Monday is sapping my will to.. argh. I can't even be arsed to finish this post. I need comments with interesting/worthwhile/controversial content to kick-start my enthusiasm!
Bypassing the legitimately elected government of a nation in order to provide aid to that nation's inhabitants, because you do not agree with the stance of that government. Discuss.
Yes, that's what I thought. But the government is Hamas, so I can kind of see why it's being done. Although really it's an attempt to force Hamas to change the principles upon which it was elected, which is an attempt to interfere in democracy in its most simple form. An interesting conundrum, I think, and hardly a good advertisement for the 'democracy builders'.
Personally I don't feel democracy is all it's cracked up to be. Consistently we see our own government, whom we have elected, forcing through issues that (in my experience - which may well be biased) are unpopular with the majority of the electorate: The Iraq war, ID Cards, etc.
... if a majority of a country (say, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Iraq or somewhere) decided to elect a government that would not only discriminate against some minority in that country, but would actually practice genocide ... are you still for non-interference?
What if it was "legally elected" only by men, or only by people allowed to vote under some system defined by the seated government (grandfather clauses, registered voters, people without a criminal record, people willing to put their name and address down on a form for a vote that could be traced back to them, people willing to swear conformance to some religious law ...)
What about countries like the DR Congo? And Zimbabwe? Is it "right" to stand back and allow people to die, to be tortured etc.?
And what about if that country was appealing for international aid (or debt relief) and it was clear (to you) that the government were part of the problem (so that, say, food and resources you were sending for the starving people was being redirected to the army and to line the government's pocket) ... in those circumstances, is it ok to deliver aid direct to the people who need it?
Ah, well that's a different question. The whole world went to war over the first example you give.
If you live in a country where the voting system is so clearly.. biased, for want of a stronger term, then your choosing to stay there is implicit consent to obey by whatever laws they impose. However, if they then choose to hold you against your consent, that is breaking some basic human rights; then it would be right to invade - provided all other lesser measures had been tried and had failed.
Sorry — I'm becalmed by lethargy in exactly the same way as you are. I'm not sure why, beyond a bit of hay fever and stupid temperature changes overnight.
I'm waiting until I feel sufficiently alert to drive home, then I'm outta here.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-06-19 03:52 pm (UTC)<./you asked for controversy...>
no subject
Date: 2006-06-19 04:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-19 04:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-20 08:35 am (UTC)Yeah but no but yeah but ...
Date: 2006-06-19 05:18 pm (UTC)What if it was "legally elected" only by men, or only by people allowed to vote under some system defined by the seated government (grandfather clauses, registered voters, people without a criminal record, people willing to put their name and address down on a form for a vote that could be traced back to them, people willing to swear conformance to some religious law ...)
What about countries like the DR Congo? And Zimbabwe? Is it "right" to stand back and allow people to die, to be tortured etc.?
And what about if that country was appealing for international aid (or debt relief) and it was clear (to you) that the government were part of the problem (so that, say, food and resources you were sending for the starving people was being redirected to the army and to line the government's pocket) ... in those circumstances, is it ok to deliver aid direct to the people who need it?
Re: Yeah but no but yeah but ...
Date: 2006-06-19 10:16 pm (UTC)If you live in a country where the voting system is so clearly.. biased, for want of a stronger term, then your choosing to stay there is implicit consent to obey by whatever laws they impose. However, if they then choose to hold you against your consent, that is breaking some basic human rights; then it would be right to invade - provided all other lesser measures had been tried and had failed.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-19 03:58 pm (UTC)Potential replacement keyboard for your home theatre PC?
(These come as cheap as £30, but I like the £50 one above better. ;))
no subject
Date: 2006-06-19 04:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-19 03:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-19 04:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-19 06:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-19 06:47 pm (UTC)I'm waiting until I feel sufficiently alert to drive home, then I'm outta here.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-19 10:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-20 09:33 am (UTC)