Wednesday, January 07, 2009

On Killing and Guilt

I cannot look a child in the eye and tell them that down the street, or even next door, a murderer lives and I am going to kill him but in doing so I might kill the child. I cannot say this to the child's mother or father.

But if I allow someone else to take this risk, am I not guilty in some way?

Beyond what the murderer deserves or the need to stop the person, this child's life would be taken as a calculated risk, but a risk that was accepted. By accepting the risk, one accepts the responsibility for it.

We have to move on in our own lives but we are party to the actions of the leaders we elect. When Harper says he accepts the risk that a child will be killed in order to murder a murderer, then he accepts it on my behalf. I am guilty as a Canadian in the child's death.

I cannot support this. As a Liberal, I do not like Mr. Ignatieff, as the party leader, accepting the risks of manslaughter in Israel and Gaza on my behalf. I am now guilty in the killing of humans.

Are inactive shareholders not responsible for the demise of a company? Maybe not but they lose their shirts.

5 comments: said...

Petroom: Though I agree with certain sentiments you shared, I think it is important to take note that the Liberal Party or the Canadian government is not guilty in the blameworthy or court sense of the word in not doing anything about the current crisis.

I should note they are sending humanitarian aid.

I don't like Michael Ignatieff's position either, but there is no way legally or morally to assign blame to the Party or the Canadian government for failing to act because the situation is so complex.

I would want some superpower to move4 into that region and enforce peace but that isn't going to happen, and anything short of that, right now, will have unknown and perhaps disastrous affects.

I would suggest Canada is not innocent or guilty, but instead merely not guilty and not innocent.

Cicely said...

Scott: I don't think that Petroom is using the term 'guilt' in a legal context. There can be moral guilt when legal guilt does not apply.

Indeed in a court of law a person who is morally guilty of a crime may not be found legally guilty because the evidence against them is insufficient. We may not hold them legally accountable but one would hope that those that are morally guilty find their comeuppance or karmic justice at some point.

Petroom had a post title that was provocative but I think the point of it was to get the readers to ask themselves whether their actions or inactions are enabling the killing of civilians (whatever the side) to continue.

Anonymous said...

I cannot support this. As a Liberal, I do not like Mr. Ignatieff, as the party leader, accepting the risks of manslaughter in Israel and Gaza on my behalf.
I agree.
At the moment Iggy has taken (or is marching lockstep) with Harper on this.
As a soon-to-be-ex-Liberal, I have to ask myself is because of the backroom boys (his inner circle included) trying to dictate our views?

It's easy to say Hamas= bad terrorist, but the reality is much more complex than that.

Israel is a rogue state that will never comply to UN edicts, so a peace force is out of the question. It answers to itself and the US.

This is why I support ban on Israeli products and even CUPE' position.

Red Tory said...

Your cockamamie analogy is ridiculously absurd and completely fatuous.

Anonymous said...

Red Tory Kill blog thread.... :>