The writer finds himself is guilty; immersed in ambiguity. A little verse to start and end today’s article. Well, the title is ambiguous. We are all destined to die eventually. Unless of course, there is something I haven’t been told about. Though, that’s ‘destined’, not ‘deserves’. The latter relates to death, executed (yes, even executed) by one’s fellow human being(s).
Nonetheless, even where there is a court verdict for a very serious crime like premeditated murder, many will argue that the guilty individual does not deserve to die.
Around the world, including Eswatini, most countries have steadily moved away from carrying out the death penalty or implementing it where imposed. In the global Christian communities, this emerging attitude appears to be well supported by the Bible. While several books in the Old Testament advocated that ‘an eye for an eye’ should be applied to ensure the punishment fits the crime, we see the New Testament’s view of Jesus in the book of Matthew; that we should ‘turn the other cheek’. He was teaching a code of mercy and forgiveness.
That is an impressive approach in principle, but the modern age, obviously not known to Jesus in his day, sees vicious perpetrators of multiple murders enjoying a so-called life-sentence of three meals a day plus gym training, even some TV and all in a very secure environment. It’s difficult to see an appropriate degree of justice captured there.
Well, American Charlie Kirk certainly didn’t deserve to die. Two weeks ago, he was shot by an assassin during a public outdoor debate with students.
Although I certainly disagreed with some of Kirk’s right wing neo-populist views, the degree of hate emerging in public comments, such as: ‘He got what he deserved’, was thoroughly unfair – an illustration of the powerful political divisions in some western societies today. Free speech is a key component to an open and fair society, provided it’s not unjustified defamation of character. I think it’s a tragedy when a young man – he was only 31 years old – carrying a name of zero-pomposity (Charlie instead of Charles) and with such hugely developed intellectual and speaking skills, is cut down in his prime. Where I appreciated his efforts was in his many debates with university students, both in the UK and the USA. Taking on subjects of interest out in the public domain and exposing himself to the risk of defeat and even ridicule, was highly commendable. The world will miss him. Another impressive dimension to it all was the intellectual skills of the students themselves when challenging Kirk in debate.
When encountering the popularity – and unpopularity – of Charlie Kirk, I could not help reflecting on that modern term ‘spin doctor’. If, a few centuries ago, you’d asked someone what that term meant, you would likely get the suggestion that it was a medically-respected individual who chose to find cures from the aero-generated output of a spinning top. It does, of course, refer to an individual who, through masterful sophistry, is able to make a square look round and a rude comment seem complimentary. The spin doctor is largely observed tending to the utterances of their masters, usually individuals of high political or industrial rank. Applying a favourable interpretation to a situation or statement, in order to influence public opinion
Charlie Kirk would have made an expert spin doctor where you took him out of his normal field of activity and placed him in spin-doctoring configuration for a top politician. The acid test of the expert spin-doctor is that they can get away with murder; figuratively-speaking of course. Take Peter Mandelson, one of a cadre of modern spin doctors. He had an extraordinary journey in recent UK political history, eventually becoming Lord Mandelson in 2008.
These guys can talk the tail off a brass monkey and duck and dive their way out of any controversy. Mandelson was used and highly valued by Tony Blair when Prime Minister (PM), who Mandelson chose to support, instead of Gordon Brown, for the Labour leadership in 1994. Brown went off in a huff about that, but when he became PM in 2007, who d’you think he recruited in a Cabinet re-shuffle? Yes, Lord Mandelson. Married to a man and known widely as the ‘Prince of Darkness’ for his ruthless style, he was later appointed by the present Labour Prime Minister, Kier Starmer.
The latter was then seen to have protected Mandelson from the public eye, that would have demanded accountability for his showing strong support for convicted paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein. Then in anticipation of the disgrace this would bring upon himself, Starmer sacked Mandelson as UK Ambassador to the USA. The third in the trio is J.D.Vance, the current Vice President, also in the premier league of spin doctors. While he is in an executive position, I would hazard a fairly confident guess that he is closely involved in compiling and articulating Donald Trump’s strategies and speeches; and publicly endorsing the president’s views on key issues. He is one of the sharpest and most intelligent speakers. Eesh, that guy can argue his way out of any mistake. Spin doctor to president? Well, if Trump manages to complete his second four-year term, it’s looking increasingly likely, especially with JDV support and because he is not allowed a third term, then … his loyal supporter, Vance, is in with a very good chance. He is also a poet, but does not know it.
Leave a comment