No! Not the comfy chair!
Just over a week ago, fifteen British service personnel were captured by the Iranian navy. Iran claims the British soldiers were half a kilometre inside Iranian territory and — according to the recording function on their GPS navigation — had regularly entered Iranian waters as part of their patrols. The captured soldiers confirm this version of events. Of course, the British response is “you’re fooling nobody, Mahmoud”. The troops were in Iraqi waters, goes the British argument, and are now being fed scripted lines to speak on-camera by the dastardly Iranians!
Clearly there’s only a handful of people who know the truth, and neither you nor I, dear reader, will ever be among them. Long after these troops are released (as certainly they will be) the UK will claim they did nothing wrong and Iran will claim they illegally entered their territory. So that particular fact is unlikely to ever be resolved. Mind you, it’s worth pointing out that as far as Iran is concerned, US/UK troops in Iraqi territory constitute an illegal army of occupation. Nonetheless, the incident has highlighted some intriguing differences in the manner in which Iran has treated these soldiers and how the US/UK coalition treats captured “enemy combatants”.
There are those who will dismiss the comparison. We’re not at war with Iran, they’ll point out, so British troops aren’t “enemy combatants” as far as Iran should be concerned. Which would be a good point if it wasn’t such bullshit. Under Tony Blair, the British military has been transformed into an extension of U.S. foreign policy. And it’s not just any U.S. administration we’re talking about. It’s the regime of George W. Bush; a man who announced that Iran was part of an axis of evil and then bombed the hell out of its neighbours to the east (Afghanistan) and to the west (Iraq). According to one estimate, between 2 and 3 percent of the Iraqi population has died violently since the US/UK launched their invasion.
If China openly announced that it considered the UK to be “evil” and then launched massive bombing campaigns and invasions of France and Ireland, followed up by routine patrols right along the edge of British waters while all the time urging the rest of the world to impose crippling sanctions against Britain as response to their nuclear programme; then I submit to you that any captured Chinese military personnel would be treated as ‘the enemy’.
I also submit to you, based upon the recent track-record of Britain and the United States, that the captured Chinese would receive far worse treatment than the British soldiers have so far received in Iran.
We do not, of course, know how the British personnel have been treated while the cameras have been turned off. We don’t know whether they’ve been stripped naked except for the bags over their heads and then forced to simulate sex with one another. We don’t know whether they’ve had to huddle naked in the corner of a tiny cell while Iranian soldiers held massive snarling dogs just inches away. We don’t know whether they’ve had electric wires held to their genitals or were piled high so that Iranian guards could laugh at them and take souvenir snaps.
Conversely, I suppose you could argue that we only saw the worst of Abu Ghraib. We didn’t see the detainees sitting around in comfy chairs, sharing a cigarette and a joke, before being fed good meals and asked nicely to apologise for whatever wrongs they were accused of. I wonder why.
Iran has thus far resisted the temptation to make the captured soldiers “disappear” into a shadowy system of unofficial prisons and rendition flights. They haven’t dumped them into an illegal and immoral prison camp in Cuba to rot without representation. They haven’t decided to hold them for years without charge.
Incidentally, did anyone else notice this report from a couple of weeks ago… Escape from UK-run prison in Iraq…? There’s a line in the report, about halfway in, that completely overshadows the relatively mundane story in the headline… A security source told the agency that the prisoners had been held without charge for the past two years. It seems that Britain’s reluctance to criticise Guantanamo Bay too loudly is now explained… the British government is running one or more similar institutions itself. And why is it that we only hear about Britain locking people up for years without charge when the prisoners stage an escape?
If Iran treated these prisoners the way Britain and America treat enemy prisoners, we wouldn’t have heard about them once they’d been captured. They’d have disappeared into some anonymous camp to be degraded, terrorised and tortured. Within a couple of years, some of them may have been driven to suicide. An act that the Iranians would describe as “a good PR move“.
I am ashamed as a British citizen to say that on this issue we do not hold the moral high ground.
Our acquiescence with the present government of the USA in the ignoring of the Geneva Convention, extra-ordinary rendition, and erosion of basic human rights; have left us in this sorry state of affairs.
What makes me more apologetic is the way my fellow citizens have allowed ourselves to be led into this position by the likes of Blair and other NuLabor supporters.
I just hope that when all this madness is passed us those responsible for it will be held to account.
April 2nd, 2007 | 9:37pm
by barnacle_bill
The hypocrisy is so obvious it’s almost a joke!
