Can we heal the world with Love? 1
30th Aug 2009
Hello lovely people
Justice or mercy? The more emotional the issue, the more divided the opinions. We often encounter issues that tempt us to decide: should we insist on justice, knowing that justice always have consequences? Should we show mercy and always try and understand the other side of the coin? Or should public opinion be the determining factor?
In the past weeks a number of these emotional issues have been in the headlines.
In May Burma’s military regime jailed and charged the pro-democracy opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, because a man swam across a lake to her house. She is accused of violating the terms of her house arrest and faces a possible five years in prison. She has been confined to her house for 13 of the past 19 years. Is that not a form of imprisonment as well? So the fuss is not about her being in prison. It is about her exchanging one kind of prison for another without having any say in the matter because she stands for democracy. And where is the justice in punishing her for the actions of another person?
But could there possibly be another side to this argument? She will probably be charged under the Safeguarding the State from the Dangers of the Subversive Elements law in Burma. There are people in Burma that do not want complete democracy. There is a culture in Burma that suits the Burmese people, and they regard democracy as subversive and as a threat to their culture. Are they entitled to take such a stance? Surely they have freedom to choose against democracy as much as they have freedom to choose for democracy? If democracy works in one country, how can we assume that it will work in every other country?
South Africa, a country that is known for its hospitality and ubuntu (love for your neighbour) is in the news for having no mercy for their neighbours.
Many Zimbabwean citizens have entered South Africa illegally. The health system in Zimbabwe has collapsed completely, and there is hardly any food for the citizens. On the other hand, South Africa has only just entered a recession, and conditions in general are far better than in Zimbabwe.
The overloaded health system in South Africa is already under pressure because of the high incidence of HIV/AIDS and the population growth.
South Africa has less than 7 doctors per 10 000 people whereas the UK has around 21, the United States around 24 and many European countries more than 30. More than 60% of medical doctors who choose to stay in the country, serve less than 20% of the population.
Now South Africa is being criticised for failing to provide health services to Zimbabwean citizens that are illegally in South Africa. These people are unable to pay for their food, let alone any medical service. Should the South African government provide for Zimbabweans who are suffering because of an insane dictatorship, or should they look after their own tax-paying citizens first and ignore the plight of these old, frail illegal immigrants?
[2]
The closure of Guantanamo Bay has been heralded by some, and questioned by others. The inmates of Guantanamo Bay have been accused of horrendous crimes against humanity and tortured for these crimes. Is torture justified when it is done on behalf of a government, but not justified when the opposition to the government become the torturers? A terrorist and a freedom fighter are defined by one’s perspective.
It is interesting to see how many of the opponents of Guantanamo Bay are now unwilling to accept the prisoners that will be released from the camp. Is this really a matter of “we only look after our own”, or is it a matter of “not in my back yard, even if it is my own”? On what grounds could the countries that protested against the imprisonment and torture of people now refuse to provide refuge to those same prisoners?
This reminds us of the legal action against Nazi war criminals. Yes, atrocities were committed by these people. But how just is retributive action now when it is taken against a sickly octogenarian who must be uprooted from the country where he has lived for over 50 years so that he can die in prison? Where is the mercy in that? Surely those people have had to live with their consciences all these years.
People have donated money to World Vision, only to discover that more than $1 million of the donations never reached Liberia because of fraud. Is it such a good idea to give money to charitable organisations, especially when the donations are solicited by means of expensive television ads and uniquely labelled free pens to sign the donation slips with? Or should we actually support these international charities knowing that some of the money they receive does make a difference? How much worse off would the recipients of this charity be if there was no charity?
In May the Iranian government blocked access to Facebook. In June the Chinese government banned Hotmail, Twitter and Flickr on the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. There will be people in China that applaud this move because they understand the immense damage that the media can do when they get hold of a story and blow it out of proportion – we see that al the time with a celebrity culture in the Western world.
There will similarly be people that will object to their freedom of thought and free speech being taken away from them. Is there ever a reason that is good enough to prevent people from accessing information so that they can read and decide for themselves what is right?
The Justice card in tarot reminds us that whenever we look for justice, we should be aware of the consequences. We should open our hearts to our fellow human beings and understand that we are Love above all. Justice can never be applied without mercy.
Is it possible that Love alone can provide answers to all these issues?
To be continued.
First printed in The If Journal volume 124
Please leave a comment if you feel inspired.
Love and Light
Elsabe
