Gillian Gibbons Freed!

[Horus]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article2990114.ece

You may or may not have heard the story about a British teacher working in a primary school in Sudan. She was arrested for naming the class teddy bear Mohammed, which was allegedly an insult to the predominantly Muslim community. However, children in her class stood up for her, namely the boy who said the teddy bear was actually named after him.

She faced 40 lashes this time last week. A couple of days ago, it was reduced to 15 days in jail. Today, after negotiations with diplomatic senators in the country, the President of Sudan pardoned her for her 'crime'. This is against fierce protest by the people of Sudan, saying she should have been shot.

Question: What implications does this little PR problem have for the relationship between the UK and Sudan? The people are clearly aggrieved by what happened, and it doesn't bode well for the other British teachers who make a living in the country. Here is the story of the protestors:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1689769,00.html

I personally think it isn't promising for future issues like this. It's an exceptional circumstance, given precedence only by the amount of press coverage it has had. How many other stories out there similar to this end poorly for the accused, without any chance of clearing their name?

[adam99]

I personally think it isn't promising for future issues like this. It's an exceptional circumstance, given precedence only by the amount of press coverage it has had. How many other stories out there similar to this end poorly for the accused, without any chance of clearing their name?

The way this was handled was pretty poor. I agree with you, in that this does not bode well for the future relations between the governments, whatsoever. If people were at all wary at volunteering to help out in schools in Sudan before this happened, now I suspect people are even more wary, and less likely to consider volunteering to help out.

[Cattraknoff]

Religion and state should not be mixed; This event is clear evidence of that.

[Horus]

The way this was handled was pretty poor. I agree with you, in that this does not bode well for the future relations between the governments, whatsoever. If people were at all wary at volunteering to help out in schools in Sudan before this happened, now I suspect people are even more wary, and less likely to consider volunteering to help out.
Welcome to PoliticsOnFire, Adam. Hope to see you around on the boards as a regular!

I think that it's a horrible idea to volunteer to work in a country that is entirely different to the one you were brought up in. Not just in terms of religious disposition, but values and ethic. I'm not demeaning Gillian Gibbons' career choice, but she made a stupid mistake by choosing to work in Sudan.

That's my own personal opinion; I'd never go to Sudan overall, nevermind work there. It was a foolish decision.

[adam99]

Welcome to PoliticsOnFire, Adam. Hope to see you around on the boards as a regular!
Thanks for the welcome!


I think that it's a horrible idea to volunteer to work in a country that is entirely different to the one you were brought up in. Not just in terms of religious disposition, but values and ethic. I'm not demeaning Gillian Gibbons' career choice, but she made a stupid mistake by choosing to work in Sudan.

That's my own personal opinion; I'd never go to Sudan overall, nevermind work there. It was a foolish decision.

I agree with you; I'd never go there. But there are people who are willing to go over there to help out with teaching: Gillian is an example of such a person. She tried to introduce the kids to democracy, in the naming of the teddy bear, but then got it all thrown back in her face. I totally agree with respecting the morals of the country in which one is living, but the way Sudan reacted was too much.

At least this is a lesson to anyone who is even contemplating going over to teach: don't do it!

[Cattraknoff]

Thanks for the welcome!



I agree with you; I'd never go there. But there are people who are willing to go over there to help out with teaching: Gillian is an example of such a person. She tried to introduce the kids to democracy, in the naming of the teddy bear, but then got it all thrown back in her face. I totally agree with respecting the morals of the country in which one is living, but the way Sudan reacted was too much.

At least this is a lesson to anyone who is even contemplating going over to teach: don't do it!

"...introduce the kids to democracy"

Would it be seen as noble as trying to show them the glory of fascism, the greatness of communism? All systems are flawed, and so why should we be imposing our broken system in an attempt to fix theirs?

Yes, Sudan is a very messed up country, and yes they do have many problems, limited freedoms, etc. But our own systems are on par in how inherently flawed they are. The main difference is that we tend to create the most problems for others, rather than ourselves.

[adam99]

"...introduce the kids to democracy"

Would it be seen as noble as trying to show them the glory of fascism, the greatness of communism? All systems are flawed, and so why should we be imposing our broken system in an attempt to fix theirs?

Yes, Sudan is a very messed up country, and yes they do have many problems, limited freedoms, etc. But our own systems are on par in how inherently flawed they are. The main difference is that we tend to create the most problems for others, rather than ourselves.

OK, so if we don't use democracy then what should we do? How should we pick who runs our countries? It's clearly not by communism or by fascism: do you propose a new method, or shall we just stick to the best that we have, namely that of democracy?

