The subject of capital punishment evokes often ferocious debate. Each side, pro- and anti-, contends that the other lacks morality and/or reason because of their stance. Its existence and use has inspired a wide plethora of protests, songs, films, and writings, and it remains an emotive issue even where it is no longer carried out.

In the following article, I intend to explore that debate. Particularly, I wish to offer a uniquely anarchist perspective against the death penalty.

Origins and methods

Death, as a form of judicial punishment for wrongdoing, far predates the state. However, the evolution of communal society and systems of arbitration saw the importance of the death penalty reduced. As Peter Kropotkin wrote in Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution;

In their conceptions of justice the barbarians evidently did not much differ from the savages. They also maintained the idea that a murder must be followed by putting the murderer to death; that wounds had to be punished by equal wounds, and that the wronged family was bound to fulfil the sentence of the customary law. This was a holy duty, a duty towards the ancestors, which had to be accomplished in broad daylight, never in secrecy, and rendered widely known. Therefore the most inspired passages of the sagas and epic poetry altogether are those which glorify what was supposed to be justice. The gods themselves joined in aiding it. However, the predominant feature of barbarian justice is, on the one hand, to limit the numbers of persons who may be involved in a feud, and, on the other hand, to extirpate the brutal idea of blood for blood and wounds for wounds, by substituting for it the system of compensation. The barbarian codes which were collections of common law rules written down for the use of judges — “first permitted, then encouraged, and at last enforced,” compensation instead of revenge. The compensation has, however, been totally misunderstood by those who represented it as a fine, and as a sort of carte blanche given to the rich man to do whatever he liked. The compensation money (wergeld), which was quite different from the fine or fred, was habitually so high for all kinds of active offences that it certainly was no encouragement for such offences. In case of a murder it usually exceeded all the possible fortune of the murderer “Eighteen times eighteen cows” is the compensation with the Ossetes who do not know how to reckon above eighteen, while with the African tribes it attains 800 cows or 100 camels with their young, or 416 sheep in the poorer tribes. In the great majority of cases, the compensation money could not be paid at all, so that the murderer had no issue but to induce the wronged family, by repentance, to adopt him. Even now, in the Caucasus, when feuds come to an end, the offender touches with his lips the breast of the oldest woman of the tribe, and becomes a “milk-brother” to all men of the wronged family. With several African tribes he must give his daughter, or sister, in marriage to some one of the family; with other tribes he is bound to marry the woman whom he has made a widow; and in all cases he becomes a member of the family, whose opinion is taken in all important family matters.

It was with the state and hierarchical systems of power that the death penalty gained dominance. And brutality. The breaking wheel, boiling to death, flaying, slow slicing, disembowelment, crucifixion, impalement, crushing, stoning, execution by burning, dismemberment, sawing, decapitation, and scaphism are a few examples of the brutality of state execution.

Now, as a result of various democratic and popular pressures, most western countries have abolished the death penalty altogether. Of those that still practice it, the ones with at least a semblance of democracy about them have adopted more humane practices. Compare the United States, where 1,019 of the 1,191 executions since 1976 were done by lethal injection, to the continued use of decapitation or stoning in Saudi Arabia.

Anarchists, being opposed to the state and the monopoly it claims on the legitimate use of force, are thus against the use of the death penalty by the state. However, as already mentioned, the state is not the only entity to use execution.

Anarchists seek a world based upon autonomous and directly democratic communities, which administer justice based on voluntary arbitration. Though they tended against it where possible, historical communities which organised themselves on such a basis did have the option available of death as a punishment, with its extreme being the blood feud. The idea behind it was that “acts of retaliation underscore the ability of the social collective to defend itself and demonstrate to enemies (as well as potential allies) that injury to property, rights, or the person will not go unpunished.”

Would this idea persist in an anarchist society? Is use of the death penalty permissable if not performed by the state, or with the barbarism seen throughout history? No. There are a variety of reasons for this, practical as well as moral and philosophical.

The moral argument

Some opponents of the death penalty would argue against it on the grounds that it is “the easy way out for criminals.” I do not. For those who make such arguments, the alternative is that the criminal “rot in a dank prison cell for the rest of his days, regretting his actions.” Having already written as to why the prison system is unjust, I could not make such an argument. Moreover, such an argument is an authoritarian one, not a libertarian one.

For anarchists, the issue of crime cannot be divorced from the society within which it occurs. Criminality is not an inherent part of human nature, i.e. nobody is born “evil,” but the product of a wide variety of factors that are both personal and societal. For example rape, being based on power, is the product of a patriarchal and sexually repressive social system. However, at the same time, anarchists do not eschew the idea of individual responsibility or sit back and say “it’s society’s fault.” Anarchic justice is based on both the restructuring of society to deal with root causes of crime and on addressing actual criminal acts committed by criminals in the present.

Eric Fromm made a similar point in The Fear of Freedom;

It would seem that the amount of destructiveness to be found in individuals is proportionate to the amount to which expansiveness of life is curtailed. By this we do not refer to individual frustrations of this or that instinctive desire but to the thwarting of the whole of life, the blockage of spontaneity of the growth and expression of man’s sensuous, emotional, and intellectual capacities. Life has an inner dynamism of its own; it tends to grow, to be expressed, to be lived . . . the drive for life and the drive for destruction are not mutually interdependent factors but are in a reversed interdependence. The more the drive towards life is thwarted, the stronger is the drive towards destruction; the more life is realised, the less is the strength of destructiveness. Destructiveness is the outcome of unlived life. Those individual and social conditions that make for suppression of life produce the passion for destruction that forms, so to speak, the reservoir from which particular hostile tendencies — either against others or against oneself — are nourished

That said, even a free society will not be completely crime free. As just one example, crimes of passion are motivated by a strong and sudden impulse that cannot be foretold by the perpetrator, much less any social system whose aim is the prevention of anti-social behaviour. In other cases, personality disorders such as psychopathy or psychosis may be the motivating factor. How, then, do we deal with such acts? Surely those who would commit such despicable acts as rape and murder, especially in a world lacking the authoritarian repression of the present, ought to be put to death? In purely moral terms the answer remains no, whether we are talking about anarchy in the future or present-day society.