April 3rd, 2007 | 8:58am
by Lupus
If you were Iranian then you would be arrested for writing a blog that criticises your government or religion in this way. If you were chinese you would be lucky to get past the government controlled internet access. Something to consider when you launch an anti-west rant.
Those cute little Iranians, why do we pick on them? An “axis of evil”? Of course we all know that the North Koreans are a responsible and caring regime that should not be criticised. It’s just the west that executes it’s citizens for merely trying to leave the country. I have no idea why anyone would describe this regime as evil. As for Iran, it’s not as if they were involved in the taking of the Israeli soldiers that triggered a war in Lebannon is it?
You’re analogy of France being bombed by China is missing a vital ingredient. Had the French flown passenger planes into Chinese skyscrapers and military complexes , then I would say that they were asking for it. The US didn’t invade Afganistan just for the fun of it. Do you remember that little incident with the airplanes in New York?
I’m not saying that the UK and US are right in their actions, but I don’t see how constructing ill conceived conspiracy theories helps at all. Are you suggesting that we model ourselves on the Iranians and Chinese? Watch out students, the tanks are coming. Honestly, to criticise democratic countries in favour of seemingly quite brutal regimes is bizarre to say the least.
“I also submit to you, based upon the recent track-record of Britain and the United States, that the captured Chinese would receive far worse treatment than the British soldiers have so far received in Iran.”
Do you honestly believe that, or did it just sound cool?
April 4th, 2007 | 9:40am
by GiantWeazle
GiantWeazle, my response to your comment has turned into something that probably merits a separate blog post. So I’m afraid you’ll have to wait a wee while until I’ve finished it.
In response to your direct question at the end though… yes, I honestly believe it. Read again the statement you are questioning.
We have a clear understanding of what happens to those, designated as “the enemy”, when captured by Britain and America. They get thrown into cells to rot in Cuba or Iraq or flown to dodgy regimes for torture by the CIA. Britain has been holding people in Iraq for two years without charge. America has been torturing captives and setting dogs on them!
We know this has happened and continues to happen. There are Iranians in Guantanamo Bay. Are they guilty of anything? Who knows? The method of establishing that in a so-called democracy is to charge them and try them. The “democratic countries” you object to me criticising refuse to do this, even as one-by-one the detainees lose hope and commit suicide.
On the other hand; we have a fair idea of the treatment the British service personnel in Iran have received so far.
Do you honestly believe they have — so far — fared worse than the Iranians in Cuba? Or are you just trying to sound cool?
April 4th, 2007 | 1:37pm
by Jim
Do you think that the Iranian jails are full of people dressed in new suits and playing chess? If we were able to talk to any Iraqis that were captured by the Iranians during the Iraq – Iran war, how do you think they would describe their experiences? I doubt very much that they got new suits and went for tea with the president.
What has happened over the past weeks in no way resembles how the Iranians would normally treat such prisoners. Don’t forget that it was Iran that called for the murder of Salaman Rushdie and more recently, the infamous Danish cartoonists. What were their crimes, writing a book and drawing some pictures. Had the Iranians managed to capture these individuals, then I dare say that we would have seen a very different side to Iranian justice and punishment. Let’s not forget that it was not that long ago that staff at the Iranian Embassy in London shot an innocent British policewoman and killed her. What was her crime? Has anybody got any idea where the two Israeli soldiers who were snatched by an Iranian backed Hezbollah are? I bet they are not at the Presidential Palace playing chess and I dare say the new suit has been put on hold.
You can’t compare the treatment of the British servicemen with that of other detainees, as this was a stage-managed PR stunt to fool people such as yourself and draw the kind of comments that you have made. As PR goes, it worked a treat. If the US took 15 prisoners and filmed them in Disney Land would you believe that that was how all US prisoners are treated? Are you basing your entire opinion on how Iran would treat prisoners of war, purely on these videos? Have you ever seen an Iranian prisoner or read any accounts from such prisoners, and I mean a real prisoner not someone on a “forced vacationâ€, or the inside of an Iranian jail? If not, then on what are you basing your comparisons?
No the UK are not always right, no Guantanamo Bay is dubious to say the least, but to suggest that Iran or China are shining examples of how to treat prisoners is laughable. I don’t object to the criticism of democracy, I object to countries that are brutal with their own people, let alone foreigners, being held up as examples that we should follow. If you genuinely want to raise the subject of people being held without charge, then I would support this, as it is wrong. But you cannot, and will not, persuade me that we should be following an Iranian or Chinese example. Nor will you persuade me that what has been seen over the past weeks has any resemblance to how Iranian prisoners are usually treated. You should be careful that your criticism of “democratic countries†does not become an acceptance of brutal regimes.
