Surely the ultimate measure of a civilised society is the way it considers the sanctity of life itself. As civilised human beings we believe that the right to life of another person is beyond question, or do we? Two back to back news items, on the BBC tonight, tend to suggest that we do not, that the value of any two lives can be measured against each other, and ultimately be found to be different.
The first item of news was about a young student, Steven Grisales, who was stabbed to death by a 15 year old boy, after he confronted a group of youths who were throwing conkers at him. The second was the report of the acquittal of Cecil Coley after he had stabbed a 30 year old man who was robbing his shop. The man, Gary Mullings, later died of his wounds and Coley was charged with his murder.
So the two murders differ in their context, but a life has been lost in each one. Was one life that of an innocent victim, the other of a thug who ‘deserved’ what he got? I’m not sure, and I certainly do not know enough about the incidents to pontificate over the rights and wrongs.
I just found it amazing that the two stories were reported in such a different manner, and that the contrasts were so vivid. Read the stories for yourself, via the links above, and see what you think.
The Search For Enlightenment 
Sep 08, 2011 @ 10:12:43
Predictably, the reportage was weighted in both cases but let’s take a step back, not to judge right or wrong but to view it in terms of cause and effect. The young boy, Stephen was the innocent victim of a culture that carries weapons with intent to either do harm, to steal or to flex the muscle of their dubious machismo. No matter what he may have said in response to their taunting, that did not deserve the taking of his life. Maybe he should have ignored them and walked on avoiding the whole scenario and possibly changing the direction of his life and indeed its continuation but that still does not excuse the use of a knife. The second was the effect on followers of that same culture when they are confronted with someone who decides to counter in self-defence, in this case an old man who believed he had to defend his property and life against four young men, one of whom had a gun. Maybe he should have just given them what they wanted and hopefully not suffered physically but he wasn’t to know the gun only fired blanks. So, did he have the knife available for self-defence or did he have a sharp knife because he is a florist and reached instinctively for it to protect his life? In terms of cause and effect, one who lives by the sword will (or risks the effect) die by the sword (or knife). Maybe those who carry weapons do not consider the awful effect of their use, even those who believe they are for self-defence. No easy answers and so many different options but what stand out for me is a malaise in our society where the young are not taught either respect for others or the sanctity of life. We have an awesome mission Richard.
Sep 08, 2011 @ 12:47:05
Mr Hawkins, you are indeed a wise old sage. It seems that there is a shift in society’s thinking, as evidenced by the florist being acquitted, that enough is enough. The law concerning ‘appropriate force’ has always been dubious, as it is impossible to determine what is appropriate in the heat of the moment. As I said, I wasn’t commenting on the rights or wrongs, but it did strike me as ironic, that the two reports were scheduled back to back on the news program. We do have an awesome mission, but I fear that my blog is rather a case of preaching to the converted. Thank you for your comment Ken, take care.
Sep 08, 2011 @ 13:01:25
I realised that you were indeed passing no judgement. Your blog never preaches, rather it invites response and it just might reach somebody who is not “converted” or to be more precise, unenlightened. Anything that promotes thought and dialogue is extremely valuable. We must have that chat and drink!
Sep 08, 2011 @ 15:14:54
LOL … I think there is a rather large gap between being converted and being enlightened. I hope that a few visitors see the common sense approach that Nichiren Buddhism has towards life and investigate the practice further, is that conversion? I doubt that even if President Ikeda or the Dalai Lama consider themselves enlightened, but I know what you mean.