We are, in condemning the perpetrator of a “capital” crime, making a moral judgment. We are declaring the act committed, whether murder, rape, or some other action, to be wrong. For that moral judgement to hold up, it must apply in every similar situation. As Noam Chomsky states, “one of the, maybe the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something’s right for me, it’s right for you; if it’s wrong for you, it’s wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow.” Thus, if the taking of human life in an offensive act is wrong, then it is always wrong. It is wrong if it is committed by a mugger with a knife, by a policeman with a gun, or by a doctor with a needle.

I have used the word “offensive” as a qualifier because this reflects my own judgment. I am not a moral absolutist and as such can envision situations where taking a life may be necessary or even right. For example, acting in self-defence, it may be necessary to take the life of an aggressor who would otherwise take yours. Or ending somebody’s life may be an act of mercy and the only alternative to endless agony and physical or mental decline.

There are those who will argue that judicial execution is an act of defence, as it prevents the person against whom it is enacted from harming anybody ever again. However, this is a non-sequitur. The death penalty is not enacted to defend against potential future offences, but as a punishment for an offence already committed. It is a retributive act, and so cannot be classed as defensive. If an individual, taken by a moment of madness, killed someone upon discovering their guilt in the death of a loved one, we may be able to justify or explain it as a crime of passion. However, unless this revelation came in the midst of a direct and immediate threat (to put it crudely, “I killed your daughter and now I’ll kill you”), the killing is not a defensive one. And if that individual were to deliberately seek out the perpetrator in order to deliver a summary execution, then the act would not even be a crime of passion but an act of premeditated murder. Once again, it would not be a defensive act but an act of vengeance.

Perhaps the most eloquent argument I have read in favour of the death penalty comes from Greg at The Anti-Politician. The reason being that, unlike so many other commentators, he attempts to make an argument based on statistics and experience rather than (barring the occasional lapse) emotive sentiments. I intend to address them when moving on to the practical argument against the death penalty, but here I would like to make one point. In countering the idea that the death penalty is barbaric, he makes the following argument;

I believe that a judge should have an option for the death penalty in cases (with the requirements I mentioned earlier – jury, etc.) involving pre-meditated murder, child rape, kidnap and torture and certain cases of child abuse or adult rape. Those acts are inhumane and barbaric, not the punishment The idea that a group of twelve people should then reach a unanimous verdict that the crime is beyond doubt and so heinous as to warrant a death penalty that is then carried out a scheduled time and under strict conditions is not barbaric at all. “Barbaric” means “like a barbarian”, a barbarian would never be able to comprehend such a course of action.

He does, of course, make a valid point. The decision-making process he is advocating is not barbaric at all, but unique to more developed societies. However, it should be pointed out that people do not think execution barbaric because of how people reach the decision to carry it out. The argument for it being barbaric is that it is an act of vengeance masking itself as justice, often based on a sentiment (“an eye for an eye“) that originated in the dark ages.

The practical argument

As well as the above stated moral argument, there are several practical arguments to be made against death as a form of punishment. Several of those involve the legality of the punishment, particularly in relation to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, I will not be focusing upon them here, for two quite simple reasons. The first is that those who favour the death penalty would argue for a change in those very statutes that supposedly render it illegal. The second is that, as an anarchist, legal diktats imposed from above (even if I agree with the sentiments expressed) are at best a neccesary evil under a statist system. Rather, I shall focus on three main points – that the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent, that even in extreme cases rehabilitation remains a possibility, and that it is impossible to implement a system whereby the execution of innocent people can be absolutely avoided.

That the death penalty is not a deterrent is perhaps, the most common argument against it. For example, Amnesty International tells us that “during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in [US] states with the death penalty has been 48 to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.” This is countered by Greg with the point that “the stats do not show a lack of deterrent” because “the only correct way to measure a deterrent is to observe its effect in place and then remove the possible deterrent in the same location.” His conclusions, are the exact opposite of Amnesy’s. “In Texas, the murder rate decreased greatly after the death penalty was reintroduced. In the UK, murder and serious crime has risen steeply after our own death penalty laws were abolished.”

However, several problems arise here. The first, which is equally applicable to Amnesty’s statistics, is that correlation does not determine causality. As Greg rightly points out, crime rates in any particular country or state are affected by “its law, its social make up, its wealth and many other factors.” Both Texas and Great Britain have seen significant alterations in a wide variety of such factors beyond the abolition or reintroduction of the death penalty. There is also the fact that it is hard to find even correlation within the presented statistics. Whilst it is true that the per-capita murder rate in Texas decreased from 12.2 in 1976 (the year of reinstatement) to5.6 in 2008, it is also true that the rate increased from 8.6 in 1960 to 12.4 in 1972, the year the supreme court suspended the death penalty. Moreover, statistics show that the increase in the per capita murder rate in Britain is nowhere near as steep as the overall murder rate, more affected by increases in population than anything else. And, importantly, the increase is not a constant one, with the murder rate for 2008 being the lowest in 20 years.