April 5th, 2007 | 9:08am
by GiantWeazle
If you still think that Iran treats it’s prisoners well then follow this link Amnesty International : Iran
The UK’s actions are far from perfect, I’m not saying that they are, but to suggest that this regime could teach us something about the treatment of prisoners, well you all know my view by now.
April 5th, 2007 | 9:23am
by GiantWeazle
Here’s a interesting link showing what happens to Iranian prisoners and giving factual content relating to the execution of children in Iran.
Iran – Child Executions from Amnesty International
Is this what is being held up as an example of how to treat prisoners? Hanging people (including children) using cranes is not the direction that I want to see the UK heading? That’s right, Iran doesn’t always dress it’s prisoners up in suits, no they are quite happy to execute children and hang people using cranes.
Certainly, some of the UK’s practices have been dubious, but we are yet to execute people by hanging them from cranes and we have not executed any children. The videos coming out of Iran do not portray the real picture and should therfore not be used in making comparisons of the treatment of prisoners.
Do I get a “Thogger”?
April 5th, 2007 | 9:53am
by GiantWeazle
Well, he said, wobbling his head in best Jerry-Springer fashion, I suppose we should consider the soldiers fortunate that they’re not children, as Iran might have executed them if they were.
Look, idle speculation and killer soundbites aside: we have no real grasp of the treatment that the British service personnel have received so far. We wouldn’t trust the quality of our own governments’ treatment of prisoners on the basis of their own testimony alone; why, in that case, are you comparing videos sanctioned for release by the Iranian government (in the absence of a free press to do the digging), with thoroughly embarrassing exposés that the US administration probably wish had never seen the light of day?
Joining in with this Conga of the Hypothetical for a moment: imagine if the US government released videos of life in Abu Ghraib. Wouldn’t they, like Iran, want to picture internment as tea and chess? Wouldn’t they edit out the human pyramids, the interrogations? In which case, if we’re going to pass judgment on Iran, then it would probably be wiser to look at the wider context of detention instead (which admittedly means trawling Amnesty International rather than pulling a few soundbites off BBC News), or to wait to find out how the Iranians managed to get British soldiers to make a confession on television. Did they really manage that just by threatening to take their bishops?
I’m no US apologist, and have indeed vomited up many a bilious bolus in the past at the current state of affairs over there; but neither am I pro-Iranian, given the extremist groups that are always bubbling under the surface, orchestrating propaganda exercises to help puff up the Iranian state (a more thoughtful post might have tracked the timeline of Iranian publicity during this crisis, and how it reflects the internecine warfar in Iranian politics, and therefore be able to tease out more clearly who are the moderates we can deal with and who are thumping the tables over there). And yes, I know, I know: the standard drop-scones-not-bombs line is that we’re doing all this media-management willy-waving too. But where does that rhetorical flourish get us? Anyone who is now suggesting that we somehow have to pick sides in this recent débacle… well, wasn’t that what a certain Commander-in-Chief was demanding we all do a few years ago?
You appear to be succumbing to the most mediocre form of anti-US/UK, pro-conspiracy bunkum that passes for decent political debate among the Daily Kos brigade and is getting us nowhere in trying to extricate ourselves from the messes our glorious leaders have landed us in. I’m almost certain you’re not doing it to sound cool, but then I don’t get Lily Allen or Russell Brand, so who am I to judge?
April 5th, 2007 | 12:24pm
by sbalb
Jeeezus! The freaks have really crawled out of the woodwork.
First up (or rather, last up, but who’s counting) we have sbalb who — it appears — called me an “illiterate buffoon” on his own blog (in response to my silly rant about ‘forums’) but didn’t have the good manners to tell me about it. Tell you what, sbalb, I’ll respond to your points when you stop the cowardly practice of calling strangers names behind their backs and giggling about it with your mates. Deal?
Hint: If you write a response to another blog entry, that’s one thing. But if you personally insult another blogger, it’s plain rude not to leave a comment on their blog pointing out that you’ve done so. I believe anyone I criticise has the right to reply, and such a comment allows them the opportunity. Writing insulting little diatribes without their knowledge is just plain low.
(NOTE: Regular readers will be aware that I myself sometimes poke fun at a certain Mr. Oliver Kamm on this blog. However, the pompous ass doesn’t allow comments on his website, so I can’t give him a heads-up every time I do. Plus, I have let him know on several occasions that he’s the butt of a running gag here.)
