i thought we were supposed to be civilised
Life
What was publishing this photo on the front page of a newspaper supposed to achieve? Is Saddam Hussein getting dressed now considered news? It certainly cannot considered to be journalism or even plain old reporting. It is, however, a fucking disgrace.
We, i.e. Western society, are a bunch of hypocritical, greedy, callous bastards. Hopefully, whoever published that will get thrown in prison and photos of them in their underwear will be published on the front page of some nice high-circulation paper somewhere. But somehow I doubt this will happen; there is no justice in this world.
Comments
Sorry Mike, I think you'll find this is actually footage from Iraqi Big Brother, where Saddam and his former henchmen get up to all manner of saucy hi-jinks. Oh, and while I'm here, I just like to wish our Kylie all the best. She's truly a cultural icon and, indeed, a national treasure. Good to see our famously compassionate PM wishing her the best. Warms the cockles of yer heart, it does.
Posted by: Pablo on May 21, 2005 10:49 AM
Oh, do _not_ get me started about Kylie. Actually, it was determined the other day that she is a God amongst men and we should fall down and pray that Her (otherwise) immaculate Breast is not stricken for good.
At least, that is the only reason I can see why her little lump is also getting front page coverage and the 20 to 30 other women that get diagnosed with breast cancer every day in Australia are not. Bow down, heathens!
But if Saddam's happy snap was just from BB, then all is okay. I wonder if he got kicked before Muhammed Saeed al-Sahhaf did?
Posted by: Mike on May 21, 2005 12:16 PM
> We, i.e. Western society, are a bunch of
> hypocritical, greedy, callous bastards.
We, i.e. human kind, are a bunch of hypocritical, greedy, callous bastards.
Posted by: on May 21, 2005 01:16 PM
While I agree with you about people in general, I do not have first-hand experience with everyone - but I can vouch that we suck here in the west.
Posted by: Mike on May 23, 2005 12:55 AM
Well, you don't really have first-hand experience with everyone in the west, either. :)
Posted by: on May 23, 2005 09:30 AM
> We, i.e. human kind, are a bunch of
> hypocritical, greedy, callous bastards.
Hmm. It's odd to call a group of people hypocritical on the grounds they've been used in this article. It would seem from this usage that that if one person from the group does one thing, and then another person from the group does something contradictory, they are then all "hypocritcal". Except... that's such a broad brush to stroke as to make the notion hypocracy effectively meaningless. There will always be people doing contradictory things within a group, particularly one as large and broad as "Western society". If Bill Clinton is in power and does one thing, and then Bush gets in and reverses it - is this grounds to declare western society as hypocritical? If the Daily Telegraph waxes about the wonders of spreading democracy and the rule of law in the middle east, but the Sun publishes photos of Hussein in the nuddy - is that really such a contradiction?
Posted by: C on May 24, 2005 10:55 AM
No no, the hypocracy is that one of the justifications for the war with Iraq is that Hussein was an evil bastard; that he abused human rights and treated people, well, really badly. Then we turn around and do things like this, and Abu Gharib, and Guantanamo Bay, and getting people tortured in Syria, and ...
Printing that photo was just another addition to the long list of human rights abuses that the US government has caused and that, given our support for the actions of the US, Australians and the British are accessory to. Of course, we have our own list of human rights abuses as well. We are not just guilty by association.
Posted by: Mike on May 25, 2005 12:46 PM
> the hypocracy is that one of the justifications
> for the war with Iraq is that Hussein was an
> evil bastard
Was it? Or was it weapons of mass destruction. Doesn't it change to fit the convenience of the case you're not arguing? :)
> We are not just guilty by association.
OK. I disagree wrt some of your examples. Rule of law separates us from Hussein in some of them (except maybe the Syrian thing - I'm unfamiliar with that). I'd agree with Guantanamo Bay: rule of law is being stomped on, this is hypocracy.
Posted by: C on May 25, 2005 08:06 PM
"Rule of law separates us from Hussein in some of them"
Not if you believe the UK attorney-general's leaked briefings :P
Posted by: Joel on May 26, 2005 01:09 AM
> Doesn't it change to fit the convenience of the
> case you're not arguing? :)
You know, that is exactly what it was like with people who were for the war. :)
Depending on who you talked to, the war was justified using any of the following reasons:
- WMD
- Terrorism
- Hussein is a bad, bad man
- Oil
> Rule of law separates us from Hussein in some
> of them
Even when the actions taken are not against a state's laws but breach international treaties like the Geneva Conventions? What about when state laws permit breaches of such treaties? What if state laws are just plain unethical or inhumane? I am sure many of the things Hussein was doing were legal in Iraq purely because he was supreme-dictator-for-life.
Still, even if there is just one valid case of abuse like Guantanamo Bay, it is just as bad as if there are several.
Posted by: Mike on May 26, 2005 10:37 AM
> Printing that photo was just another addition to the long list of
> human rights abuses
Human rights abuse? It's a guy in his undies. Human rights abuses include stoning adulterers:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2023502.stm
and beheading homosexuals:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/25/world/main626196.shtml
Printing a photograph of a guy in his undies probably ranks as somewhere around 'impolite' in comparison.
Posted by: Paul Hoadley on May 26, 2005 07:47 PM
yer but under the geneva convention it becomes a human rights abuse - he's technically a prisoner of war and should be afforded certain rights - in this case the right to not be put up as a figure of public curiosity or subjected to insults.
Human rights abuses are many n varied - it might not seem comparable to stoning someone to death, but it is humiliation of a PoW. If it was david hicks or douglas wood (or fek, even 'our' sssschappellele) we might feel differently.
if States start breaking geneva conventions and they get away with it, then who's to say they won't start breaking human rights conventions and getting away with it too? See article 31 of the UNHCR 1951 refugee convention for more info on this:
http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/+LwwBmeJAIS_3wwwxFqzvqXsK69s6mFqA72ZR0gRfZNhFqA72ZR0gRfZNtFqrpGdBnqBzFqmRbZAFqA72ZR0gRfZNDzmxwww1FqhuNlg2/opendoc.pdf
Posted by: martine on her high horse on May 27, 2005 11:11 AM
Add a Comment