Den, der tier, er måske bare ligeglad

Socialdemokraten Søren Krarup Lars Aslan Rasmussen fra KK's borgerrepræsentation ønsker en troskabsed i form af en fordømmelse af den iranske stats undertrykkelse fra Islamisk Trossamfund, efter de kritiserede Søvndal for at slå politisk plat på iranernes lidelser. Hvilket Villy gjorde - med mindre han er lige så moralsk underudviklet som Søren Pind og Holger K. Nielsen, og rent faktisk tror på sin egen fordømmelses iboende magt. Eller blot vil hævde sig selv.

Det er godt gjort, at man er nødt til at forsvare rådne lande som Iran og Rusland og salafier som Islamisk Trossamfund mod løgne, fordrejelser og demagogi fra centerpartierne. Med mindre vi gør denne moralske tommelfingerregel universel, og derudfra konkluderer, som Edith Tingstrup tidligere gjorde i Berlingske, at venstrefløjens manglende fordømmelse af Colombias FARC i sig selv er et udtryk for solidaritet.



---

Også.

---

Denne er også værd at overveje (via).

...consider the following thought experiment. In 1963, as King delivers his famous speech to the March on Washington, Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev delivers a public message of his own to the protesters. “We would like to tell these brave voices of freedom,” Khrushchev says, “that they have the full support and solidarity of the USSR. The Soviet Union and the United States Communist Party are ready and willing to perform any measures within our power to help our American brothers and sisters obtain their rights from this oppressive regime. And although Dr. King pretends that he holds no hostility toward the American capitalist system of government itself, and wishes only to secure the ideals of the American founding for all of its citizens, we all know that he and his supporters really yearn for complete regime change in Washington. We in Moscow will do whatever it takes to help you achieve this goal.”

Let us ignore the question of Khrushchev’s intentions here: whether he is motivated by genuine sympathy and desire to aid the civil rights marchers, or a more cynical hope of destabilizing a rival government, or a narcissistic and self-righteous wish to take credit for the marchers’ achievement in order to feel better about himself and appease his domestic critics. (And before anyone gets up in arms about “moral equivalence,” let me note than I am not equating Obama’s America and Khrushchev’s Russia, merely noting that Obama and Khrushchev occupy structurally similar positions as leaders of distrusted rival powers.)

Let us focus only on a simple tactical question: would Khrushchev’s statement aid the civil rights movement? Would it be welcomed by King and his associates? Why or why not?

Afleveringsfrist kl. 12:00 d. 5. tir 1388.