The reason it is so hard to find a correlation between the use of the death penalty as a punishment and the murder rate is because there isn’t one. If it were a deterrent, we would expect a negative correlation, and if it were an encouragement (an absurd idea that nobody is suggesting), a positive one. Instead, the murder rate seems almost oblivious to whether the crime is punishable by death. This is because, in expecting a deterrent effect, we are expecting potential murderers to undertake a rational cost-benefit analysis before undertaking the crime. As this editorial for the Dallas Morning News explains, such an idea is “not the real world;”

Murder is often a crime of passion, which by definition excludes the faculties of reason. The jealous husband who walks in on his wife and another man is in no position to deliberate rationally on the consequences of killing his rival. The convenience store robber who chooses in a split-second to shoot the clerk has not pondered the potential outcomes of pulling the trigger.

People overtaken by rage, panic or drunkenness should be brought to justice, of course, but they are hardly paragons of pure reason, and it’s unreasonable to assert that they consider the possibility of a death sentence when committing their crimes.

Even premeditated killers don’t expect to be executed. And for good reason. Statistics show that a homicidal gangster is far more likely to die at the hands of his fellow thugs than the hands of the state. As economist and Freakonomics author Steven Levitt writes, “No rational criminal should be deterred by the death penalty, since the punishment is too distant and too unlikely to merit much attention.”

The threat of execution could serve as a deterrent to capital crimes such as murder, but only within the context of a totalitarian state. Clearly, this is an undesirable outcome, and so the deterrent effect can be dismissed out of hand.

Moving on, the next question is that of rehabilitation.

Of course, there are those within our society who simply cannot be rehabilitated. I harbour no illusions that there is some magic method by which we can “cure” psychopathy or any other such strawman argument used against opponents of the death penalty. Likewise, in discussing this area I shall leave aside entirely the matter of paedophilia and pederasty. That is so complex in itself, and enough of an emotive minefield, that it presents an entire debate in and of itself.

Here, the focus is on the vast majority of even capital criminals who are not permanently devoid of basic reasoning and empathy due to personality disorders. For those who are, permanent exclusion from society may be the only remaining option, whether that occurs within the walls of a dedicated institution or on a remote island.

But clearly, though they grab headlines and incite outrage, these are a minority amongst those who have taken human life. The idea of any sort of “hierarchy of murder” is outrageous, and of course the loss of someone caught in the crossfire of gang warfare is no “less” than the loss of someone systematically tortured by a sociopath. But in terms of the perpetrators of these acts, the scope for rehabilitation is quite different. Although there is broad debate about this generally, there are strong arguments for the idea that even the perpetrators of the most controversial murders may be rehabilitated.

Of course, one can point to any number of cases where murderers or rapists released from prison have reoffended. This does not, in itself, prove that rehabilitation doesn’t work. As Iain Murray argues in a paper for the think-tank Civitas, rehabilitation programmes must be comprehensive and must be uniquely tailored to each individual;

It seems that the natural state of an ex-prisoner is that he or she (recidivism rates for females are not appreciably lower) is liable to re-offend. This is almost certainly because the combination of mindset, worldview and circumstances – the “needs” of the subject – surrounding the newly released prisoner are not appreciably different from what they were before his or her last arrest. Programs that seek to address only one, or even just a few, of these needs are unlikely to succeed in altering the next choice he or she has to make as to whether or not to commit a crime. If there is one overwhelming need, such as substance abuse, that has been addressed, then perhaps the choice will be easier, but if other needs remain, then the choice for crime may still be taken. Successful rehabilitation exercises recognize the whole of the offender’s set of needs, and proceed to address them as best they can. The individual is not sacrificed to a big idea, and so the individual emerges better equipped to make necessary choices.

Thus, when Greg dismisses this with the single line that “extreme leftists probably believe a week of rehab should do the trick,” he is dismissing a strawman argument.

The other major concern with execution is the risk of killing innocent people. As Greg’s article notes, even one percent of executions being wrongful is “still too many,” and “it is better for a hundred bad men to go free than one good man to be wrongfully executed.” However, he contends that with advances in forensic science “the chance of a wrongful conviction going through to execution seems less than being struck by lightening.”

This is simply not true. Only two months ago, the Director of Public Prosecutions in Victoria, Australia was “forced to re-examine all cases from the past five years to find if any have been undermined by analysis of DNA profiles now deemed unreliable by police scientists.” That significant flaws become apparent as forensic technology develops points to a significant improvement over time. It also demonstrates that no technology is perfect and that even infinetissemal errors, especially compounded by the much larger flaws of existing justice systems, significantly increases te risk not only of wrongful convictions but of them never being discovered.

It is also worth noting that statistics likely understate the actual problem of wrongful convictions. Once an execution has occurred, there can be insufficient motivation to keep a case open, making it unlikely that it will ever be exposed.

A universal argument

According to Edward Abbey, “the true, unacknowledged purpose of capital punishment is to inspire fear and awe – fear and awe of the State.” There is considerable merit to this argument. For example, it is worth exploring further the idea that use of the death penalty is racist, targets the poor, and in a broader sense is part of a system which enforces the power structures which shape our world in the present.

However, the argument I have already made above is not an argument against the death penalty only as it applies to state-capitalist systems. It is an argument against it within any and all possible social structures, even if they happen to be ones built around community autonomy and anarchy.

(source)

More on capital punishment. More on Khalil Gibran.

Chapter 13
the Thief and The Dogs.

