There was an error in this gadget

Monday, 24 September 2012

Bounty Hunters?

I think the offer of a 'bounty' for the killing of the maker of the video said to slander Islams founder is a step too far for anyone. In short, the Pakistani Minister for Railways is now stepping into the realms of 'incitement to murder.' Frankly, no matter what the supposed provocation, that is unacceptable behaviour from anyone i any society which wishes to be consider civilised. It may have been acceptable in the Middle Ages - though even then in Western societies it tended to be regarded as a crime - but it is certainly not acceptable in the 21st Century. Especially not from a Minister of State.

What is stunning is the absolute silence from the lobby that usually deafens us the moment anyone from our society suggests, even mildly, that some form of retribution may be in order for some criminal act. I have not yet seen anyone from one of the many usually vociferous 'human rights' groups utter even a small objection to the 'bounty.' One does wonder why they are so silent. Perhaps because the maker of this video comes from a group that they do not consider to have any 'rights' or perhaps because the video he has made breaches their 'politically correct' vision of the world?

The US President and his Secretary of State are bending over backwards to apologise for the 'offence' this video has caused, and while I can understand the diplomatic need, I find the language they are using interesting. As far as we know, not a murmur of protest was uttered over the treatment of Christians in Iran, in particular the Pastor ony recently released after three years on Death Row after being falsely accused of 'converting to Christianity' or at the treatment of the teenage girl suffering a mental disability, accused of burning the Quran.

There is never a word of protest from the White House or Westminster for that matter at the regular accusations of 'dishonouring the prophet' or heresy or some other 'offence against Islam' levelled at native Christians in these lands.

I wonder if placing prices on the heads of those who level these accusations at their neighbours in these lands would change a few minds? It wouldn't be what I consider civilised behaviour, but it might give some of these fanatics pause for thought.

1 comment:

  1. Didymus has not reflected deeply on the Monk's words but as usual is writing 'from the hip'. Civilised? - who is the arbiter of this definition? 21st century? whose calendar? Minister of State? - what state under what rules? We (in the old western world) have been through most of the burning, stoning, witch hunting, hanging anyone not quite like us without proper trial, burning books etc etc etc type of regime and society and moved on to supposedly better more egalitarian times riding on those experiences. Who are we to insist that others from remote and different societies should embrace our collective experiences? We are, or certainly have been the bullies in the past. So we have a duty to be a bit more understanding ( I was going to write cognisant but wasn’t sure how to spell it) of other societies development and accept it may not mirror ours.
    The last sentence of the Monks blog as usual encapsulates a fair minded approach to his world but unfortunately is only perceived as an Achilles heel by the persons discussed.

    ReplyDelete