[Cattraknoff]

OK, so if we don't use democracy then what should we do? How should we pick who runs our countries? It's clearly not by communism or by fascism: do you propose a new method, or shall we just stick to the best that we have, namely that of democracy?

Best in what respect?

We have flaws, at least as many as fascism or communism, as many as that of Sudan. Theirs are more apparent to us, and ours to them. Which is why they will never accept our broken system over theirs.

A new method for choosing the leaders isn't needed, but a new method of thought for the people themselves.

[Locke]

I believe it's fair to say that democracy is in theory a good idea; it is only when it becomes overtly idealistic that it runs into problems, as all other political systems do when they become self-infected with their own glory.
Often times, in this day, we do have republics, but not democracies. There is a notable difference. I view the introduction of "western" democracy as indoctrination. When a democratic, free system is (inevitably) installed in such countries, inherent flaws that can be corrected through the democratic process will not be perceived by the population if they have been introduced to the "glories" of democracy. The system would then be free to spiral downwards into authoritarianism.
...a new method of thought for the people themselves.
The internet! Perhaps we should incinerate our bodies and live solely on the grids of internet (cyberpunk style), our immortal sentience devoted to keeping it open and free!

[Horus]

Sounds like the Borg, Locke! :P

I think the idea of introducing our values to Sudan and related areas (because that's what we're ultimately proposing) isn't a great idea. Using the standpoint of the general observer in their country, it would seem that we're trying to transform the way they live. We've already found that with our military presence in Iraq (and subsequent unwarranted influence) we're drawing animosity.

This could happen with Sudan, with them being able to use those two countries as a reference.

[Cattraknoff]

The internet! Perhaps we should incinerate our bodies and live solely on the grids of internet (cyberpunk style), our immortal sentience devoted to keeping it open and free!

While I'm aware that was a joke (lol), I feel I should probably elaborate on my point there. In my opinion, it isn't necessarily how we choose our leaders that matters as much as how the people themselves choose to act. A populace that demands to be informed, that questions things constantly, that knows what to do in the event their government becomes corrupt, and has the tools to overthrow said corrupt government, is much less likely to be enslaved as our current society has been. We should not trust our governments, not wholly, and we should always be suspicious of their actions. If we are, then there is some hope of them being kept in line. If we choose to live in our current naive optimism, and ignorance, then events far worse than even Hitler's rise to power are not so far into the future.

[Locke]

While I'm aware that was a joke (lol), I feel I should probably elaborate on my point there. In my opinion, it isn't necessarily how we choose our leaders that matters as much as how the people themselves choose to act. A populace that demands to be informed, that questions things constantly, that knows what to do in the event their government becomes corrupt, and has the tools to overthrow said corrupt government, is much less likely to be enslaved as our current society has been. We should not trust our governments, not wholly, and we should always be suspicious of their actions. If we are, then there is some hope of them being kept in line. If we choose to live in our current naive optimism, and ignorance, then events far worse than even Hitler's rise to power are not so far into the future.

Framed nicely. And that is what I am afraid of in countries such as Sudan and Iraq; once a democratic system is installed, the people might become complacent, and happy with their newfound "freedom", as they believe that democracy is the penultimate goal and far better than previous systems. The role of the people in a democratic system is far more important than the system itself; all it does is provide them tools for action. An elected government should not be trusted anymore than a forced-installation one; for fear of the re-occuring patterns commonplace in rulers.

[Horus]

And I'm absolutely certain that a country that once tasted the unhappiness of oppression in that sense will surely fight to have their country remain free. It will be even more difficult for the former leaders to regain power, so there's a brief transition stage in between uncertainty and confidence in their new say in the grand scheme of things.

My question is whether the likes of Zimbabwe could pull that off, but that's for another thread.

[Cattraknoff]

And I'm absolutely certain that a country that once tasted the unhappiness of oppression in that sense will surely fight to have their country remain free. It will be even more difficult for the former leaders to regain power, so there's a brief transition stage in between uncertainty and confidence in their new say in the grand scheme of things.

My question is whether the likes of Zimbabwe could pull that off, but that's for another thread.

Democratic countries are not necessarily free. You can have elected tyrants; And you often have the wealthy pulling the strings behind the scenes regardless.

[Locke]

Democratic countries are not necessarily free. You can have elected tyrants; And you often have the wealthy pulling the strings behind the scenes regardless.

What he means is that a passion for truth and honest justice (no rhetoric here!) would probably be present in a society that has lived under oppression for so long.