Chapter 13- Sense of Place.
Takes place in the vicinity of Tarzan’s Cafe, a place where Said feels safe in the knowledge that the cafe owner is his ally. It is late, “a little after midnight” (p.243) and the night is dark as only a quarter moon is shining faintly.  It is a  “wasteland” (p. 243) that he has to cross to reach the cafe, but is not able to get too close to it, for fear of being seen, and waits to meet his friend  “100 yards or so from the cafe”(p.243). The scene progresses to a grove, or “clump of trees around the wells” (p. 243).  It is described a “desolate, lonely place” (p.244). In this chapter the feel is clod and tense, for all of  Said’s actions are on close watch and in major rush, after Said killed the wrong man the police are after him and his time was cut short. 

Chapter 13, Themes
This chapter highlights Said’s obsession with revenge.  It is his primary thought and his justification for his life, ruined by those he believes responsible for his downfall.
Desperation
The character’s need for information, searching for the person who can provide it, who may turn up at the cafe, once able to confront the person who may have the information he seeks, “If you want to live, tell me where Ilish Sidra is hiding” (p.245) and the extraction of it by way of threats and force for the desperate need of information and lack of time. Then, “Said slapped him again, harder than before” (p. 245)
Truth or Lies
“I’ll swear on any oath you like”(p.245). As the questioning develops, Said realizes the man, Bayaza, is telling the truth.  “God damn Sidra, wherever he may be; is he my brother or my father that I would die on his account?” (p.245)
Life Purpose
Said seeks revenge, on, if not all the traitors (dogs) responsible for his misery, at least on one, as his only hope that “you won’t make me lose my life in vain” (p.246) and the only way he feels he can get his life back is to take it back from the on who took if from him.
Impatience
Said’s need for revenge has made him take risks and make mistakes that have made him not only desperate, but also a wanted man who has to move fast to accomplish his quest, losing the luxury of time and planning. “If only he wasn’t a hunted man, wanted for murder, he would bide his time and wait patiently for the proper opportunity!” (p.246).

Chapter 13 – Characterization
The three characters in this chapter, Said (the protagonist), Tarzan (the cafe owner and friend) and Bayaza (an acquaintance)
The characterization of Said portrays a desperate man in a desperate situation.  He needs to obtain information regarding the location of his enemy, Ilish Sidra, and is willing to risk being discovered by the police (for at this point in time are looking for him). Said’s life’s purpose has become death by his own hand to those who betray him, this providing him  with meaning and value to his life, even if this means he must die as a consequence of his revenge.
 Said by this chapter he is a man who refuses not to see that his actions are only making matters worse, and choosing to blame everyone but himself.
This way of thinking, an “eye for an eye” is particularly prevalent in Middle Eastern cultures, and Said’s sole purpose of exacting revenge on his betrayers highlights the extent to which this way of thinking will influence the life of a person. “He pondered the chance that might now be at hand, to bear down on his enemy and achieve his long awaited goal.  And then death, a final resting place” (p.244)

Tarzan on the other hand, is a peripheral character who provides support to a troubled friend, yet is cautious not to be identified as such in worry that he will get tangled into the mess Said is in. he’s a good man and is loyal to Said.
Bayaza is an old acquaintance of Said. he is only really mentioned once before in the earlier chapter, he plays a minor role in the book.

Chapter 13 – Imagery
Only one instance of imagery occurs, at the encounter between Said and Bayaza, when Bayaza is struggling to recognize Said, having the use of animal imagery he yells, “You don’t recognize me, Bayaza you dog!”(p.244) a derogatory expression, indicating his negative feelings toward any person associated with his enemies. He also describes the area around him as a “wasteland” giving us the idea how he sees the world around him, that there is not good to be seen. 

Chapter 13 – Plot Development
Said is looking for the person who is responsible for his misfortune, and most of all, the cause for the loss of his family.  He risks being caught by police, to confront Bayaza, in the hope he would be able to lead him to Ilish Sidra who has so far, escaped his efforts to kill him.  He finds Bayaza is unable to do so, and turns his thirst for revenge on another betrayer, Rauf, as justification for his life, and ultimately, his inevitable death. And now has no time and his desperation becomes more apparent.  In this Chapter, Sad’s obsession with revenge takes him back to Tarzan’s cafe, risking being caught by police (since in the earlier chapter he shot the wrong person and now is a wanted man), in the hopes of finding information as to the whereabouts of Ilish Sidra (the man he wants to kill), who he sees as the primary cause of his incarceration, the loss of his wife and child, and the misery his life has become.  

Tarzan meets Said some distance from the cafe and tells him that one person associated with Sidra, Bayaza, has turned up at the cafe and is there completing a deal.  He informs Said which route Bayaza will take upon leaving the café. After which Said goes looking for Bayaza in search of information, to find that Bayaza does not have it. And once again he is left with nothing to act on.

The death toll in Gaza is more than 1300. 13 Israelis were killed in the same period, and four of those were due to friendly fire.

I don’t often find it helpful to play the numbers game, because each person killed is a precious child of God; a divine spark which we have worked to destroy. But a kill ratio of 100 to 1? Something is deeply out of line here.

I remember learning at some point that the Hebrew Bible’s line about repaying “an eye for an eye” was very progressive for its time, giving the Israelites a moral standard that set them apart from the nations around. I assumed that this kind of restraint was no longer needed in this day and time. Apparently I was wrong.

And I am appalled at those who continue to defend Israel’s actions in Gaza on religious grounds. Biblically speaking, in the most literal sense, the equitable sense of an eye for an eye has been tossed out the window in favor of a narrow tribal brutality.

