for rape victims, security for property and people – it went on and on. If you can locate it, please give me the link.
I am not about to follow her lead – locking people up for what they might do is not my suggestion. However, here is an idea to toy with.
As a rite of passage at puberty, we give every young man a pile of back copies of playboy – or playgirl magazine, to suit their preference, and send them off into a cubicle with a test tube. Then we chemically castrate the lot of them. Every last one.
The ivf crowd will be over the moon – we will have pacified the gay lobby, every woman can have a ‘cocktail’ mixed to politically correct guidelines, as and when convenient. We can disband most of child protection – no more errant step-fathers taking out their testosterone on small punch bags. With all the men sitting quietly on the sofa playing ‘cat’s craddle’ with a ball of wool there will be no incentive for women to get involved in taking obscene photographs of the children for their delight – nothing will rouse them.
No longer will we have to sit here and ponder the morality of shooting Gadaffi’s son, or Bin-Laden, or whether it is right to hire testosterone rich policemen to control roaming gangs of testosterone rich anti-capitalists who are rioting in response to the machinations of testosterone rich politicians and their testosterone rich banking friends.
What a wonderful world it would be – you just need to send your morality on manoeuvres one more time – and castrate the lot of them. Chemically, of course, I don’t want to harm them…..
Pass the Rabbit, Sister – and the tin hat if you would.
May 5, 2011 at 05:28
-
As to applying different requirements; Mr Powell’s Hola Camp speech from 52
years ago is worth re-reading. Unless we just want to send the message that we
are badder than them, which a reading of history should have told them anyway,
the thick sods!
Sorry to admit but I did think the post read rather oddly in places, but on
your own blog you can of course post WTF you like.
Links are boring but here is one from today’s BBC for Guardianistas to
ignore or justify with sociological misdirection:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-13284395
-
May 4, 2011 at 18:20
-
Wow, Anna, you put yourself through some rather tortuous contortions in
this post. Sorry, definitely the worst I’ve seen you write on here. To attempt
to say there’s any moral equivalence between Bin Laden and Tomlinson turns
this in to a rather fatuous diatribe for me.
- May 4, 2011 at 20:08
- May 4, 2011 at 18:14
-
The landlady is being more than usually provocative this evening. She seems
to imply some of the conversation about OBL was too testoterone driven-I
suppose that is a reasonable allusion, but consider the ramifications of her
thought experiment about chemical castration.
Are we to suppose that the resolution to OBL’s demise would involve a
decision by Shrillary to despatch a cadre of the US’ finest wimmin to harangue
and chide him about the cleanliness of his cave, the lack of TV to watch the
real wives of Rhangipour, and why he has not replaced the washing stone with
an up-to-date washboard. That is truly cruel, most men would willingly take
the bullet in the head..
I once again agree with Engineer, that a world governed by progesterone
would have only resulted in caves with curtains, and endless clatches of
wimmin trying to decide what birthday present to get for Mabel
- May 4, 2011 at 20:09
-
Caves with curtains and no wars – sounds good to me.
- May 4, 2011 at 22:51
-
They’d still be wars, they’d just be over Mabel wearing the same dress
as Edna to the solstice party.
-
May 4, 2011 at 23:30
-
Ahh, but who would be expected to kill the spiders? Or remove the
bats?
And if past experience with groups of females is any guide there would
be plenty of wars, tears and hurt feelings.
I’ll be leaving now landlady, I have no wish to wear that pint of
bitter.
- May 4, 2011 at 13:04
-
The execution of Bin Laden makes me uncomfortable.
If you remove all the emotion associated with the name Bin Laden and the
undoubted horror of the murders on 9/11 and just ask the question in terms of
general principles:
Is it OK for a State to shoot somebody accused of organizing mass murder,
without a trial?
The answer has to be no, or we abandon the rule of law and replace it with
a blind faith in the omniscience and beneficence of the state.
Bin Laden’s views were certainly a danger to us all, but for us to abandon
the rule of law and allow the State to become judge, jury and executioner
destroys one of freedoms that we are supposed to be fighting for.