Then again, sbalb, the points you make here are pretty much encapsulated by GiantWeazle’s astonishing attacks, so I suppose you’ll get your reply by proxy. Now, be a good chap and scurry off to write your poisonous little missives under whatever rock you slithered out from.
(Yes, I’m aware I initially accused you of crawling from the woodwork. Feel free to gleefully denounce me for mixing metaphors. Go call me an illiterate buffoon again and grin like an infant that’s just shat itself. You clearly have a gift for it.)
—————————————
Now, GiantWeazle, I had been writing a sober and reasoned response to your initial comment for publication as a blog post. Your decision to post a further three comments essentially reiterating the same point, insulting my intelligence and ascribing ludicrous opinions to me however, means I’ll respond here (and rewrite my article at some future point as a more general essay on oppositional dualism).
First, let’s make something very clear. I wasn’t writing an article about how Iranians treat their prisoners. Iran is a tyranny run by a bunch of religious mentalists. Nobody imagines that the treatment received by the British soldiers is representative of the Iranian penal system. In fact, having been a member of Amnesty International (on and off) for the best part of 20 years, I’m more than aware of the brutality of Iran’s judicial and penal systems.
But — let’s reiterate this for those who weren’t listening first time, and those too goddamn thick for anything other than a literalist reading of the text — my piece wasn’t about Iran. It was using the specific case of those 15 soldiers as a ‘jumping off point’ for a criticism of the treatment of detainees by Britain and America.
So to answer some of your questions…
Of course I bloody don’t. Where did I even imply that was the case? Once again; my piece was about how the West treats prisoners. Not Iran.
My suspicion is that they would describe experiences of degradation and torture. Iran is a brutal regime that treats most prisoners terribly. But once again; my piece was about how the West treats prisoners. Not Iran.
You then reel off a list of criticisms of Iran… the fatwah against Salman Rushdie, the furore surrounding the Danish cartoons… as though my attacks on Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib equate with a justification of those things. They don’t. And only a fricking idiot would imagine that they do.
I mean, what are you trying to say? That “Guantanamo Bay is reprehensible” is somehow synonymous with “Salman Rushdie deserves to be murdered for writing a book”? It isn’t, you know.
Also, you should try and get at least the basic facts right if you’re going to accuse someone of getting theirs wrong. WPC Yvonne Fletcher was murdered outside the Libyan embassy in London. Not the Iranian one. Should I read anything into your error? Y’know, the way you’ve decided to ascribe foul opinions to me? Maybe it’s an illustration that you think “those Islamic-types are all the same”?
Lucky I didn’t then, eh? You see, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record; my piece was about how the West treats prisoners. Not Iran.
Ummmm… what comparisons? I was attacking the treatment of prisoners at the hands of Britain and America. Not Iran.
Master of understatement. The UK holds people in Iraqi cells (no doubt playing chess, wearing sharp suits and eating good food, right?) for two years without charge; and the best you can come up with is “the UK are not always right”? The first word that springs to mind when you think of Guantanamo is “dubious”? Really? Holy shit, you clearly think very differently to me.
Yes it would be, if I had done.
Don’t you fucking dolts get it? I used the Iranian prisoners and the example of China specifically because these are brutal regimes who (when not involved in a PR stunt) treat prisoners diabolically. That’s. The. Whole. Bloody. Point! My piece was a criticism of supposedly enlightened democracies as they slide into the same pit of filth occupied by those regimes that treat detainees inhumanely. Everybody already knows China’s human rights record! Everyone remembers that most powerful image of the young man standing in front of the column of tanks. And we all know he was later detained and executed. I’ve attended a couple of Free Tibet demonstrations and have been to hear the Dalai Lama speak on the issue.
The whole reason I used the example of China was as a warning. A warning that we appear to be heading down a very similar path with regards to how we treat those viewed as “the enemy” and The Other.
So when you ask whether or not you get “a Thogger”, GiantWeazle; the answer is a resounding “No!” You may, however, qualify for the Thick Blogger award; the Thigger. It’s a bronze statuette about 14 inches long which you can shove up your arse.
—————————————
On a more general note; and to my more thoughtful readers; let me point out the following…
Iran (along with China, and Zimbabwe and a horribly long list of others) is a brutal regime run by a tyrant. It’s a place where you can be tortured and executed for saying the wrong thing. A place where the transgression of rules laid down by an ancient mystic can result in the same.