Though brazen as it may sound, i ask my dear readers to bear with patience, and hear out my voice. i still abide by the statement i made, and am very sure that the skill of statesmanship which is so much lacking in the indian representatives, is something which the leaders from the neighbouring country is well versed in.

though the father of statecraft Chanakya, was born in this nation, it is most likely that the actors playing the lead roles of indian democracy, failed to take a cue or two from the great master’s book. as it is rightly said: “ghar ki murgi daal barabar” which when transliterated into roman verse would read “chicken at the house is most likely to be consumed as pulses when in drought” or the value degradation. it may also have happened that the great books of the old masters must have slipped and fell into the rivers while being carried to delhi, so that the poor actors could learn a line or two. the rivers then must have transported the books to the most fertile lands of india, punjab, where five rivers used to flow carefree, and the rivers must have imbued the knowledge of the books deep inside it.

the sons of pakistan, in the post independence era, must have toiled hard to make their country another golden bird, and the rich waters of the erstwhile punjab, must have reaped their statecraft in good harvests, as it must have suffused the imbued verses of chanakya.

how else do i force my mind to believe, that the indian “palabo” minister after threatening to attack the poor neighbour friend –the home media of which has been for so long crying a foul play regarding 26/11, and claiming it is we damn diabolical indians who are planning to ruin the poor country’s image wordwide– has done nothing except shouting. Ahh!!! you might be wondering what is this “palabo”?

haha, dont worry i’ll explain it to you. it is actually a famous joke. it so happens that once one sardarji so proud of his brothers being part of the brave sikh regiment, asks one of his friend ” oye yaara, how come there is sikh regiment, and regiments of all other regions, but not a single bengal regiment?”. to this his friend answers that once there was a bengal regiment during the british period. it so happens that once the troops were taken to a battlefield on orders of a firangi officer. the leader of the bengal regiment (he was a bengali of course) approaches the firangi officer on seeing the enemy troops and asks “sir, palabo?”. the officer doesnt answer him..”sir, palabo?”
the officer dint knew bangla, and thinks this brave bengal regiment officer is asking the permission to attack the enemy. he felt so proud to lead such a regiment, that he decides to wait till the enemy comes in too close, and then let his boys unleash wrath on those wretched enemies. so he waits, and as soon as the enemy nears them, he shouts with all his strength “palaaabooooo….”–he shouted in their native tongue thinking the troops would be morally more high— and what happens???
the whole troop runs away from the field!!!! actually the bengali officer was asking palabo or “to flee”…. since then, the sardarji’s friend said, a bengal regiment has never been instituted.

the above joke has been a common say in our region and it is generally believed that bengalis are a bit too timid to engage in fights. i believe our defence minister is just setting up an epitome of the protagonist of the joke. he has done nothing to create terror, or i say why only create terror, we should have just started an all out war with the bloody neighbour.

i shall write more on the above and the matter of indian politicians in due time, but let me bring to your notice a simple small incidence which went largely unnoticed by the indian think tank. the pressure that was continuously building up on pakistan, by force of the U.S. governemnt, was so smoothly channeled to vent out its own anger against america, as well as to put away the pressure to act on terrorism.
after weeks of continuous hassling by the indian goverment, america too forced pakistan to take ground actions against the notorious militia, and not just give assurances to act. what pakistani politicos did in a showmanship of amazing statesmanship, which let truth be told left me in an awe of their skills, is that they removed their army force from the afghanistan pakistan border, towards the punjab region. “dekh ke mauka, maara chauka…” yes, and seeing this great opportunity, the taliban blew and captured around 100 of american vehicles, supplying food and other resources to the american army. this way pakistan vented out its anger too.
(now, america is the baap of all statesmanship. i believe they mastered it from the texts of the renaissance chanakya or the great Italian master Machiavelli. maybe americans supplied the venerable texts to pakistan along with the arms and ammunitions. so you see, they “the neighbours” are well versed in early as well as renaissance political skills!!!)
believe me americans are so patriotic, they wont let a fly of their lands die on other soil, let alone keeping their soldiers hungry. after this incidence they soon changed their stand, and have been asking their little puppets in india to stop wailing and end the fight…”chhodo yaar, jhagda khatm karo…”)

it depends on india now. america will indeed try to stop the war by threats of so many strings attached via loans, monetary aids, or by simply putting an embargo with other nations.  “khana, tel paani band…sab seedha ho jayega”
its time now to be gutsy. now or never. if the flame ignited in the hearts of common people is extinguished by our palabo ministers, then we’ll be doomed forever in our own eyes.

i love the fierceness of israelites. yes the great jews. 9 of their athletes were killed in munich olympics. it instantly recruited a task force no weak than S.W.A.Ts, to find the culprits till they are dead. one of the terrorists who killed the athletes was tracked to be in brazil at the age of 70+. he had been hunted for more than 40 years. the special task force group dint wink twice to execute the culprit. this is what is called “An Eye for an Eye”.

sorry gandhiji, this time it won’t make the world blind.

Beware! My Rhea bites. Yes, it’s hard to admit but I think my child might have a biting problem. I know that biting is not abnormal behavior but it surely is annoying!

I’ve gotta tell her “teeth are not for biting, dear”. Her preschool teacher complained yesterday that she bit one of her classmates but only because the other one was pushing and cornering her. Certainly that is not acceptable behavior but this brings me to a larger question…

Should she quietly endure and bite the bullet or should she just bite her instead?? My child is gonna ask me what she should do if someone knocks her down. And I wonder what I should say? I think I’ll bite my tongue.

