Legal hypocrisy?

Question

Gillian Gibbons has been arrested , charged, tried , been found guilty and sentenced for breaking the law in the Sudan.

However unpalatable to us in the West this is, how can we in the UK condemn immigrants for not accepting our laws and customs, and then be in uproar in this instance.

Reports are saying that Gillian is being well treated, and chances are she will be released unharmed.

Iran released thirteen British naval ratings when they illegally entered Iranian waters without trial.

In both these events the Western media have had a field day denouncing the two regimes involved.

How can these two stances be reconciled when prisoners are being held in Guantanamo Bay without charge , defence or trial for years during which time they are tortured, abused and denied basic human rights by the so called civilized US government?

Answer 1

Some people are not getting the question. However trivial/insane/ridiculous the trials and punishments in foreign lands your point is obviously that the west seemingly has a separate set of rules for itself yet expects others to operate in a manner that the west sees fit. You're right, you make a valid point and there is nothing to stop the ignorance of the apparent hypocrisy the west has allowed to manifest into it's own belief system - namely; "we are right, no matter what, don't even dare question that you mad heretic". I do wonder as you must too, will we see a time when the governments of all nations will embrace decency and operate within it's boundaries, and leave behind the double standards so prevalent today?

Answer 2

by admittted fact gillian did not present security threat to the country . it is civil wrong and breach will not result in losss of life and property. it may at the most cause a mental agony to bigots.
hosts at guantanamo present extreme high risk to the general public and evidences are of very high measure.
None of the prisoner had gone on humtarian mission.

As far the media is considered bad news is a good story line and good story line improves TRP and money.

Answer 3

Like you (presumably) I live in the UK. Living there does not make me responsible for its laws, however. It so happens that most British laws are, in my opinion, quite reasonable. If they were not reasonable then I would criticise them just as I might criticise some Sudanese laws.

Being dismayed by both the failure of (some) immigrants to accept our laws and customs and by the Gillian Gibbons situation does not seem to me to be hypocritical. The two views are quite compatible when voiced as the reasoned disappointment of reasonable people.

Answer 4

Each and every situation should be decided on it's merits. The laws and people of Sudan are just plain nuts. Naming a teddy bear gets a woman thrown into prison...it is just plain crazy.
The Iranians were wrong to capture British seamen. The British were wrong to let themselves be captured.

Your comments about Guantanamo are incorrect.

Answer 5

The problem is, that nothing you have said about Gitmo is true.

Prisoners there are treated better and live better than out troops in Iraq.

The average Gitmo "resident" has gained 21 pounds while there.

Check your facts before you abuse your government.

Answer 6

Because of the difference between comitting an actual crime and naming a teddy bear?\

C'mon. THis is stupid in the extreme and no sane thinking person can defend it or try and mitigate it as a "Local law" situation.

Answer 7

you make a good point, I suppose it's just so hard to understand something that's really very trivial, naming a teddy Mo hammed is hardly crime of the century but hey; different horses for different courses