But — and pay attention here, because this is the point I was making — so-called liberal democracies aren’t supposed to act in that way. And vitally, unlike the leadership of Iran who are unanswerable to the people, when the US or the UK or my own country, Ireland (with their welcoming of CIA rendition flights) begin to act in that way; it is the people who must bear responsibility.
When the Irish government turns a blind eye to torture flights refuelling at Shannon, they are doing so in the name of the people of Ireland. In my name. When the British hold prisoners in Iraq for years without charge, they do so in the name of every British citizen. That’s the essence of representative democracy. Therefore, the first priority of British and American and Irish and German (rendition flights, US military bases) and Italian (rendition flights, military support) and every other citizen of a liberal democracy, must be to address those crimes against humanity being carried out in their name.
So long as our democracies act tyrannically, we need to get our own house in order. Once that’s done, we can look beyond our borders to the tyrannies acting tyrannically.
April 5th, 2007 | 2:35pm
by Jim
Thanks for your reasoned response, I don’t recall calling you thick or even implying that you were, I merely made my point and then backed it up, even if it were over several posts (how does this insult anyone’s intelligence?). These are views, not attacks. You should not view alternative views in this way. The “Thogger” remark, like your Mr. Oliver Kamm, is an on going joke between a number of bloggers. So by offering an alternative view I am a freak and I am thick and I get told to shove things up my arse.
So I got a fact wrong surrounding the embassy, I will admit a mistake and I don’t need to be offensive about it. Your intentions have been cleared up by your recent post, but you should consider that maybe your point got lost in your original post. To assume that the reader is thick for not realising that you were not supporting a brutal regime, even though you failed to criticise that regime in your original post, yet criticised others, is for want of a another expression, a little arrogant. I cannot see in the original post where you acknowledge that either Iran or China are brutal regimes. If I misunderstood your original post, then fine just say so, but why the insults?
April 5th, 2007 | 3:07pm
by GiantWeazle
GiantWeazle, you asked me… “Do you think that the Iranian jails are full of people dressed in new suits and playing chess?”
That’s the sort of question you’d ask a fricking idiot. So please don’t ask me it and then claim innocently that you weren’t implying something by it.
Because I’m not writing this blog for people who need to be told the bleeding obvious.
Because I found your tone, and your assumption that I was either unaware of Iran/China’s brutality or didn’t care about it, to be insulting.
April 5th, 2007 | 6:17pm
by Jim
PS: I’m well aware of how silly the whole ‘Thogger’ thing is. I was, however, nominated by someone I have a great deal of respect for and therefore accepted graciously.
April 5th, 2007 | 6:24pm
by Jim
If nothing else, this whole horrid mess has produced some outstanding comment threads.
Love the Thigger Award – in fact I’m tempted to offer you a Fugger Award on the strength of it. It’s a yellow rosette which squirts water in your eye.
April 5th, 2007 | 8:15pm
by Larry Teabag
Man, this is exactly what I love about the blogosphere! Discussing the ignored elements of current affairs with outrageously intelligent and masterfully articulate eruptions of bile. Go Jim!
I could flatter myself that I’m oh so clever to have got the point of the post first time, no problem. But I have to concede it’s not the case. It’s clear, it stacks up its points and walks the reader through.
GiantWeazle, how can you wonder why you’re being called thick and getting insulted when you’ve failed to understand plain statements and responded with aggression? What else would anyone do to that?
April 6th, 2007 | 10:52am
by merrick
Hello,
I think you probably need to calm down a bit. Hopefully Easter’s done that for you, depending on what was in your eggs.
The notion that I ought to have left a comment on your blog a few days’ back is frankly news to me, and I imagine it’d be news to a good many other people too. If anyone had suggested I should have done that in advance, then I’d have argued in precisely the opposite direction: commenting here, I’d have said, would be akin to spraypainting on walls you owned, and hence ruder than keeping quiet. I certainly received no equivalent notification about the rather extreme, off-topic and frankly extramural ripostes you’ve made here, but let’s be realistic: your blog; your rules.
At any rate, this has certainly all been a new experience for me. I can’t say it’s one I’ll repeat any time soon, for which I’m sure you’ll be very glad. I might write a stiff, harrumphing post on my own weblog about this, of course, and can’t guarantee I’ll leave another comment on here in notification of the event: I dare say it won’t be welcome even if I did.
But I promise not to insult you directly, even after all of the above. For the quality of mercy is not strained, but slithers as the gentle frogs from heaven. I blame climate change.
