So what's the progress towards then? A totalitarian dictatorship that murders people? That's hardly progress of any sort. I'm quite happy to stay on my high horse if that means arguing for the rule of law and basic decency, both things which Duterte has thrown out the window in his quest to rid society of 'problems' by getting vigilantes to murder people.
Hating on democracy and human rights because they're 'Western' (and usually by extension 'Imperial') really annoys me. It's a stupid, petty argument that is continuously peddled by figures in non-Western countries as a justification for doing whatever they like.
Thomas, you may not not realise you have just written a one line thesis for the justification of colonialism.
"You brutes have no idea to run a society. We'll come show you how"
Of course, you most likely do not think in such nasty terms however, that is the translation.
You're a 20 year old Aussie (I checked your website). You know the history of your country so I will not have to educate you on the result of preventing people "doing what they like" with regard to their culture and customs.
Are you/your ways superior to the people that voted him to do EXACTLY what he is doing? You called his one week old government "totalitarian". Forgetting he was elected for a 6 year term. Is that system they like stupid and petty too? Or should they come take instructions from you? Your country?
> "You brutes have no idea to run a society. We'll come show you how"
And you've just proved my point about democracy and human rights being dismissed as Western colonialism.
What's your alternative to democracy and human rights? A dictatorship that can have anyone it dislikes executed?
Colonialism might have been what brought democracy to many parts of the world - but the two are not one and the same (in fact, colonialism was regarded by many in Europe as being opposed to human rights and democracy). Many former colonies have tossed democracy and the rule of law out the window before - and it hasn't worked particularly well.
> You know the history of your country so I will not have to educate you on the result of preventing people "doing what they like" with regard to their culture and customs.
Well, Australia isn't an authoritarian regime, is it? I'd say that having elections with the government's power constrained by a constitution is going quite well.
> Are you/your ways superior to the people that voted him to do EXACTLY what he is doing? You called his one week old government "totalitarian". Forgetting he was elected for a 6 year term. Is that system they like stupid and petty too? Or should they come take instructions from you? Your country?
Of course I think my political beliefs are superior - that's why they're my political beliefs. I don't go around supporting a political ideology I believe to be inferior. It just so happens that extrajudicial executions are fundamentally opposed to my belief in the goal of a liberal democratic society.
I didn't call Duterte's government totalitarian - I agree that one week is not long enough. But if he's still asking for drug dealers and addicts to be murdered in a year I'll happily call him authoritarian, totalitarian, etc.
I understand he was elected for a six year term. That doesn't justify disregarding the rule of law (the same rule of law that make those elections every six years), nor does it morally justify murder.
The Philippines shouldn't be forced to take instructions from Australia - but that doesn't magically make criticism disappear. I'll criticise Duterte all I like, and I hope the Australian government criticises him too in the future.
I assume you're referring to America. And my answer would be that yes, as abhorrent as segregation, drone strikes and backing coups in other countries is, that doesn't nullify the elections held within that country. It's still a democracy.
People voted for Obama and they got Obama. Obama may have said what he wanted to do in office back in 2008 and then not been able to achieve those things, but that doesn't make the US undemocratic. That's how representative democracy works - you vote for representatives, not policies.
Edit: Additionally, extrajudicial executions are a sign that Duterte doesn't respect the law. If he continues to encourage vigilante killings, there is precedent for him to encourage law breaking in other areas. Who's not to say there won't be electoral laws being flouted?
But not for the people living there.
By the way, I hope you realize this borders Ad Hominem. Does the US have it's issues that it needs to solve? Yes. Does that somehow void out argument that extrajudicial killings are okay? No.
As many others have pointed out, the difference is you have BLM here and Atlantic articles that point out drone strikes publishing in the US, and there is some movement (although, not as rapid as many of us would wish for) on the ground to make things better. With extrajudicial killings, it seems reasonable to assume that if there will be evil, it can be easily covered up by the powers that be, labeling critics as drugees and moving on.
