Much has been said on TV and in print about the Devyani Khobragade case (the Indian diplomat who allegedly employed an Indian maid and did not pay her according to US labor laws, and the maid allegedly stole and extorted Ms. Khobragade). As usual it has been dissected by every news outlet and blog imaginable, but there seems to be one type of argument that is pervasive. It goes something like this: "X did it, so what? Y did this and nobody said anything. And there are millions of X's that do the same thing, and nobody says anything. What about A,B,C,...". Replace the letters with the actors in this case (amazingly it fits no matter which side of the debate you are on!)
I'm sure that this line of argument is pandemic, but personally I have heard it when some ill in society has to be justified. Let's take a few examples: bribery, piracy, cheating on exams (everybody does it, why should I lose out/be punished? Please pay attention to the other much bigger social crimes), etc. So in this case fingers have been pointed at the injustices committed by the US justice system, the caste of Ms. Khobragade, the holier-than-thou attitude of diplomats, the audacity of the maid to complain when millions of maids in India accept the same living conditions, ...the list goes on.
Here is my one-sentence rebuttal: carefully read the law. Let me paraphrase in my own words how the law against stealing (just to pick a random offence) may sound:
"Any offence where goods of value are taken from the owner(s) without prior consent or official transaction is considered stealing, and the offender is liable ..."
It is NOT as below:
"Any offence where goods of value are taken from the owner(s) without prior consent or official transaction is considered stealing, its severity being inversely proportional to its frequency of occurrence and apparent social acceptance, and the offender is liable..."
I do not care how many other criminals have gone scot-free. I do not care if the offender's offence is justifiable by prior wrongdoings against him/her. I do not care if this offender is somehow a product created autonomously by other societal factors. Let us talk about this offence now. Judge a book by its cover, not by the covers of surrounding books and the reputation of the publication company.
For there is a very simple reason why: the same players/commentators would parrot the exactly opposite tune if they were the victim instead of the perpetrator. A cheater is seldom as good at justifying cheating when he/she is cheated. Bribing becomes instantaneously outrageous when you are on the losing end of the bribe-tainted transaction.
I do not know which side in this case is at fault. But judging from the debates and commentary, that never mattered...
I'm sure that this line of argument is pandemic, but personally I have heard it when some ill in society has to be justified. Let's take a few examples: bribery, piracy, cheating on exams (everybody does it, why should I lose out/be punished? Please pay attention to the other much bigger social crimes), etc. So in this case fingers have been pointed at the injustices committed by the US justice system, the caste of Ms. Khobragade, the holier-than-thou attitude of diplomats, the audacity of the maid to complain when millions of maids in India accept the same living conditions, ...the list goes on.
Here is my one-sentence rebuttal: carefully read the law. Let me paraphrase in my own words how the law against stealing (just to pick a random offence) may sound:
"Any offence where goods of value are taken from the owner(s) without prior consent or official transaction is considered stealing, and the offender is liable ..."
It is NOT as below:
"Any offence where goods of value are taken from the owner(s) without prior consent or official transaction is considered stealing, its severity being inversely proportional to its frequency of occurrence and apparent social acceptance, and the offender is liable..."
I do not care how many other criminals have gone scot-free. I do not care if the offender's offence is justifiable by prior wrongdoings against him/her. I do not care if this offender is somehow a product created autonomously by other societal factors. Let us talk about this offence now. Judge a book by its cover, not by the covers of surrounding books and the reputation of the publication company.
For there is a very simple reason why: the same players/commentators would parrot the exactly opposite tune if they were the victim instead of the perpetrator. A cheater is seldom as good at justifying cheating when he/she is cheated. Bribing becomes instantaneously outrageous when you are on the losing end of the bribe-tainted transaction.
I do not know which side in this case is at fault. But judging from the debates and commentary, that never mattered...
No comments:
Post a Comment