[Horus]

What he means is that a passion for truth and honest justice (no rhetoric here!) would probably be present in a society that has lived under oppression for so long.
And an unwillingness to let those values go.

Why? They won't take it for granted like we do.

[Cattraknoff]

And an unwillingness to let those values go.

Why? They won't take it for granted like we do.

Do the general populace really know what a just society is?

I would imagine they are very easy to lie to.

[Locke]

Do the general populace really know what a just society is?

I would imagine they are very easy to lie to.

They know the characteristics of brutally unjust society, and that is more important than knowing all the virtues of a free one.

[Cattraknoff]

They know the characteristics of brutally unjust society, and that is more important than knowing all the virtues of a free one.

And so they might accept a slightly better but still corrupt and unjust one.

[Horus]

And so they might accept a slightly better but still corrupt and unjust one.
I don't think they would mind one as long as it is improved in some way from a previous system that didn't work out for them.

[Cattraknoff]

I don't think they would mind one as long as it is improved in some way from a previous system that didn't work out for them.

And I see that as a problem. They will accept mediocrity.

[Locke]

And I see that as a problem. They will accept mediocrity.
Over murder and brutality.
Notions of immediate revolution are naive.

[Cattraknoff]

Over murder and brutality.
Notions of immediate revolution are naive.

Why bother with a revolution if you are going to half-ass it?

Hell, they likely won't have a revolution at all, simply us moving in and corrupting them in a different way.

Believing that gradual change works is equally naive. Total revolution can bring about change, as it is nearly impossible for the current ruling class to shape to the extent they can with gradual change.

[Locke]

Why bother with a revolution if you are going to half-ass it?

Hell, they likely won't have a revolution at all, simply us moving in and corrupting them in a different way.

Believing that gradual change works is equally naive. Total revolution can bring about change, as it is nearly impossible for the current ruling class to shape to the extent they can with gradual change. To refute too many reforms would be a death wish for the ruling class.

In a newly formed democratic system, a ruling class would not be so deeply engrained in the fabric of society as in one that has been stagnant for decades. Throats so parched for justice would not be as prone to blindly forgo newly acquired civil liberties as our populations are.

"Two-minute" revolutions are not viable as they are so often poorly thought through (with some notable exceptions - see Nelson Mandela) that the resulting structure afterwards is either comparable to a rubble heap or is instituted in an extremely poor fashion. To borrow one of your favorite quotes, "Why replace one broken system with another?"

I think the answer is revolution to a certain extent (i.e. ridding ourselves of the ruling class), but not of the previous system. Without the ruling class, reforms would be allowed to pass through and heal the past system. Completely starting anew (e.g: U.S.S.R.) will bring about major problems (however different from previous problems, they are usually still equal in stature), with the "leaders of the revolution" offering a false avuncularity to the people as they ensconce themselves in positions of power, as they themselves created the structure of the state.

[Cattraknoff]

In a newly formed democratic system, a ruling class would not be so deeply engrained in the fabric of society as in one that has been stagnant for decades. Throats so parched for justice would not be as prone to blindly forgo newly acquired civil liberties as our populations are.

"Two-minute" revolutions are not viable as they are so often poorly thought through (with some notable exceptions - see Nelson Mandela) that the resulting structure afterwards is either comparable to a rubble heap or is instituted in an extremely poor fashion. To borrow one of your favorite quotes, "Why replace one broken system with another?"

I think the answer is revolution to a certain extent (i.e. ridding ourselves of the ruling class), but not of the previous system. Without the ruling class, reforms would be allowed to pass through and heal the past system. Completely starting anew (e.g: U.S.S.R.) will bring about major problems (however different from previous problems, they are usually still equal in stature), with the "leaders of the revolution" offering a false avuncularity to the people as they ensconce themselves in positions of power, as they themselves created the structure of the state.

You can't retain a system that is so easily corruptible. You can work to fix flaws in the system, taking positive points from various methods to get one that has far fewer flaws, trying to minimize the negatives.

Revolution is the only way for a meaningful change in most societies, and I was never suggesting one that wasn't thoroughly planned out. Spur-of-the-moment revolutions aimed at pleasing people obsessed with instant-gratification do little positive, in any case seen throughout history.

Also, in most (practically all) newly formed democratic systems, western nations invest heavily, securing most control of the countries via their economies. It slightly improves their way of life in the short term, but always ends up giving them the short end of the stick, as it were, in the end. The vultures must be kept at bay, but this is nigh impossible in today's world.