social:
Speaking into the camera with bloodied hands, he went on: "You people will never be safe. Remove your governments – they don't care about you.
political:
"Do you think David Cameron is going to get caught in the street when we start busting our guns? Do you think your politicians are going to die?"
"Killing to make a political point, or to frighten the public to put pressure on the government, or as an expression of anger, is murder and remains murder whether the government in question is a good one, a bad one or a dreadful one.
"Equally there is no defence of moral justification for killing, just as there is no defence of religious justification. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth suggests revenge or retaliation and, in the context of this case, murder."
What are some of the arguments or opinions about REGULATION of this Case Study being broadcast?
Of course TV news and print front pages should have shown the full horror of the killing. There's no point whatsoever in deodorising such coverage in case people of a nervous disposition are watching. There's no point flooding south-east London with police and not saying why. If we want slaughter like this to be seen for what it is, we have to be shown clearly what it leads to.
Sir Max Hastings – under a Mail headline about the "enemy within that hates our tolerance" – claimed that the "avalanche of publicity" was inescapable, but added: "We do not yet know whether they acted alone, or were members of a terror group".
Simon Jenkins put it starkly in the Guardian. "It is this echo chamber of horror, set up by the media, public figures and government, that does much of terrorism's job for it. It converts mere crimes into significant acts. It turns criminals into heroes in the eyes of their admirers. It takes violence and graces it the terms of political debate."
No comments:
Post a Comment