“Yeah, you teach her a lesson not to mess with you!” Is that what I should say? I don’t wanna preach violence to a three year old while on the other hand I want her to stand up for herself. My Gandhian hubby would never allow philosophising ‘quid pro quo’ or ‘an eye for an eye’ or ‘tit for tat’. But you can’t really show your other cheek, can you or you shall receive another slap. That is Gen y!

Do the right thing, Rhea! I know you can make that decision one day. But for now-

“Teeth are not for biting, dear”.

Here’s an idea I first wrote about years ago, but it’s still POWERFUL. Pick a topic, any topic…money, religion, romance, family, work, but just pick one. Then start writing down what you believe about that subject. Example: Money: “money makes the world go ’round,” “it takes money to make money,” “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer,” “you have to work hard for your money.” Then pick another topic and do the same.

Then go back and see where any of your beliefs are in conflict with each other. Trust me. You have them. Where things get sticky for me is in the criminal justice department. On one hand, my “new age/holistic self” believes “we all come into each other’s lives learn life lessons.” (so someone who mugs you, for example, came to do that the two of you could learn lessons from the experience.)
However, my “Braveheart self” believes the old testament eye-for-an-eye. I think the way to stop stealing is to have criminals’ hands chopped off. Use your imagination when it comes to pedophilia. I’m very hard line in the criminal justice department. No bleeding heart here.

The problem with conflicting beliefs is that they tie up alot of energy that could be used productively elsewhere. And they waste ALOT of energy. So one must find a way to resolve the conflice: either by eliminating or altering one belief, or by changing or eliminating them both.

It’s hard work, but you will feel so much lighter and clearer when you do it. Give it a whirl. Let me know how it goes.

Matthew 5:33-42 In these passages from Matthew, Jesus continues to speak of the “higher righteousness,” alluded to in 5:20, which is the crux of the new/old teaching he proclaims.

The fourth passage in this series begins with verse 33. It is an interesting passage that not only teaches, but is a demonstration of the teaching itself. The language of oaths and vows may not resonate with us now the way it did for Jesus’ original listeners; nevertheless, the focus of the passage may be even more poignant for us now. 

 We start with the question: Why does one take an oath? What makes an oath necessary? The answer, of course, is that one’s word is somehow lacking integrity, that there is some doubt as to whether you will do what you say you will do. So to give it more oomph – to emphasize one’s integrity and trustworthiness to another who is doubtful – we “swear” on a variety of things—our mother’s grave, “the Holy Bible”, to God, etc. But the greater issue here is the assumption that a person’s word is no longer good enough, and that integrity is in short supply. Today, it is an accepted fact that we live in a culture of lies, misrepresentations, deception and dishonesty—in everything from politics to marketing to our personal relationships. We have become a culture that lacks integrity and, because of that – when something is really important – we have to rely on various oaths, vows and other expressions to impress on others that yes, we really mean what we say . . .at least this time. 

 Jesus discerns this lack of integrity in his own time.  In a culture of duplicity, Jesus proposes simplicity: “Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No’” (verse 37). No oath or vow can substitute for our consistent, faithful practice of integrity. Jesus’ own directness of speech in this passage demonstrates just such integrity: there is no hedging, no obscuring, no duplicity. The message on integrity takes on the characteristics of integrity—Jesus is simple, straightforward and direct. 

 The next passage is one that many of us at the scripture study last Tuesday confessed to having wrestled with regularly. Many have come away from this passage (5:38-42) believing that Jesus seems to be encouraging his followers to be doormats, to suffer evil without any resistance. But scripture scholars with good social and historical analysis of the Palestine of Jesus’ time have done incredible work with this passage over the past twenty years. The passage starts out by quoting what was a common understanding of justice in Jesus’ time and, indeed, still holds sway with the vast majority of humanity today: An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth (v. 38). We understand such a mentality today as being primarily about punishment, about seeking “justice” for the perpetrator. For some of us, it even offends our more “developed” sensibilities about a justice that has vengeance at its core. But for the early Israelites, such a law (lex talionis) was actually instituted for its limiting effect. An eye for an eye was instituted to limit revenge, to keep violence from escalating, and to actually break the cycle of vengeance that such actions often invited. Such cycles and escalations rooted primarily in revenge could quickly get out of hand and cease to be about any sort of justice at all. An eye for an eye functioned to limit that tendency. 

What Jesus proposes instead of an eye for an eye unsettles some of us though. Is Jesus promoting passivity to evil when he tells us to turn the other cheek? Is Jesus telling us to unquestioningly accept suffering with no thought for our safety or dignity? A quick lesson in the honor-shame culture of Jesus’ time is helpful in understanding what it is that Jesus actually counsels.

 The culture of Jesus’ time, not unlike Middle Eastern cultures today, was built on the axis of honor-shame. One’s honor was considered of the utmost importance – and not incurring shame was essential. Note then the language of the last part of v. 39: “When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other one to them as well.” To strike someone on the right cheek implies that you would strike them with the back of you right hand. Such an act was familiar to Jesus’ audience. Those subservient to you—slaves to masters, wives to husbands, children to fathers, peasants to soldiers, and so on—could be put in their place with a well-placed backhand to the cheek. Additionally, to strike one in this way did not go against Jewish law. So what happens when we “turn the other cheek?” The act, far from being a sign of willingness to accept evil treatment, is actually an assertion of dignity by the oppressed party that put the oppressor in a difficult and shameful position. For the oppressor to strike his inferior on the left cheek, the oppressor is forced to strike with his open hand. To strike with one’s open hand, as opposed to backhand someone, is to acknowledge that the one you are striking is equal to you. Furthermore, to strike with an open hand is prohibited in Jewish law, so turning the other cheek and inviting your opponent to strike you with their open hand is to put the opponent in the unenviable position of acknowledging your equality to them, and then having to either back down in front of others and incur the shame associated with that OR break the law and incur the penalties and shame in that action. So what we have here is not Jesus inviting us to a beat-down by our opponents. Rather what we have is Jesus inviting us to a strategy for confronting and resisting an opponent who is in a position of power over us. It is actually a strategy for winning.

