Minimum personal regard for life

Life is sacred. Any life is sacred. Every life is sacred. All life is sacred. Whether the name is Muammar Gaddafi, or the unknown child in China run over by a vehicle, or the given name is Altantuya Shaariibuu; all life is sacred, period!

No life can and should be taken away by another human being at will. All life is God-given and God-breathed; therefore, all life has dignity. Only God can both give and take away life. Most religions teach and give some authority to governments to take away life for an agreed public purpose.

This past week saw phenomena that caused me to ponder again the intrinsic meaning and the value of life. The most dramatic was the killing of Gaddafi in Libya (right) . No less was the accidental death of the little girl in China who was run over by a van, and which was video-taped by someone. Then there was the annihilation of a Mongolian national by perpetrators using C4 explosives.

Those charged did not have strategic intent. The authorised and planned execution of ‘public enemy No 1 of the US’ was equally wrong in my eyes. It was murder using other language.

Murder is simply that. It is the unacceptable taking of another’s life, without authorisation and approval within any given society. The critical issue is societal approval and due process for the event to happen as agreed beforehand.

I still believe that mercy killing of patients exercising a wish to have their life taken is also wrong. That choice cannot simply belong to anyone, without proper due process. Ultimately, we must accord minimum due regard that the hand of God too was involved in that specific process. Of course, neither should we minimise or reduce all such killing and call it ‘fated’. Mati katak!

What is the minimum personal regard in all matters of human courtesy dealing with another’s life? What minimum courtesy must and should have been shown to that child in China by passers-by? Could Gaddafi have been treated with a little more due regard or dignity?

Was not the unwritten minimum line crossed in both these cases, by all concerned? Is that not why there are now two sides and perspectives on this issue today? Talk to anyone, regardless of their level of education, they will have a view about the right and wrong in either case. Why?

I believe that the ability to make the choice and have an opinion is what makes us human. Only humans have such choices and can be allowed to make them. Animals do not and cannot.

Therefore, minimum personal regard is an imperative in any modern and so-called civilised society. It has to be given and expected for all cases. If there is no such regard, we cannot call ourselves a civilised community or worse, even seek to build a developed one.

In no developed society can we impose the will of one person on that of another without due process, and simply dismiss such events as ‘unfortunate or cannot be helped’. Therefore, in my mind and heart, the killing of an unarmed and non-aggressive Gaddafi at the point of his capture is wrong and may constitute murder. Even more so if he pleaded, “Do not shoot, Do not shoot!”, as reported.

Context of the war

Technically the war was legal (unlike the war on terror) and was UN-authorised but with only a view to “protect civilians”. A civilian is anyone not dressed in uniform and not representing armed forces on either side in any defined conflict.

Therefore, my only question and doubt about the killing of Gaddafi is: Did it violate the UN resolution on this matter? All parties must answer this question, and not only ask it.

As requested by his wife, Gaddafi’s murder should be a matter for investigation by the UN. The UN Security Council too must be investigated on its definition of what this war was all about. Who killed Gaddafi is an important question for the meaning of liberation of Libya.

Every citizen of the world may have an opinion and that is perfectly fine, but surely the way forward and how we address all related issues would set a minimum standard for the world in this matter of minimum personal regard.

Where and how should Gaddafi be buried is another legitimate question and concern. In the specific case of Osama bin Laden, the aggressors decided and played God in his life.

In this case, the decisions on Gaddafi’s burial would define the quality and culture of the democracy evolving in Libya. The best suggestion I’ve heard on TV was that “his body should be handed over to the elders of his tribe or ethnic group or community and they be requested to give due personal regard to his body and burial”.

This due process is absolutely essential if we want to evolve a newer culture of democracy without bitterness and hatred. We need to bring the full meaning of the word democracy to bear upon into realisation and fruition in the Middle East. It is more than the democratic institutions which lack integrity.

There is therefore no need to fear the dead; neither are Gaddafi’s supporters going to resurrect his memories or fight for his dead cause. His death is now history and his death has explicitly defined the requisite change of the regime in Libya.

The path to democracy in Libya will be defined by the way his body is handled and buried. Two wrongs will never make one right. The manner of his actions in cannot and should never define the right and wrong of good and better ways of others.

I pray that wisdom will prevail with the transitional leadership in Libya and as suggested by one commentator, that his burial be used as a bridge to destroy older values or revenge and hatred that he stood for and often propagated. Most dictators do!

In dealing with his burial, therefore, Libya needs to bury the 42 years of wrongdoing under his rule – but it has to do this the non-Gaddafi way.  Then the real and true meaning of change will become apparent.

May God bless Libya!