One of the things about the West and the US is that you even hear about our ills and evils, while countries like China and Russia stiffle criticizing voices within their own populace. That gives the appearance of "hypocrisy" while to me, it is more like evidence of a freedom of press that we should be proud of.
Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, Syria. I disagree with you that any of these events created a better ground for the next one. I would say exactly the opposite, as the US govt started to drone even their own citizens.
Again, we aren't perfect saints, and we have evils that we need to fight from certain politicians and yes segments of the population who are ignorant to the effects of our "foreign policy". I'd even argue the anti-interventionist rhetoric of Trump and Sanders is part of why they are popular, so that group of pro-interventionist, I-Don't-Give-a-Fuck-About-Non-Americans group is quickly shrinking.
But the entire point of my comment, which you seem to have filtered out in your reply is that you read in popular US media about these issues, from many in the US mainstream press. Where in Russian media will you hear about the Crimean invasion? (A negative perspective, at least) Or the plight of Tibetan monks in China?
The world isn't black and white, but the idea of liberal democracy I think is a worthy ideal, even if we fall short of it precisely with what we have done in the Middle East, towards left-ist governments in South America. At the very least, the fact we can even have this conversation is a testament to the (possibly degrading) freedom of speech that we are lucky to have in the US and one that seems to be waning now in Philippines specifically.
I'm sure some agencies of your country already knows (or may know, if they need/want) that I don't think good stuff about this "western" democracy and the US intervention in other democracies. This is not freedom of speech. This is terror.
That's quite an irrational leap from what he said... It could also be:
"We've tried all this before, we know democracy works better, so we suggest you implement it as well."
Lol
Tell that to the people who had democracy bombed into them.
The point is, there are two patterns here which should be of concern: a popular leader calls for violence and vigilante style justice. In the long term this a non-stabilizing policy and likely to do a bit of economic damage. The second is that I give it a fifty-fifty that Duarte will run through a legislation that will turn him into a president-for-life. These types of scenarios usually go bad, take Zimbabwe for example.
I'm not saying 'going tough' would not work in the short term - but there is no reason the president should concentrate on this single issue except to stir popular support. Just removing crime won't make rhe all other problems go away. I would claim 'going tough' is the ultimate cop out move by any statesman since it removes attention from other problems and does not help build anything new.
The point is, how do you rebut this without using human-right thesis ? If enlightenment is to be discarded, why should people not invade your country and reduce its population to slavery ?
Yes, people might have supported him to get results in a serious matter, but people did not (and neither they had the competence to) specify the details. Could he instead tell the masses to rattle out the drug dealers and the junkies so the law enforcement could apprehended them for future trials? No, here was a call for mass murder, plain and simple! Do the killers have to prove that the killed were drug dealers? Are the killers known at all? (You know, to be hold accountable if it happens that their victims had nothing to do with drugs?) We're talking about the difference in the means to the same desired end of drug problem. An important difference!
Not the usual bait and switch.
Like was pointed out, drug dealers are free to surrender. And some have done so.
http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/07/09/16/thousands-of-drug-push...
My own gripe is pontification of the west when it comes to the business of other countries.
There are no shortcuts, there is no magic authoritarian fairy dus you can apply and leapfrog the West, we have tried it all and it always ended in disaster. We have seen time and time again, both in our societies and in the developing world, that authoritarianism is self-sustaining and despite initial success will always lead to reduced political competition and an economic and social standstill.
You can do whatever you like in your countries and vote madmen, but we will always condemn such moves, we will always refuse to abed them and we will were always proved right. The cry of colonialism is exactly what these mad men need to stay in power and you are uneducated enough to fall for it.
I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic. But I am sorry to inform you that "development" of the west was borne out or slave labour. It is just that simple.
The was did not get developed in the past 50 years. I know, it sounds so shocking, but it is true.
