Justice in the Hands of Men
What if we don’t know whats right or wrong? Necessary Evil becomes Rightful Duty? How would things turn up after that?
Not good, and to be more precise, catastrophic.
To put things into context, i had a discussion with a friend who supported beating up students who works for shibir. In response i told him its not justifiable. Violence is not justifiable. Every country has laws, and should follow them. Now it may be true that, our laws are quite fragile, not implemented or abused in fact. And people take matter into their own hands out of frustration due to the broken, corrupt system. But that doesn’t turn it right. A wrong is always a wrong, no matter what the situation is. Now necessary evils might be required for a greater good, but still that too doesn’t make it right.
A thief comes to your house, steals some things out of impulse or need, you catch him and beat him senseless, or make him cripple. And if someone asks you why you did that, you justify your actions by saying, “ but he stole my precious possessions, i was driven by rage and beat him to the ground “ — sorry man, but if all just acted on instincts there would be required no laws or anything. Society would be indifferentiable from a jungle. Everyone would carry their personal revenge to the extent they want. If i kill someone i would already have my justification prepared, and you cant charge me with anything, because its been justified. There would be nothing wrong in this world, everything would be justified.
When a religious fundie kills a freethinker, he has his justification ready. When the christchurch attack happened, the attacker too had a manifesto of his own. ISIS has their justification of manslaughter, so does boko haram, al qayeda and other terrorist organizations. Every war in this world is justified, so is every fraudulence, every heists, every robbery and what not. Who doesn’t have a justification for their actions is the question. But just because there are some basic drivers, does that turn wrongs into right? What right do we have to minimize the evil of a crime just because they have a driver behind?
Fraser anning said, when christchurch incident happened, “ yeah its wrong BUT…………… “ he went on shifting the issue and scapegoating immigration crisis to divert the attention of people from the evil that had been committed. Same things happens everywhere. When Bloggers are killed, people, if not all, most people jump on justifying, making it a rightful act. This includes public intellectuals too. And if not, most create a condemnation sentence attaching a “ But……..” at the end, just like Fraser Anning. When a girl is raped or sexually harassed in broad daylight, people go on searching justifications for the actions, that she was dressed in shorts, or she mixed up with guys, stayed outside of home for long etc etc and etc. Granting women economic and sexual freedom is still a taboo, so this is the perfect weapon patriarchs or internalized misogynist women can use to downgrade the experience of the victim. Justifications were given when shibir people used to attack and cut off the veins of BCL students, just to let them die at the dark. Justifications were given when minorities got attacked at Ramu, at Nasirnagar. Justifications were given…………… and i can continue on and on and on and on and on.
Now why do people do this? It comes down to the question of ideologies, ideals. When the perpetrator is from your own ideological gang, you have to downgrade the severity of the issue, or your ideology would be attacked big time, and may also be driven out of existence. And to preserve the sanctity of your long cherished ideals, you need to defend them anyhow, divert the attention of people from the crime done, to somewhere else, and it would be far better if opposite ideals can be questioned and held accountable. Now that an equal fighting ground is established, you can sit back and relax and let people fight over ideals while the crime or the evil gets buried underground.
in the end , everything boils down to ideologies. If attacked it can make lose his conscience, so deep, that it can bring up the monster among them, turning civilization into chaotic archaic societies. So what do we want? Chaos? Mob rule? or use our brain and think? whats right and whats wrong? what is okay and what is not? what can accelerate us into a better, tolerant, serene future? Even criminals are allowed to have a lawyer and defend themselves, but would a mob rule allow that to happen? What maybe the consequences? One day what you are allowing to happen to others may bestow upon you too or someone you love and hold dear to. Just keep that in mind, that would do. If someone is wrong, he should be punished, no doubt, but no one deserves mob rule. not even your greatest enemies. A mob doesn’t have conscience and critical thinking, they just have rage, and impulses, just like hatemongers, rapists etc.
Sometimes i have a feeling that, as genes use people as a medium to thrive and survive and perpetuate, so does ideas. An ideology by the defense mechanism its hosts provide. Justification of crimes is just an example of a such a defense mechanism adopted by human hosts to carry on their ideologies.
In fact i am writing this out of impulse, to perpetuate the ideals i hold dear to, freedom of speech, liberty and secularism. I hope these don’t wither away any soon, but instead, spread away like wildfire!