This is the biggest story in Australia at the moment. In summary, the execution of an Australian drug-smuggler caught in Singapore is scheduled to take place on the same day as an Australian "Prime Minister's XI" match several thousand miles away. Oddly enough the Australian Prime Minister is expected to attend this particular cricket match, much to the absolute outrage of opposition parties who all but call for an outright ban on cricket and a national week of mourning.
Yes, Australia (like New Zealand) feels that it has an obligation to exert pressure on countries who still execute criminals (unless they are the US of course). Yes, what is going to happen to Nguyen Tuong Van is ghastly. But the fact is, the guy knew the law, broke the law and has been convicted by a fair and impartial justice system. In this case, there is absolutely no political value in the Australian Prime Minister making a martyr of him. I would suggest that a campaign should instead ask "does the threat of capital punishment really deter criminals from breaking the law?" and look at those who have been wrongly convicted and executed. One guilty person's death should have nothing to do with any Australian anti-capital punishment campaign, and should certainly not impinge on the actions of the Australian Prime Minister or a bunch of cricketers.
Monday, 28 November 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
A better option on Friday would be for Howard to attend the game, but for a minute's silence to be observed for the memory of Van Nguyen, and for all people killed in the name of judicial punishment.
It's worth noting that Howard skipped a PM's XI game in March 2003, the day after the war against Iraq began.
Totally sensible suggestion!
Given Australia's involvement I suspect Howard might have had a few decisions to make when the Iraq war started. Unlike this situation where all Howard can really do is make some kind of gesture.
On a point of politics impinging on cricket, I find I disagree with you again Mike.
I think that an execution, even of a guilty person, is a very big deal. It is a basic maxim of law that the punishment should fit the crime and the fact that Nguyen knew the risks does not, in my opinion, justify standing by while he is hanged for drug trafficking. Also, I don't think that mandatory death sentences have any place in a fair justice system.
Whether Howard should be attending this cricket match is a different question of course. In a way, him not attending would be a mere political gesture - as is the opposition's outrage. It would however at least assure us of his priorities.
I do think though that making a martyr of Nguyen would have political value. I would hope that the Australian government would want to prevent Australians being executed and the more strongly they protest Nguyen's execution, the stronger their next call for clemency will be.
I have far more of an issue with the impact of politics on cricket than I do with how the campaign against execution is handled, but I do find some aspect of the Van Nguyen case completely hypocritcal.
What makes him any different from the "Bali 9"? And what political support has been directed towards their cause? The only difference I see between the cases is that Van Nguyen is a nice, good-looking young man from a middle class background.
Look at it this way - do you think the same display of (mock) outrage and anger will occur if child-molester Gary Glitter goes before a firing squad?
This is just bloody Schappelle "I'm too pretty to go to jail" Corby all over again.
Post a Comment