In 40 years when countries are going to be invaded for industrial pollution (that's if the concept o countries still exist) the "west" and people like you would be stating, " you can be developed industrially without polluting the environment".
The facts may be unpleasant, but they remain fact.
And let's not even get started with the bullshit in the Middle East.
The west has no grounds to state they respect human rights when history clearly shows they do not.
Do as I say, not as I do?
How is this an answer to preventing the worse of what currently is? The extrajudicial killings in the name of wiping out the drug problem can (and I presume that it also will) be abused to whatever means. If murder was present before, this president just made it a whole lot easier! "Killed? Oh, well! Probably just another bunch of drug dealers who didn't surrendered when they had the chance." Is this what you're supporting?
And journalists too! Kill everyone you don't like!
> “Just because you’re a journalist you are not exempted from assassination, if you’re a son of a bitch,” Duterte said when asked how he would address the problem of media killings in the Philippines, after a reporter was shot dead in Manila last week.
> “Most of those killed, to be frank, have done something. You won’t be killed if you don’t do anything wrong,” Duterte said, adding that many journalists in the Philippines were corrupt.
> “That can’t be just freedom of speech. The constitution can no longer help you if you disrespect a person,”
> Duterte raised the case of Jun Pala, a journalist and politician who was murdered in Davao in 2003. Gunmen on a motorcycle shot dead Pala, who was a vocal critic of Duterte. His murder has never been solved. “If you are an upright journalist, nothing will happen to you,” said Duterte
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/31/philippine-pre...
> “If you are an upright journalist, nothing will happen to you,” said Duterte
Good. So we can rest assured that only those journalists that were not 'upright' will not remain upright.
Or maybe they do understand but simply do not agree with either the methods or the goal.
> First of all, Duterte was elected overwhelmingly with a clear mandate of using brute violence to clear out drug dealers.
This goes well beyond drug dealers (and even then it is not the way).
> He was clear about it and he is delivering on that mandate.
Could not care less about whether or not he was clear about it. Wrong is still wrong.
> He was clear about it and he is delivering on that mandate. I have to accept, he has made a PR error by not calling them terrorists.
Hard to tell if you're sarcastic or not, going on the assumption that you're not.
> The fact is, you do not get radical progress pandering to western styled hypocritical democracy or "human rights".
No, you'll get progress by giving everybody a license to go out and kill anybody they don't like on a pretext. That's going to make life so much better.
> It's the reality. A harsh one. Of course, I will not be so "logical" if I happen to be at the receiving end of such needed reform. But hey.. it's what life is.
It need not be. And if you're already hedging your position then I guess you too understand that this is not a solution, only more trouble.
> I am speaking like a man living in a country where some not so nice things will be needed to be done if we are going to ever progress.
Mass murder of citizens is never 'progress'. Especially not if the context is a corrupt police force that makes other avenues less likely to work. Then you go and fix the police force, you don't hand out a 'license to kill' to the population at large.
> "If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to the same reproach? Men do not change their characters by uniting with one another; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with their strength. For my own part, I cannot believe it; the power to do everything, which I should refuse to one of my equals, I will never grant to any number of them."
Democracy requires that while the majority rules, the minority also have rights. Majoritarianism (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarianism ) is similar to democracy, and some of its proponents argue is more democratic.
I disagree with that viewpoint. I do not respect a vote for autocracy, though of course this is abstract as my respect means nothing to those who voted that way, and I can do nothing to change things.
A democratic process must allow the minority at some point to be a majority. If you kill off the minorities, which yes, includes those accused of drug dealing, then there is no democracy. (And no, the frequent US policy of stripping the franchise from felons is not democratic.)
See also http://democracyweb.org/node/36 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority .
But you're taking issue with us on our 'high horses' criticizing it and that should be respected.
People have voted for dumb things many times in the past, in my opinion this is one of those times. Might or majority do not automatically make right.
If you 'clean up' a city or a country by extra-judicial killings that makes the cure no better than the disease.
