While scanning the news today, I came across this headline:
Lockerbie Bomber Gets Standing Ovation from African MPs
Huh? Really?
Before I go on, let me state a key assumption on my part. I assume that Megrahi is guilty. I have read reports that there was pressure on the judges to reach a guilty verdict, but this does not mean Megrahi wasn't guilty. It seems there was ample evidence to convict the guy.
Anyway, the article includes a quote from the Speaker of the Parliament of the African Union, Idris Ndele Moussa. He said "We came to express our solidarity. He is the victim of international injustice and a policy of double standards." (Read article here)
A 'double standard,' eh? Well, perhaps there was a double standard here. I agree that the universal standard for treatment of convicted terrorists should have been applied. He should have stayed in prison, according to the established standard. Somehow, I don't think this is what Mr. Moussa meant.
And a member of the Libyan Parliament made a stunning moral equivalency when he said "the visit by the African Parliament to Mr. Megrahi is no different from the reception given to the Bulgarian nurses by European Parliament." (Read about that incident here)
This is remarkable for two reasons:
1) Assuming that the Libyan MP thought that the meeting between the MEPs and the Bulgarians was in some way immoral, isn't he admitting that the visit by the African MPs similarly immoral? Shouldn't he be condemning the visit? Or is this another case of "what's right for me isn't necessarily right for you?"
Lockerbie Bomber Gets Standing Ovation from African MPs
Huh? Really?
Before I go on, let me state a key assumption on my part. I assume that Megrahi is guilty. I have read reports that there was pressure on the judges to reach a guilty verdict, but this does not mean Megrahi wasn't guilty. It seems there was ample evidence to convict the guy.
Anyway, the article includes a quote from the Speaker of the Parliament of the African Union, Idris Ndele Moussa. He said "We came to express our solidarity. He is the victim of international injustice and a policy of double standards." (Read article here)
A 'double standard,' eh? Well, perhaps there was a double standard here. I agree that the universal standard for treatment of convicted terrorists should have been applied. He should have stayed in prison, according to the established standard. Somehow, I don't think this is what Mr. Moussa meant.
And a member of the Libyan Parliament made a stunning moral equivalency when he said "the visit by the African Parliament to Mr. Megrahi is no different from the reception given to the Bulgarian nurses by European Parliament." (Read about that incident here)
This is remarkable for two reasons:
1) Assuming that the Libyan MP thought that the meeting between the MEPs and the Bulgarians was in some way immoral, isn't he admitting that the visit by the African MPs similarly immoral? Shouldn't he be condemning the visit? Or is this another case of "what's right for me isn't necessarily right for you?"
2) He is also equating the actions of the Bulgarian nurses, which at worst might amount to criminal negligence, with an act of terrorism that deliberately targeted a civilian flight. So intentions mean nothing.
So, what can we learn from this interesting lesson?
That in large parts of the world:
Terrorist = victim of injustice
Negligence = Mass murder
And yet, something tells me that if Megrahi had accidently left, rather than intentionally put, the bomb on the plane his negligence would still have not been considered mass murder by this Libyan POS. er... MP, I mean.
ReplyDelete