Orville W. Taylor, Contributor
THOU SHALT not kill! I don't know which Bible or Qur'an some religious extremists read, but in any language the commandment not to take life, including one's own, is deeply entrenched in the two main religions born in the Middle East.
Other religions take it to the extreme. The Jain in India for example, regard all life, including that of insects, as sacrosanct. For them, taking any form of life is tantamount to taking one's own. Needless to say, this sect is vegetarian.
Though mostly vegetarian myself, this is difficult to swallow because unless I eat uncooked callaloo, cabbage or lettuce, then I am killing a plant. However, taking animal life is another matter, especially if the animal is one of us. For carnivores (flesh eaters) like cats and snakes, killing is a must, as they cannot survive on vegetable matter.
However, despite the idealist view of nature, most animals will kill others of its species even if they are herbivores. Male hippopotamuses often kill younger males. Our cousin, the chimpanzee, who some of us resemble more than others, beat rivals to death, sometimes for no reason.
Male crocodiles will even kill females who invade their territories. There is one called 'Van Damme' at Swamp Safari in Trelawny, who I jokingly suggest is gay because he wants no females in his enclosure, even during mating season.
SUPERIOR TO ANIMALS
However, we like to think that we are somehow superior to animals and we do not take human life in civilised society except when protecting others. It is also acceptable to execute 'criminals,' usually for capital murder and it is the norm to kill enemy combatants. In some nations the penalty is extended for treason; any act to subvert government, and in many theocracies, any act which attacks the fundamental religious tenets bring the penalty of death.
One may recall that a 'fatwa' or religious order for all Muslims to execute Salman Rushdie was given in the 1980s because he denigrated Islam in his book The Satanic Verses. Recently, a friend cautioned me that any joke I make about that religion might just 'blow up in my face'.
Anyway, the West and Amnesty International vigorously condemned the fatwa, the latter being squarely against the death penalty hoping that "killing by the state will one day be obsolete."
Many Western nations, including the U.K. have abolished it. However, some American states like Texas, where the President and Walker the Ranger are from, maintain it.
I support the death penalty, but I am not a cleric, though if provoked, I am a man of the 'cloth'. However, televangelist Pat Robertson, staunch defender of the Republican Party and himself a former presidential candidate, has God's cellphone number.
Robertson recently recommended the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
Chavez a critic of American foreign policy is even noted for having declared that the U.S. has attempted to topple his government and has even tried to assassinate him. Of course, the U.S. government rejected this as ridiculous.
While Chavez's fears might be unjustified, they are not baseless. As wonderful as the U.S. is and despite its entrenched democratic institutions, such as its unshakeable freedom of expression, its citizens and officials have in the past carried out acts which, if committed within its own borders or against its own citizens, would lead to arrest and likely imprisonment of the persons involved.
In the 1960s, a failed attempt was made to execute Cuba's Fidel Castro in the Bay of Pigs invasion. Still, President John F. Kennedy seemed oblivious to the details of the plot. There have been reportedly several other efforts.
More recently, in the war against terror, 13 Central Intelligence Agency 'Rendition' agents were ordered arrested by the Italian government for kidnapping. The American television programme 60 Minutes did an exposé, revealing details about asylum seekers being kidnapped in Sweden and taken to Egypt and tortured with electricity. Though 'shocking', this programme, which began under the Clinton Administration, also involved the drugging and flying of suspects to Jordan, Egypt and Afghanistan.
ADHERING TO CONVENTIONS
Robertson's problem with Chavez is that he is a dictator who he unfairly compares to Saddam Hussein. I disagree that Chavez is either a 'Saddamist' or 'Saddamite'. Or that Castro poses any threat to the U.S. In any event, there are many non-democratic rulers with whom America has happy relations that have questionable human rights records.
Mark you, I don't believe that Cuba is any paradise. I am not so stupid to think that it is a democracy anything like its CARICOM neighbours. There, one cannot freely criticise official policy or even move about unhindered. Furthermore, its citizens cannot easily travel outside of its borders.
Nonetheless, Castro's or Chavez's status as 'captivating' rulers is not unique. This is a dangerous time when the rule of international law and conventions must be adhered to.
Therefore, given that it is illegal to procure the execution of any head of state, the Bush administration should hasten to reprimand Robertson and quickly distance itself from him.
It cannot be wrong for the fatwa to be imposed on Rushdie but permissible for one so powerful and influential to go unpunished for making such utterances. Life is an inalienable right.
Dr. Orville Taylor is senior lecturer in the Department of Sociology, Psychology and Social Work at the University of the West Indies, Mona.
