There are times when the continued reporting of events in the media brings two stories into juxtaposition which may have otherwise been separated. One such case occurred recently. (I am deliberately presenting this in a bare-bones manner.)
There was a report about an event that took place within the capital city of a western country. The situation was such that there was a great deal of tension in the air and nerves were on edge. Within this atmosphere of disquiet, an unarmed individual was hit once with a baton and pushed to the ground. A short while later, the same person collapsed and died. In the days that followed, members of the public and the media expressed outrage. The person who was responsible for the assault was ultimately deemed to have committed the act of ‘unlawful killing’
The second story took place not far from another capital city and involved members of a western country, presumably espousing similar values and laws of justice. The situation was such that there was a great deal of tension in the air and nerves were on edge. Within this atmosphere of disquiet, an unarmed individual was shot twice, collapsed and died. In the days that followed members of the public and the media expressed joy and relief. The person who was responsible for the assault was deemed to have committed the act of ‘lawful killing.’
The first story is, of course, the report of the death of Ian Tomlinson, a homeless newspaper salesman, who collapsed and died on the fringes of the violent demonstrations against the G-20 meeting after being shoved to the ground by an officer in riot gear. The second is the attack by US troops on the compound in Abbotabad, inhabited by Osama Bin Laden, and his death. One death was unintentional; the other intentional.
I mentioned above the supposition that, in both situations, similar values and laws of justice were being advocated. Well, President Barack Obama announced that “justice had been done.” US Attorney General Eric Holder said it was "conducted in a way that was consistent with our law and with our values. Bin Laden's killing was an act of national self-defence". George W Bush described the event as a ‘momentous achievement.’
In the case of Ian Tomlinson, we await the outcome of the judgment on PC Harwood. Regarding the events in Pakistan, while I can understand the reaction of people to the news that someone instrumental for so many acts of violence is dead. However, I find both the apparent inconsistency in judicial law and the implied definitions of justice deeply disturbing. What sort of understanding of the word ‘justice’ supports the killing of another human being? What sort of ‘justice’ has been done where four people, only one of who was armed, are killed in the ‘arrest’ of one individual? What sort of values allow for an armed group to enter another sovereign state, without permission, and kill an unarmed man who happens to be a thorn in their side?
As time passes, the ‘euphoria’ of the masses no longer covers the front pages but is increasingly replaced with questions relating to ethics of such actions, by more measured reflective analysis, by the voice, albeit not very loud, of our inviolable conscience.