April 10th, 2007 | 12:13pm
by sbalb
Re: In Defence Of The Long Term Unemployed
But the idea that they are “mere animals†strikes me as being a deeply impoverished view of our species.
This strikes me of being a deeply impoverished, and moreover, bigoted view of our fellow Earthlings.
I had to comment because your remark just seemed so.. ignorant.
Please, watch Earthlings sometime. You may just break your human-supremecist mindset.
April 12th, 2007 | 11:13pm
by Avian Mooch
I gratefully accept my “Thiggerâ€, I’m so proud. If you could just allow me a few moments to offer some thanks and some more thicko words in acceptance.
I would like to thank sbalb (a.k.a Barnacle), for his undying support and for being one of the few truly clever people who is prepared to tolerate a thicko-freak like I. I would like to thank Jim Bliss. Who would have thought that someone could be so benevolent so as to create an award for we thickos? What could be more encouraging for a thicko like I than to be awarded by someone of Jim’s intellect? He is truly an enlightened chap; it must be down to the audiences with the Dalai Lama. Thanks also go out to Larry Teabag for loving the Thigger and Merrick for his analysis of my thickness. Of course I would like to thank my parents, especially my several stepfathers. Without them I doubt that I would be as thick as I am now.
Before I receive the award, you said that it was a bronze statuette can I ask whom of?
April 16th, 2007 | 9:05am
by GiantWeazle
Apologies for the delay in responding, but — as I explain in my latest post — I’ve not been at my PC for a while.
Firstly (and hopefully this will put an end to this issue for once and for all) to sbalb.
I’m perfectly calm. I used the adjective “fucking” for emphasis, not as an indication of my emotional state.
I find this bizarre. You personally insulted me in public (on your blog). I’m not suggesting there are “rules” about this, nor am I talking about some “blogging code of conduct” (which seems all the rage at the moment). I’m simply suggesting that making fun of people behind their backs is rude and ignorant behaviour. If I have something nasty to say about someone, then I’ll say it to their face. To claim that this “is news to [you]” suggests that nobody ever taught you manners.
Also, isn’t it obvious why blogs have a comment facility? The idea that commenting on someone’s blog is like “spray-painting on their walls” is just about the most ridiculous comment anyone’s ever made here (and that’s saying something). The whole point of the comment facility is to encourage people to respond to the site content. What the hell did you think it was for?
And the idea that — once you’ve posted a comment — I should notify you when I respond on the same forum is frankly idiotic. If you post something here (as you did) then I will respond here. If you post something elsewhere, then I won’t know about it. This isn’t a case of “your blog; your rules”, it’s just common sense.
As I’ve made clear; if someone responds to a post on their own blog then that’s one thing. But if that person makes snide personal comments about the author of that post, and fails to offer a right-to-reply, then that’s just plain rude. The idea that you should find that surprising or confusing says a lot about you.
————————————
To Avian Mooch… with respect, I believe you completely misinterpreted my comment (for those wondering “what comment?”, just follow the link in Comment 16). It’s true that I don’t view human beings as “mere” animals. But I wouldn’t use the phrase “mere animals” about cows or orang-utans or eagles or bears either. Tell me… do you use the phrase “mere animals” about any of those creatures? If so, then I’m afraid I don’t share your bio-determinist view of the world. To me, anything with life (and indeed, many things without life) possesses qualities beyond the “mere” physical chemistry that defines them as plant or animal (or mineral).
I’m currently reading Patrick Harpur’s excellent book, The Philosophers’ Secret Fire: A History of The Imagination, which I highly recommend. Early in the book Harpur discusses Ibsen’s Peer Gynt. Gynt is captured by trolls and taken to their mountain lair. While there, he is offered the chance to be given “troll vision”. This — says the king of trolls — will allow him to “see a beautiful maiden where once you saw only a cow”. He refuses, for — as Harpur points out —
To describe human beings as “mere animals” is a literalism I reject entirely.
April 25th, 2007 | 4:42pm
by Jim
Why don’t I get another slating? Is this prejudice against we thickos, I sincerely hope not.
I still need to know who the “Thigger” statue will feature, there are bets riding on this down at the day centre. When should I expect it’s arrival?
“Firstly (and hopefully this will put an end to this issue for once and for all) to sbalb.” – I hope not, this whole episode has kept me amused for the full 5 minutes that my tiny brain can handle. More please.
April 30th, 2007 | 10:18am
by GiantWeazle