The body of Muammar Gaddafi is in cold-storage in Misrata. It is unclear how exactly he died because different people keep giving different accounts of his capture and death. What we do know is that people are queuing up to see the corpse with their own eyes, to take photos and celebrate that he has gone.
And what is wrong with that? Another example of liberal Western sensitivity that hates to see blood and is too wet or squeamish to be happy at the departure of a tyrant?
The world cannot be worse off without Gaddafi holding any power. The madman is now gone for ever and his tyrannical empire is shattered. Good.
But, as long as we think the rule of law is essential to any civilised or governable democratic society, we cannot pick and choose when the rule of law should apply. Gaddafi’s brutality might well provoke a vengeful response from those who suffered, but suffering does not justify sidelining the rule of law when personally convenient. If we want Robert Mugabe to be held to account by the rule of law which he has abandoned in Zimbabwe, we have to hold to its universality. We cannot hold him to it while allowing others to dismiss it in acts of vengeance. A greater deterrent to other dictators would have been to see Gaddafi and his sons in court, not in fridges.
A civilised society must always see the human body as more than just ‘stuff’. That’s why we bury our dead with dignity. That’s why we don’t just chuck our loved ones into the sea as if the body meant nothing once the life has left it. The body matters.
So, what does it say to us and our children when we glory in the brutalised and torn body of another human being? Is it justified by voyeurism? Or vengeance? Or does it represent a more worrying and capricious reduction of human value?
Muammar Gaddafi was an execrable tyrant who caused misery to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. But, using that fact to justify summary execution, physical torture, desecration of a body bodes ill for when we want to argue that bodies are to be honoured, torture to be rejected, murder to be abhorred. We can’t pick and choose when the rule of law is to apply.
October 22, 2011 at 8:49 pm
I understand that his religion requires the dead to be buried within 24 hours of death. A traditional society which disrespects its dead is not making a good start with its nation building.
Cameron’s statement after Gaddafi’s death was perverse I thought, no word of pity. Contrast with Blair’s request that the Iraqis not execute Saddam.
October 22, 2011 at 9:09 pm
Yours is a thoughtful piece of writing, is the execution of Qaddafi an eye for an eye? Do we turn the other cheek, shrug our shoulders.
I just find it so disturbing that we have witnessed a lynch mob angrily doing it’s deed!
When did Crucifixions cease as a final punishment in that part of the world?
October 22, 2011 at 10:08 pm
Been troubled by this too. Our humanity demands some degree of dignity even for our enemy in death, surely? Was blogging on this yesterday> See : “Victory porn”:http://richardlittledale.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/victory-porn/
October 23, 2011 at 6:02 am
[…] thoughtful piece by Nick Baines on the killing of Gaddafi. His […]
October 23, 2011 at 10:54 am
I think our reactions to this are likely to differ from those who suffered under him and express a ” need” to see the body to achieve closure. I might not share/ understand that, but I don’t discount it as within the bounds of reasonable response.
Looking to the longer term, none of us can know how these events within a culture/ context few of us can understand will pan out. I remind myself of the scenes after the death/ exucitions of Mussolini and the Ceaucescues. They were similarly unedifying but did not preclude a happier outcome from their previously unfortunate countries.
I make these points to complement, not disagree with your thoughts.
October 23, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Thank you, Nick. I agree with you completely and your writing has been echoed in comments from among some of the older folk in our congregation North of the border.
October 23, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Three (and a half) thoughts on this:
1. Gadaffi’s defeat is a consequence of Bush’s invasion of Iraq; this brought Gaddafi “in from the cold” and ended his WMD plans.
2. Before that, Gadaffi was deeply loved by Mandela. The old man will be upset now at the death of his brother leader.
3. Gadaffi wasn’t much of a Muslim, was he? Now he’s with Saddam, bin Laden and most of the Taliban leadership. Is this Bush’s fault, too? & are we happy at Islamists closer to power in Libya?
October 23, 2011 at 6:29 pm
“A civilised society must always see the human body as more than just ‘stuff’. That’s why we bury our dead with dignity…”
Hmmm. Christian Europe used to put the heads of traitors on pikes on castle walls – after hanging, drawing and quartering.
Another thought. Can you imagine what would have happened had Gaddafi been arrested and put on trial? In The Hague, presumably. like Milosevic?
And why are there no more trials of Taliban and Al Qaeda in the US?
A. Because the Obama administration has been killing them all via Predator raids, in a massive expansion of Bush’s methods. No prisoners, no trials, just executions by remote control. Where is the outrage about this?
October 23, 2011 at 8:37 pm
While on holiday in Normandie this summer I visited a number of war cemetaries. In them combatants of both sides were laid to rest in the same cemetary. The horrors of war were no excuse to a previous generation to practise barbarity. However this is not the case in every place where war has flowed in the past. Today the same sort of emotions run deep in Libya, the people of this generation must decide whether they wish to take the example of Somalia or a civilization of a higher standard. Everyone in the West hopes they will choose democracy and proper values, which includes the rule of law. From what I can see so do most of the people of Libya.
October 24, 2011 at 7:06 am
I’m with richardlittledale on this as above – whether it’s articles, comment or pictures or video, it’s victory porn or guilt porn, and I think even the consequent focus on the manner of death of his death has been for journalists and readers alike a convenient – and welcome – distraction from deeper and more disturbing developments in the country and region.
It does come down to prurience, ‘news-as-drama’, whether that’s visual or intellectual.
Whether you celebrate it, analyse it or agonise over it, you’re still feeding it.
October 24, 2011 at 10:44 am
Gaddafi’s summary execution was extremely convenient. If he had been tried in an international court all sorts of skeletons would have been brought out of Western government cupboards. Personally, I think certain Western politicians (and, especially, ex-politicians) are being disingenuous in their condemnation of Gaddafi’s escape from justice. Off camera they will all be very pleased indeed.
October 24, 2011 at 6:47 pm
#11: I agree with you here. Besides bankrolling the ANC election campaign and being a dear friend of Mandela (one of whose grandsons is called Gaddafi – or is it Gadaffi? or Khadaffy – oh, poor kid, no one will ever spell it right), Gaddafi had some kind of cosy post-2003 with Blair and had his paws deep in LSE, and who konws how far into Scottish politics?
October 27, 2011 at 10:46 am
Well said.
It shows that those who replaced him are really no better than he was.
Though I would> be inclined to read Isaiah 14:3-21 at his memorial service.
October 27, 2011 at 12:51 pm
[…] from the peaceful protesters of last February. As Anglican Bishop Nick Baines of Bradford says Gaddafi’s corpse and the rule of law | Nick Baines’s Blog Muammar Gaddafi was an execrable tyrant who caused misery to hundreds of thousands, if not millions […]