 The same application follows in the next two examples. In v. 40, the issue of giving one’s cloak to one to whom you are indebted who has taken your tunic is directly related again to Jewish law. Jewish law states that the one item that a good Jew could not deny to another Jew, regardless of how in debt the other was to him, was his cloak. A cloak functioned in a variety of capacities for the poorest of the poor: clothing, shelter from the elements, and economic opportunity (beggars used to spread out their cloaks in front of them at the gates to the city, asking for alms to be placed in them). A cloak must therefore be returned before sunset to one’s rightful owner. To offer someone your cloak when they are taking your tunic again puts them in an awkward and untenable position regarding Jewish law and the potential for incurring shame in front of one’s peers and others.  

In v. 41, Jesus is referencing the common practice of Roman soldiers to press into service civilian help in carrying their various military items. Any Roman soldier could require of any peasant the performance of this task—but the law stated that it could be for only one mile. So to offer to go two miles again turns the table on the opponent, forcing them into a position of breaking the law should they accept. 

 Great activists like Martin Luther King Jr and Gandhi understood Jesus’ words here as a strategy for winning in a situation when the vast amount of power was on the side of one’s opponent. To fight with weapons would be a strategy sure to fail since the opponent has all the power – and better weapons. But in the face of such overwhelming odds, Jesus invites us to think creatively and nonviolently. What he offers us is a strategy for winning—both in terms of asserting our dignity but also in appealing to the best sensibilities of our opponent and especially to the many who may not have chosen sides but are watching closely the interaction between us and our opponents. Calling attention to the deep injustice of our situation through creative resistance, as Jesus suggests, is to win the battle for the hearts and minds of all those watching from the sidelines. What we have here is Jesus inviting us to moral jujitsu—using our opponent’s energy against him to make our point and win the encounter.

-John

“The Creeps Omnibus”, ed. Charles Lloyd, (Phillip Allan,1935), collected together the entire contents of the first three books in the series, “Creeps”, “Shudders” and “Shivers”.

CREEPS ed. Charles Lloyd, (Phillip Allan,1932)

Tod Robbins – Silent, White, & Beautiful
H. R. Wakefield – The Red Lodge
Elliott O’Donnell – The Ghost Table
Tod Robbins – Spurs
H. R. Wakefield – “He Cometh And He Passeth By”
Philip Murray – The Charnel House
Elliott O’Donnell – A Wager And A Ghost
Charles Lloyd – The Last Night
Tod Robbins – Cockrow Inn

SHUDDERS ed. Charles Lloyd, (Phillip Allan,1932)

H. R. Wakefield – Or Persons Unknown
Tod Robbins – Toys
Elliott O’Donnell – Accusing Shadows
H. R. Wakefield – Professor Pownall’s Oversight
Charles Lloyd – The Harlem Horror
Philip Murray – The Trunk
H. R. Wakefield – The Third Coach
Philip Murray – The Crimson Blind
Elliott O’Donnell – The Haunted Spinney
Philip Murray – The Patch
H. R. Wakefield – That Dieth Not

SHIVERS ed. Charles Lloyd, (Phillip Allan,1933)

H. R. Wakefield – The 17th Hole at Duncaster
Charles Lloyd – An Eye for an Eye
Tod Robbins – Wild Wullie the Waster
Mrs. Everett – The Death Mask
Elliott O’Donnell – The Ghost in the Ring
Philip Murray – The Poplar Tree
H. R. Wakefield – “And He Shall Sing…”
Tod Robbins – Who Wants a Green Bottle?
Elliott O’Donnell – The Tank of Death

As is obvious from the above, Charles Birkin/ ‘Charles Lloyd’ was working with a very small stable of authors to begin with, but he certainly succeeded in getting the best from them. Robbins “Spurs” is the short story which spawned Tod Browning’s classic horror movie, “Freaks”. Wakefield’s Satanist in “He Commeth … ” is loosely based on the then very newsworthy Aleister Crowley, while the same writers “The Red Lodge” is among the very best haunted house stories ever written IMHO. Birkin doesn’t disgrace himself amongst such company, although why Van Thal didn’t resurrect “The Harlem Horror” – a truly sadistic tale of child abduction that gets uglier with every paragraph – along with the others for his Pan horror series is a mystery. Phillip Murray (possibly even publisher Allan under a pseudonym), perfected the short-short horror story form, rarely exceeding four pages, yet never needing to. Hugh Lamb used “The Charnel House” for one of his own excellent anthologies, as it’s one of the very grimmest pieces in here.

Charles Lloyd (ed) – Shivers (Phillip Allan, 1933)

Many thanks to Raymond Russell and Rosalie Parker of Tartarus Press and the excellent Supernatural Fiction Database for kindly granting me permission to use this cover scan.