If the country has a corruption issue the solution is not to go and kill people without due process. This is attacking a symptom, leaving the root cause un-examined and so will not solve the problem in the longer term.
People declare others who win stupid while claiming to to be democrats. That is hypocrisy.
While I similarly think people are stupid, I am not a fan of popular democracy. I believe my position is consistent with my belief. I am criticizing the hypocrisy of being democrat only when you get what you want.
Just like the labour party folks in the UK.
That's not hypocrisy, it is simply the best adaptation to reality that I can come up with.
And it has nothing to do with 'getting what I want', if NL will vote massively for Wilders in the next election (our local light-weight populist get-rid-of-all-Islamists-and-our-problems-will-magically-disappear politician) then I will consider that a failure of democracy.
Not because I don't get 'what I want' but because it will likely cause great harm to my country.
By the next election cycle given the way social media and the 24x7 news cycle are evolving into just pointless reaction and counter-reaction, voting will be restricted to those who can pass an exam. Like getting your drivers license and being allowed on the road.
We will have a new definition of what an elected govt is. And the commentators here can get back to thinking about things that aren't way above their pay grade.
Human rights, and more specifically due process, are not 'Western', they've just been formulated there. Do you believe gravity is 'white' or 'jewish' because it was formulated by Einstein?
And societies that 'get' due process objectively do better: tell me, who does better in social development and public safety, Nigeria or Mauritius? Nigeria or Cape Verde? Conversely, when were Latin American countries worse off, during their "military Dutertre" era, or now? Your position has never worked historically.
You can't _claim_ guilt, you need proof, and to get proof you need due process.
Not even that. I'm not sure to what do we refer exactly by (western) "human rights". Is it the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? That was not "western", as the United Nations General Assembly, which adopted it, had equal representation of all member nations, including Philippines. Is it something else, something older, like the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, passed somewhere in the French Revolution? Well, we can find less "western" versions before that all over the world and history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_human_rights
You don't need it when you are at war. Killing people is normal during a wa even without evidence.
Are you saying that human rights are real in some sense? That they're something more than arbitrary legal constructs/a civic religion devised by Westerners in the last few centuries?
Note: I'm not American and don't live in the US.
African Americans have been killed by police, imprisoned as almost a racial policy (often resulting from petty drug offenses). So let's say there are an equal number of people killed on each side. 30 African American's in the past week (not true, but let's just make it simple) and 30 Philippine Drug Dealers.
Two wrongs. Why is America better? It is attempting to face the tragedy and stop the killing.
In the Phillipines, what is preventing somebody from killing their neighbor, and saying "he was a drug addict" with no evidence?
What 'radical progress' are you expecting from the killing of drug addicts? Unless, you consider a pile of dead bodies 'progress'. If the Phillipines were 'drug free', would that be 'radical progress'? If so, how? How would it change the rest of the country? The lives of the people?
Is America attempting to stop the killing? I must have missed a chapter. Last time I've checked Obama was mourning the police officers who were killed and no national mourning was declared for the 500-600 corpses left by the police. And last time I've checked there is also still no trial for which Arabs get to die in Middle East under drone strikes. And 95% inmates in USA have used a plea bargain, which means no trial has occurd to prove whether they were guilty or not. Did I mention the Civil Asset Forfeiture program? Did I mention that even if we right the 3 examples above, the financial imbalance means that the poorer people are not properly representated in legal situations, in votes, and in the economy?
I'm flummoxed the we, in the age of the full information, still take USA as a mere candidate when we talk about human rights. We can't compare USA to anything, their track record is too low.
1. 1 in 3 black people killed by police in 2015 were identified as unarmed [1].
2. In the current example, the black victim didn't resist arrest.
3. Those 500-600 weren't criminals, because you can only say they're "criminal" after a fair trial (oh, sorry, that's something to do with "human rights", if only you could understand what that means).