- May 4, 2011
at 12:47
-
“She jokingly proved that if we locked up all the young men in the world
in those age groups, we would save something like 90% of our military budget,
police budget, court system, complicated suites for rape victims, security for
property and people – it went on and on…”
Yrs, Birchill columns usually do…
I wonder what she’d have to say today, when boozer-up ‘ladettes’ have
proven to be quite the equal of any man in the violence and aggression
front?
- May 4, 2011 at 11:54
-
Isn’t the most salient point about the death of Ian Tomlinson, is that the
copper who hit him was a wrong’un..
Read Raedwald’s blog today for an excellent article on why the management
as well as the copper should be prosecuted…
- May 4, 2011 at 11:49
-
Oh and I believe statistics exist showing that lesbian women are
significantly more violent than normal men. Wonder if Ms Birchall has written
a wonderful article on that? She wouldn’t have to go to far to do her research
one would imagine.
- May 4, 2011 at 11:39
-
Heard of the Amazons? No, the warriors, not the cars! No, not the river
either. They were a bunch of quite aggressive women, weren’t they?
And
can’t modern women get macho and aggressive too, at certain times? Still,
let’s not be nitpicking, shall we? If it’s not been reached already, I’ll bet
science is close to the point where unfertilised ova (XX) can be induced to
start dividing without the need for sperm at all. So, no more males at all.
Enjoy your lives, girls!
- May 4, 2011 at 12:00
- May 4, 2011 at 11:34
-
David Duke has some interesting statistics on crime as well, can’t work out
why he nevers gets invited to write for the Guardian.
- May 4, 2011 at 11:16
-
Somewhat tangential to your point, with which I agree – there should be one
standard for behaviour whoever the culprit.
While it may be true that 80%+ of violent crime is committed by males
between the ages of 18 and 40 it is not true that 80% of males are committing
violent crimes. I would suggest that it is more likely that 20% of males
commit 80% of the crimes. Neutering males (chemically or otherwise) would miss
the point that (probably – I have no empirical evidence) 80% of young males
overcome the problems of excess testosterone and behave in a civilised
fashion.
If 20% of violent crime is not committed by males between 18 and 40 is it
being done by females, and which hormone shall we blame? Surely we are not
letting people excuse their violent behaviour whatever the cause. Unless a
person is actually insane they are accountable for their actions.
- May 4, 2011 at 11:14
-
I feel that the killing of bin Laden was morally justified, because the
interests and the greater good of the greater number, of all creeds, colours,
nationalities and beliefs, were served by his passing. His was an extreme case
– I can’t recall any terrorist as devastating during my lifetime. He had no
legitimacy in any of the world’s countries, and the creed of hatred he sought
to spread was corrosive and destructive of any reasonable human values.
In very crude terms; he started it, America finished it. Remember, 9/11
wasn’t his first atrocity, so America was slow to anger and tried all legal
and legitimate means before resorting to the ultimate solution. It was
reported yesterday that Clinton considered a covert operation to eliminate bin
Laden after several terrorist acts on his watch, but decided against (we don’t
know on what grounds). It has been suggested that if that operation had been
sanctioned by Clinton, and had been successful, 9/11 would have been
prevented. Of course, we’ll never know; but if Clinton had ‘had the balls’ at
the time, would his actions not have been for the greater good?
Testosterone can cause it’s problems for sure, but it can also solve many.
It’s been suggested that if the development of civilisation had been left to
the female of the species, we’d still be living in mud huts. Very tastefully
decorated mud huts, but mud huts nonetheless. Perhaps we just need to get a
bit smarter at chanelling the testosterone – the comment above about National
Service is not entirely without merit.
- May 4, 2011 at 11:07
-
Surely the State should stop doing something rather than start doing
something. Far better to stop rewarding idle men and stop rewarding wimmin for
being indiscriminate in who they open their legs for. Perish the thought –
people having children that they have to pay for themselves!
Is testosterone responsible for the actions of violent offenders and
abusers who happen to be female?
As to the reputed Birchill plan – locking up every male between puberty and
40 would not lead to a reduction in Police budgets for one – they will seek to
criminalise other things to maintain their size, influence and authority. Nor
would it reduce military budgets – the desire for expensive baubles to roll
out at important functions is hardly a masculine one.
