Although I haven’t yet started my placement at Baycrest I have been busy with the formation of my very own public on no other social networking site than...facebook! Ok-sort of. After four years on facebook, only a few days ago I posted my very first opinion on a political issue that just so happens to be a highly controversial one. My previous postings on my own blog and the RPS main blog give the impression that I am usually outspoken and outwardly opinionated, but I’m very new to sharing my opinions and I have to encourage myself constantly to do so. Anyways, my pseudopublic was initiated when my lawyer friend posted this comment Prime Minister Harper recently made:
“Well I personally think there are times when capital punishment is appropriate”.
Above my comment were the usual and expected sarcastic remarks of agreement mingled with facts. And then my comment:
“I agree! And it doesn’t have to be capital punishment either”.
I didn’t explain my opinion and although I knew what I meant-no one else did. This is the problem with being new at expressing your opinions. You want to keep them short and sweet and hope to your personal deity that everyone else understands. Needless to say, my lawyer friend had another friend that had spent three years in a federal prison (by his own testimony) and he did not agree with Harper and certainly not me. In brief he informed me (and a few others) that I was ignorant, that I wasn’t God so I have no right to take a life, and suggested that I visit a prison for the express purpose of informing the inmates that they deserve to die. Clearly he thought that my judgement was reactive in that I prescribed the death penalty for any and all heinous crimes, and also he thought that my emphasis was on capital punishment. However, I think my response somewhat clarified my position:
“I don't know about Harper but I would never say to anyone "you deserve to die". As per my comment I wasn't solely thinking about capital punishment, because of course depending on where you go in the world you'll find that people can be executed for things that we might find trivial here in North America. However, I do think there are instances where people "need to die". Picture a police officer killing someone (that perhaps could have been rehabilitated) because he/she was holding someone hostage with a gun to their head. Or picture a rebel leader in say Uganda who rapes and kills women and children day after day. How do you stop evil/harm in areas where justice does not prevail and where there are no justice systems? I would argue that "capital punishment"/lethal force is warranted and constitutes justice in the above mentioned scenarios and scenarios like them. No one is God, but it has been my experience with the Bible that God does not object to preventing harm to people(s) by using lethal force on the perpetrator”.
I would also add that my opinion on extrajudicial killings has led me to be somewhat less hostile towards capital punishment as I was in the past, hence my initial statement. What is interesting about this whole scenario is how fast religion became a part of the discussion. In fact, the topic of God’s authority was an argument in and of itself. Not to mention that fact that underscores that the same religion (I think) can be used to argue two different positions.
Capital punishment is a topic that evokes strong opinions in people, regardless of if they have a religion or not.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations on stepping out and voicing an opinion. Although my opinion varies greatly, I do think that open discourse on social media sites such as facebook is an arena where people who would normally not encountered each other, can have an open conversation.
Hi Shanqb!
ReplyDeleteFirst of all let me commend you on being able to so open and candidly be able to voice your opinion regardless of whether or not I agree. Sometimes it is hard to do that because of the way individuals attack one another so quickly.
In regards to your comments about facebook and other social networks. I can see how they can be troubling resources sometimes. I often stray away from making such statements in texts, facebook updates, or tweets on twitter because of the way they can be interpreted. In our fast paced culture we sometimes just want to read the headlines or single paragraph feeds. That is why papers like Metro on the subway are so popular. They don't, however, explain the full truth behind how a person feels about an issue. That being said I still think they are helpful in other ways in starting forums where people can chat about issues even behind masked identities to protect themselves. The point is that the opinions are up there and people are speaking out about injustices. That is commendable.
I look forward to hearing more about your placement! =)
You certainly stirred the pot!
ReplyDeleteAs a hybrid comment that I made to Carmen but which is apt here, I find it interesting how social media sites have created a new public image. In a comment above Carmen states that discourse on a social media site (such as Facebook) is not a place for an open conversation however, the reality is that it still occurs.
We have created a new form of conversation and a new place to make our opinions heard. What is very true is that the way people talk/hold themselves on Facebook, for example, is very different then how they would in public so I would agree with Carmen and offer my advice: talk to your friend in person - it makes for a better back and forth that won’t be aired as a play by play for all your friends.
All the best,
Drew