4. "Not mourning criminals" or not treating them as humans is the primary reason why USA is not compliant with human rights. The reason why it is important to treat assumed criminals as humans is in my point #5.
5. The reason why people resist arrests is because they have absolutely no trust that the judiciary system will judge them fairly. Today, an innocent would rather die than enter the judiciary system [2].
[1] http://mappingpoliceviolence.org/unarmed/
[2] Innocents are cornered into plea bargain, which is 90% of the criminal cases in USA - It means for 90% criminal cases, there was no formal proof that the accused was guilty. I know, they're black, male, muscular and poor, right!? But that doesn't mean they're guilty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain
So, once again, you "don't mourn criminals, thugs and people who reach for guns when confronted by police", except you ought to mourn the innocent, the weak and the people who are mugged by police, and you should do that because the police also does it to white people, and you have even fewer organizations to defend against that.
No, not really. I'm black so I know they're are 2 justice systems in the US.
You have expectations of police as a black man, why wouldn't they have expectations of every person they stop, based on color, shoes, accent, everything. That's part of their job. You're basically saying you're justified in having a preconceived notion of how police will treat you based on your color and theirs, yet they shouldn't? When it could save their lives? Maybe some black people (i.e. the black people who don't live in the neighborhoods where these shootings go down, but spend all their time writing posts about it on Medium), should try a different approach when they've done nothing wrong and are talking to an officer: be kind and respectful and helpful. Don't be defensive and argumentative and offended. Black people who have their shit together and got out of bad neighborhoods are not getting regularly killed by police. Come on.
I know a couple of very kind, respectful and helpful people who have been stop-and-frisked for being black and in public. They stopped visiting a mutual friend because it happened regularly traveling in his neighborhood.
They are treated differently for no fault of their own, despite being kind, respectful and helpful. There is a reason people are angry about the difference in treatment.
To give an example: When I traveled to visit a friend, I chose to stay at cheap hotel in a not so well to do area of town. I can carry my own and never felt unsafe. Apparently, the cops stake out that hotel regularly for drug deals and prostitution. I was stopped for an hour and interrogated because "Why would a white boy from out of state be staying at a place like this? Tell me about your history with prostitution. Are you _sure_ there are no drugs in your vehicle?" I was let go after my story checked out.
I felt targeted and no longer safe, because the cops had already painted a mental image of me as someone who dealt/used drugs or was involved with prostitutes and were looking for evidence to back up their presumption. I didn't feel safe leaving at night, because what if I was stopped and arrested for something I didn't do? "Why would a white boy be out at these hours in this neighborhood if he wasn't up to no good?" Those false charges would stick with me forever and I could lose my job.
I can only begin to imagine what it must feel like to be the target of actual racism with the implied assumption of being guilty until proven innocent.
> You do a great disservice to all the (and there are so many) black people out there who got educated, got good jobs, built families, and realized that most people honestly don't care what color they are, when you say that you're treated so poorly everywhere in the country. I'm sorry but it's nonsense. We have a black president for god's sake.
> Black people who have their shit together and got out of bad neighborhoods are not getting regularly killed by police. Come on.
You'll still encounter racism as a black person in America, even in the race blind techno-optimist meritocracy that is the technology sector. [0]
[0] "What interviewing for jobs feels like when you’re a black software engineer in Silicon Valley" http://qz.com/696562/what-interviewing-for-jobs-feels-like-w...
Actually, I think you understand perfectly. You gave a great example of how the way you looked and where you were and when you were there raised suspicions in people who have to be suspicious as part of their job. Why wouldn't it?! The cops were at that hotel, for a reason, and you looked out of place there. To me, it's totally reasonable. And why would you feel unsafe after that? They are trying to find the bad guys and get them off the street. You were in a bad area at a bad hotel. If someone would have tried something, they'd have been there to help you.