H. R. Wakefield – The 17th Hole at Duncaster
Charles Lloyd – An Eye for an Eye
Tod Robbins – Wild Wullie the Waster
Mrs. Everett – The Death Mask
Elliott O’Donnell – The Ghost in the Ring
Philip Murray – The Poplar Tree
H. R. Wakefield – “And He Shall Sing…”
Tod Robbins – Who Wants a Green Bottle?
Elliott O’Donnell – The Tank of Death

H. R. Wakefield – The Seventeenth Hole At Duncaster: A golf club on the Norfolk coast. The course has recently been extended at the expense of a strip of woodland, but members complain the hole is unplayable and a particularly foul stench periodically emanates from the vicinity. The secretary, Mr. Baxter, suffers nightmares in which he is gloatingly informed of who will be next to die at the 17th, and the voices are never wrong. After a woman is stripped and murdered by persons unknown at the blighted spot, he wisely obtains a transfer to London, where he later learns that ‘Blood Wood’ – as it is known locally – was once the haunt of Druids.

Charles Birkin – An Eye For An Eye: Dr. Peters’ daughter, Angela, is raped and murdered on Wimbledon Common, the finer details of the crime being too ghastly to be divulged to the press. The finger of suspicion points at Peters’ chauffeur, George Yarrow, but he walks from the court a free man as there is no concrete evidence against him. Peters gives him his old job back and bides his time until such evidence is forthcoming. When Yarrow’s embittered lover, Nelly Torr, comes out of a coma, she gives him enough detail to hang the wretch, but Dr. Peters isn’t about to let him off that lightly.

Mrs. Everett – The Death Mask: Gloriana Enderby is fanatically opposed to second marriages. On her deathbed she requests that her husband, Tom, covers her face with a particular handkerchief she values among her possessions.
After the funeral Tom sets his cap at the new neighbours’ daughter, Lucy Ashcroft. When they become engaged Gloriana haunts them, the image of her face forming upon hankies and sheets. When it glowers at them from the tablecloth as they’re attempting to dine, Lucy throws in the towel.

H. R. Wakefield – “And He Shall Sing …”: “A foul and deadly stench filled the room … he saw that that Something was naked, livid, and that blood was streaming jerkily from its rotting lips.”

Mr. Kato approaches Mr. Cheltenham with a book of Japanese verse which he is desperate to see published. Cheltenham realises he has a masterpiece on his hands, but can it really be the work of the semi-literate Kato and, if not, what’s happened to the man who really wrote it? Come to that, why is he always seeing a small black figure out of the corner of his eye these days?

Buried underneath Wakefield’s usual sarcasm, a truly grim story surreptitiously claws its way to the surface.

Tod Robbins – Wild Wullie the Waster: Branstaun Tower, Scotland. A pointless argument during a billiards match leads to the premature ends of Wild Wullie Campbell and his friend Roderick Dingwall. As ghosts the “doddering old fossils” hide away in the attic by day and enjoy nightly billiards, but then the new owners arrive …
Delightful. It’s like some kind of literary precursor to the Shiver & Shake comic strip!

Elliott O’Donnell – The Ghost in the Ring: Prize fighter Jim Rogers disposes of his next opponent Eddy O’Malley by nudging him into a quicksands. Two years later O’Malley’s ghost comes to the assistance of a novice who is fighting Rogers for the Californian heavyweight championship.

Philip Murray – The Poplar Tree: Her late husband planted the tree and, at first, it was a comfort to her in her solitude. Of late it’s started to creep her out. So she instructs the gardener to chop it down …

Elliott O’Donnell – The Tank of Death: Dick ‘The Snake’ Driscoll, an ex-rugby international now gentleman thief, is hired by Prof. Carleras to steal a document from a house in Maida Vale. Driscoll’s friend Marcelle Garteau takes a job at The Herrings as a maid, fending off her lecherous employer for a fortnight until her mission is accomplished. A freak injury prevents Driscoll from taking the papers to Carleras, so Marcelle goes in his stead. Unfortunately for her, the professor has no intention of settling his debt and he doesn’t want any living witnesses to the theft either …

Part crime caper, part love story and just the one moment of horror to warrant it’s inclusion in the book, this is a more enjoyable read than The Ghost In The Ring.

Tod Robbins – Who Wants A Green Bottle?: Scotland. The Laird of Kilgour’s deathbed confession. When his miserly Uncle Peter died, Kilgour gleefully partied the old skinflint’s fortune away. One Halloween he sees a tiny man trying to make away with a gold coin. Trapping him under a tumbler, he extracts from his uncle (for it is his spirit) a wish and is soon given a guided tour of Hell. He learns that, to avoid the torments of the pit, the soul must be contained in a green bottle at the moment of death.

Plenty of potential for horror, but this is Robbins at his most whimsical.

by Kiwi Mohamed

I stumbled upon Johnathan William Anderson about a year or so ago.  He debuted an accessories collection of beautifully sculptured resin jewellery, where insects and flowers sat in clear bubbles like floating jewels.  I came across him once again, happy to see his new S/S 09 menswear collection entitled “An Eye for An Eye” drenched in religious, historical and mythical paraphernalia.

With this collection Anderson combines the rudiments of traditional schoolboy uniforms with warrior detailing creating a beautiful contrast of innocence, elegance and strength.  There is a nod to historical icons, Diego Velázquez and Raphael Jonathan,  within the pale blue of the jackets and trousers and the blood red fringe elements found on the scarves and cuffs.  The intricate embroidery, short cut shirts and cropped jackets are worn with slouchy khakis.  Here Brideshead Revisited springs to mind as I envision lofty young men poised on the brink of manhood falling in love with the frills of bourgeoisie society as well as each other.

This is Anderson’s third menswear collection and may very well be his best.  I beg anyone to differ.  Be sure to check out his entire collection and look book here.