Written by Kevin Cassar
‘Any man’s death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind’. This is nothing but a quote which emerges from John Donne’s literature, which quote undisputedly strikes any person whatsoever even though such person might be averse to the said branch of literature.
Now, having mentioned such a quote, I will embark on an appraisal thereof, in the context of the appalling barbaric event which has impended some days ago in New Zealand, which evidently turned out to be ideologically motivated. In so far as such quote is concerned, it implies that any common mortal, regardless of his inter alia; gender, sexual orientation, religious and political beliefs, is entitled to the right to life, and that it should be imperative that such fundamental right be never subjected to any condition or reservation whatsoever. Such right is inherent and innate in each and every one of us, and the only criterion, for one to enjoy such sacrosanct right, is being a human being. No provisos are to be established for good measure. The right to life shall not be conditional, that is, no double standards should be applied when taking it into account vis-à-vis any man.
Such man may be Arab, a Brit or a mulatto, but his right to life is not to be obstructed as a result of his skin color or race.
Such man may be male or female, but his right to life is not to be obstructed as a result of his gender.
Such man may be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual, but his right to life is not to be obstructed as a result of his sexuality.
Such man may be Roman Catholic or a Muslim, but his right to life is not to be obstructed as a result of his religious convictions.
In this day and age, we seem to reckon that we are endowed with the capacity to achieve anything that every now and then we may have the appetency of obtaining. We live in the digital era where any piece of information on any rationae materiae can be acquired in two shakes of a lamb’s tail via the internet. Yet, some of us fail to merely accept the very elementary fact that us human beings, qua God’ s creatures, are of our very nature, different and diverse. Egoistically, menefreghisti tend to perceive such diversity as the source of war. We may not be aware of this reality, but as we speak a war is up and running. Albeit being different on some counts from that of ’14 and that of ’39, the unjust and untenable killings, such as those which precipitated in the Christchurch mosque, of which we are all protagonists either directly or indirectly, actually constitute the war of the 21st century.
Hypocrisy has been reflected in a crystallized manner in the several news items and the vocabulary thereof following the shootings of the 19th of this month. Whilst the fourth estate has expressed its sorrow for what had occurred, still, the methodology it utilized is telling. Hitherto, I have never came across the term ‘white extremist’ when it comes to making reference to the alleged perpetrator saving a few articles wherein the statements made by the PM of New Zealand were quoted verbatim. It’s definitely not on. If the actors who were behind, ad exemplum, the Paris attacks back in 2015 were therewith coined as Islamic extremists, then why does this time the 4th estate seem to be reluctant to adopt such a stance?
Preposterous is the nonchalance emanating from many (including Maltese students, hence the esperance of the future) who with palpable pride, took to their Facebook accounts to justify these recent attacks, arguing that the New Zealand attack is petty and trivial when compared to previous terror attacks or worse that the victims deserved it.
Repeating this myself here, and in this context, is also abhorrent and repugnant, let alone writing it publicly and strung with the other ‘patriotic’ mantras which continue to add insult to injury. On a side note, methinks, that given that today, by addressing a woman ‘aw lilly’ or ‘aw gisem’, one would be held criminally liable, then it would be an utter farce if we fail to take action when racism and xenophobia are stoked through one’s assertions on the internet. We do have section 82A, but that has not been enshrined for the sake of enshrinement, but rather to be invoked when it is incumbent for the sake of justice to be invoked.
The crux in the quote in question lies here in the second part of the quote; ‘because I am involved in mankind’. Race and religion, amongst other factors are just characteristics, they distinguish a man from another man, but they do not bestow any supremacy or the consequent inferiority. The said distinction doesn’t serve to belittle one and render another as imperious. It would be irrational for the rational animal to consider such differences as differences on the basis of which he can at will ride roughshod over the right to life.
As Aristotle opined, what distinguishes a man from an animal is reason. Having mentioned animals, having a bird’s eye view of the modus operandi thereof and the praxis in their natural habitat, we can observe how the bigger animal eradicates its inferior. They thrive thereon. The lions differ from the zebras, consequently the former utilizes such difference and pull the wool over the latter’s eyes. Now, human beings, given that they are endowed with the faculty of reason, should not operate akin to animals and should not perceive differences between each other as the factor on the basis of which they may embark on violence, be it moral or physical.
Let us not render our characteristics which distinguish us, as our nemesis.
Let us not use our faculty of reason and cogitation solely to pave the way for novel technological innovations.