Andrew H and Rainier have got it right

This is part of an article I've published online.

'The murder of Nguyen Tuong Van'

http://dimc.axxs.org/?action=newswire&parentview=5007

Extracts - Apart from the death penalty in Singapore being a hangover from their colonialist past, this respect for sovereignty is demonstrably selective. Australia's recent militarist adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan and (closer to home) the appalling social outcomes of Australia's Aboriginal people makes that obvious.

A right to force "our" values on Singapore?

So has Australia a right to pressure Singapore to accept "our" values? It is a deliberately loaded question that needs some qualification.

Certainly Australia has a moral obligation to assist an Australian facing death overseas. A moral obligation paramount to the immorality inherent in the barbarism of Singapore's mandatory death penalty for drug smuggling.

As to these being "our" values? The United Nations and the European Union have criticised Singapore's use of capital punishment which bucks a world-wide trend towards its eventual abolition.

State control of the media and the undemocratic suppression of oppositional voices to State policy in Singapore, makes the presumption that the death penalty is a popular Singaporean value, a matter of conjecture anyway.

Think on this

For those people repulsed by the drug-related nature of Nguyen's fatal predicament (and I am surprised by how many Australians have rightly seen this as an irrelevancy) let me create a hypothetical scenario.

You are in Singapore, after enjoying a pleasant flight, where you perused the latest in-flight news on Nguyen, who you felt, deserved everything coming to him.

Unknown to you, a panicked drug courier (who read the same article about Nguyen on your flight) has slipped a plastic bag of heroin into your overnight bag.

How do feel about Singapore's mandatory death penalty for drug smuggling now, as the noose is placed around your neck?
-

Once again, ladies and gentlemen, once again. Some trendy lefty ascends his pulpit, dons his white cloak of moral sanctity, and there, amid a chorus of singing angels, presumes to tell the rest of us just what is morally right and what is morally wrong.

Don’t you just get sick and tired of these wowsers who think that they morally superior to everybody else? Where Keith Kennedy gets off thinking that his personal philosophy is the epitome of moral perfection is any ones guess. Perhaps his worldview was formed in an educational institution where moral perfection was demanded, and where the concept that one moral value could take precedence over another moral value was ruthlessly suppressed?

It apparently infuriates Mr Kennelly that at least 75 countries in this world do not share his concept of what is right and wrong. Furthermore, it is likely that in those countries that oppose capitol punishment, if the people were given a plebiscite on this issue, that many more countries would gleefully demand that their governments genetically eradicate the scumbags who have declared war upon their own communities.

If Mr Kennelly opposes capitol punishment, the onus is upon him to explain why this is so. Simply acting superior and talking down to people with superior airs is a method guaranteed to make his audience oppose whatever cause the arrogant sod supports.

The best explamation that he could come up with was to claim that capitol punishment is obviously ineffective as a deterrent to drug trafficking, because it has failed to stop drug trafficking in Singapore. That is like saying that imprisoning armed robbers has failed to stop armed robbery, therefore it is an ineffective deterrent which must be abolished.

Pariah, anyone stupid enough to allow others access to their luggage whilst travelling is looking for trouble. What about the death penalty handed out to those, by bombing, terrorism, invasion, criminal activities, doctors. Don't they get a say.

The death penalty should be use rarely, but it should be used. Presently you can go out and kill hundreds and you will just go to jail for life or less. As it stands in this country, if you kill someone you would be lucky to serve a few years. The PC's are happy to allow the death of innocents in conflicts, but not use something that will make people think before committing murder. For drugs, other punishments but not death. For our poor fool in Singapore, he knew the laws, but still went ahead with it, he finally confessed and pleaded guilty. if he had not been caught, he would have payed his debts and maybe had some left over, whlst many would be on the streets commiting crimes to pay for their hits. Some time we must come to terms with fitting the penalty to fit the crime and circumstances.

Maybe violence is increasing within our society because people know that they won't get punished very badly, if at all. As it stands now, we have more in jail than any time before, yet the vast majority convicted go free. We either find a way to deter or stop those that wish to violently disrupt our lives, or our society will go down under the weight of anarchy and chaos.

i'd be a bit carefull redneck, im willing to bet that most of those arrested last month on terror charges also wanted australia to be a bit more like some of those 75 countries that still have the death penalty. you dont want to get done for sedition now do you?

actually i would be even more carefull about using those countries to support your arguement, the majority of those countries are the furthest from australia that can be imagined, and are by no means crime free societies.

"That is like saying that imprisoning armed robbers has failed to stop armed robbery, therefore it is an ineffective deterrent which must be abolished". keep running with this line of thought and you may come to the terrible realisation that no punnishment throughout history has been sucessefull, hell the 10 commandments are doing well arnt they? is it that the punnishment isnt harsh enough? i mean its only eternity of pain. what about those like me who dont believe in god, heaven,hell or anyother vestiges of our primative past. the whole concept to punishment as deterent is flawed. there will allways be someone desperate, callous, arrogant, selfish or psycotic enought to disregarde the laws and the people of a society.

so what do we do? to be honest i dont really have an answer. but i do know that no government should ever have the right to take away a humans right to life(to steal a phrase from the anti abortion mob).

I’m a humanist who believes that there is never a place for a death sentence. Any society that uses a death penalty as a deterrent is missing the point – state violence will not deter anyone – the US is an excellent example of this and aren’t they strangely silent right now? Humanity is not served by the violence of its institutions, only by its compassion, thoughtfulness and cohesion. Violence of this sort reflects the cowardice of governments in the way they tackle crime. The only solution to the drug problem is decriminalisation. My heart reaches out to Nguyen's mother, family and friends whose punishment through anguish is beyond measure.

David Sentinella.

Oh my God. I'm sorry for this man. I'm sorry for his family.

I'm sorrier for the infants that have never known food.

I cry for the mothers that can't provide. Just food.

The shame of the fathers.

Also let us think of them.