- May 4,
2011 at 12:59
-
“Surely the State should stop doing something rather than start doing
something. Far better to stop rewarding idle men and stop rewarding wimmin
for being indiscriminate in who they open their legs for. “
Spot on!
But any attempt to wrestle the state teat away from their lips is met
with a lamentation that ‘the innocent children! They will suffer!’ and so we
continue to allow the feckless to hide behind their human shields…
- May 4, 2011 at 10:58
-
Without claiming to be an expert, I think you’d have the same problem as
with the mentally-ill not taking their medication and going rampant with a
machete in a supermarket because the voices told them to. If the young male
stops taking the chemical castration tablets, the testosterone cuts back
in.
Also, what are all those randy young females supposed to do?
- May 4, 2011 at 10:59
-
That’s where the Rabbit comes in handy Penguin……
-
May 4, 2011 at 11:18
-
“Men are OK, but you can’t beat the real thing….”
- May 4, 2011 at 10:13
-
My gut reaction to the death of Bin Laden was that it was so wrong,
although I am unable to be specific about why. But I did know that my opinion
would not be very welcome.
Not sure about Ian Tomlinson. It was obvious to me that he was being
provocative. Would he have died if his liver hadn’t been overblown? Personally
I doubt that the policeman needed to hit him, but I do understand why. And
this from someone who has no great love for The Police.
- May 4, 2011 at 10:20
-
Unless he was defending himself the policeman in question had no right to
hit anyone.
- May 4,
2011 at 12:56
-
He may have been ‘needlessly provocative’ earlier, but as the video
shows, he was walking away at the time of the shove.
It was inexcusable.
-
May 4, 2011 at 09:39
-
Many points in issue here. My attempt yesterday was to advance a moral case
for what was a clear decision to kill. It attracted some support, some
opprobrium; such is life. The link to the Parks Memorandum brought back
memories of my international law days (I had some, a lifetime ago) and it
would be tempting to dust off that hat, but time forbids. The point about
testosterone is a fair one. I read an interesting piece on international
politics a couple of years ago which pointed to the extremely young age
profile of many middle eastern countries, and argued this was a dangerous
thing, because you had populations full of heads strong testosterone fueled
young men. However, I am not entirely sure that i would like to be chemically
neutered. I would have missed out on a lot of fun, and a fair dolop of
heartache, but that, I suppose, is the human condition. I might wryly suggest
that the best way to stop young people having sex is let them get married
- May 4, 2011 at 11:10
-
Temporary “”marriages” are the norm in some Islamic countries, because
young people (of both sexes) have no other safe & legal way of meeting
unchaperoned. So, in this case, being married, albeit for a few hours, days
or weeks, alleviates their sexual tensions. Sometimes this “taste & try
before you buy” arrangement leads to a proper marriage.
This seems a
better way of avoiding testosterone-fuelled violence than our British “grope
behind the skips” method.
- May 4, 2011 at 09:26
-
I read somewhere that certain female politicians take testosterone
concoctions to make them more decisive, men are built for action women for
writing tripe!
- May 4,
2011 at 09:13
-
Not sure about the Julie Birchall piece but I recall a presentation by
Kirsten England – now Chief Executive of York City Council and then Director
of Policy at Bradford Council – looking at setting priorities for our ‘local
area agreement’. In that presentation Kirsten documented the problem with
young men – from memory they commit 80% of crimes, are involved in 80% of
injury road accidents, 80% of hospital admissions for drink and drugs and so
on.
Listening to all this catalogue one of those knee-jerk responses from the
audience filled the room:
“Ah! So that’s why we had National Service!”
- May 4, 2011 at 22:53
-
National Service had a great deal going for it. For many it was the
worldly version of getting a university education. Most travelled. Some saw
action. Countless numbers learned a trade. All were subject to discipline.
In general they left as more useful members of the community. I regret its
passing.
( I also expect a deal of opposition to this post!)
- May 4, 2011 at 09:04
-
If having balls is outlawed, then only outlaws will have balls.
- May 4, 2011 at 09:06
{ 31 comments }