I was reading a Medium article by a black tech guy who was complaining about "every day I get on the metro and I'm the last one anyone wants to sit by, I'm always worried about what I'm wearing, I feel uncomfortable" -- yeah, welcome to my world, I'm white and neurotic and often I'm the last one anyone sits by too. I wonder why, is it the beard? Do I look grumpy? I'm always thinking people are looking at me, judging me. That I look weird in my clothes or something. This is totally normal. Everyone experiences these kinds of things and thoughts. I've been stopped by police too. The difference is that many black people are raised believing the police are their enemy and want to hurt them and that white people are racist. It's like Christians reading in the bible that people will mock them for their beliefs and when they're mocked they see that as proof that Christianity is true. It's confirmation bias. The way it seems to me, a police officer can't even speak to a black person these days without people assuming he's racist. So black people can assume about police, but police can't assume about black people. When I think about all the times I've been pulled over, stopped, talked to, I just think, wow, if I was black I could totally just say it was racism. I wasn't driving poorly -- he's racist!
Of course you'll encounter racism in America, no matter what color you are. Hard to believe, a lot of people hate whites! To imagine that all the police get together like mustache-twirling villains to plot ways to ruin the afternoons of normal black people walking somewhere is just preposterous. And if black people do get stopped more, then you have to wonder if it's because the cops are just totally racist or because of their experiences in the line of duty. But let's not wonder that. It's probably racism. Otherwise it would require black people and black communities having to change -- and that would be horrible and racist to even suggest.
I've already seen three or four black men killed by other black men just this morning on the Boston news, and that's just since yesterday. Nobody is out in the streets over that.
Isn't the normal procedure to just sprinkle some crack over their body?
Hmm.. No addict's blood testing confirmation necessary, huh?
On the other hand, if the President of a country says to kill drug dealers and addicts, quite a few people will go ahead and do that, thinking that it's now justified.
Actually his final rise to power came through back room shenanigans with Hindenburg when the popular support of the national socialist party was way below 50% of the voters.
Its easier to get a quorum if you can kill your opposition
Election ballot 1936: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahlrecht_in_der_Zeit_des_Nati...
Pray tell, what context justifies arbitrary lynchings, summary executions, extrajudicial capital punishment, and an overall disrespect for human life?
Perhaps it's the view from the high horse I'm sitting on, but when I look throughout europe I don't see nations with major drug problems, and they haven't fixed any problems they had with assassinations.
Could you please provide any insight on what makes this sort of rampant uncivilized behaviour necessary or even remotely justified?
There is no easy path towards progress, and certainly not by killing whomever we think is the cause of the problem.
Also let's be honest, there never was a society that went down the drain due to drugs. Not even close. They are just scapegoats. Society that went down the drain due to violence and mob-approved regimes? Loads.
Once you start arguing like this, any political stance is valid as long as your group is not the one being killed.
This isn't even mentioning the regular and continuous reforms that happen as the institutions of mature democracies manage change.
This policy is akin to starting fire in a house to get rid of rats.
Democracy does not trump human rights and rule of law.
Democracy ensures a people gets the ruler most of them deserve.
> He (the new president) placed trust and confidence in friends and acquaintances who are outsiders of the traditional power and social blocs.
That's one of the structural reasons right there.
Japan, Singapore, Korea.. The pattern is the same, and it isn't brutal law and order policies that made the difference.
First of all, Duterte was elected overwhelmingly with a clear mandate of using brute violence to clear out drug dealers. He was clear about it and he is delivering on that mandate. I have to accept, he has made a PR error by not calling them terrorists. At which point, he will be sold drones that can also wipe out families in addition to the druggies.
The fact is, you do not get radical progress pandering to western styled hypocritical democracy or "human rights". It's the reality. A harsh one. Of course, I will not be so "logical" if I happen to be at the receiving end of such needed reform. But hey.. it's what life is.
At least, no set of drug dealers are at greater risk because of the colour of their skin.
PS: I am speaking like a man living in a country where some not so nice things will be needed to be done if we are going to ever progress.