Laws only exist to protect the rights and needs of the people. Therefore, when a law deviates from these rights, people have no obligation to follow it. That is why Antigone was right to disobey her uncle and bury her brother; proper treatment of a dead relative seems to be a human right a government has no right to infringe upon. That is why we as Americans were wildly supportive of the Iranian unrest following its dubious elections, even though popular support has wavered with waning media coverage- the Iranian people resisted an autocratic ruler because his laws violated their natural rights.
At the same time, arguments exist for the rule of law when safety of the majority overrules a right of the minority. Baruch Goldstein, a follower of Meir Kahane and a former member of the armed forces, in 1994 massacred a number of Muslims in a mosque. After he was killed by mosque attendants, extreme right Jewish factions made a shrine around his grave. The Israeli government later demolished the shrine after ruling that monuments cannot be made for terrorists in the state of Israel, fearing that the shrine would attract support for extremist forces, or attract violence from Palestinians angry over the pilgrimages to the shrine. Did the Israeli mandate violate the expression rights of those who built and visited the shrine? Yes, certainly. Was the action justifies? I think that is harder to argue; it was done in name of national security, a justification which always needs to be given a skeptical glance. There are many parrelles between Antigone and this real-life event, a terrorist is celebrated after his death, and the state, citing security and stability as their motivation, deny his friends and family the right to perform his burial as they see fit.
The greatest difference between the two scenarios is of course the different government structures- Isreal is a liberal democracy while Thebes was ruled by an autocrat whose word, and prejudices, were law. Therefore, I have to think that the state of Israel better represented to will of the people, who willed for stability at the cost of an extremist faction.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I find the example that you give very interesting, especially for two reasons:
ReplyDelete1. Last week was the anniversary of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhah Rabin (who was assasinated by a right wing extremist one year after the Goldstein massacre)and I went to the memorial for him on campus
2. I'm currently writing a paper on Turkish democratization, which (when it's finished) will deal a lot with if taking action to prevent religious extremism ends up undermining democracy.
I would say that which I can see your point of view, I disagree with you and think that the action was justified. Israel would never allow a shrine for the grave of Rabin's assassin (if he was dead; he is currently serving life in prison) for obvious reasons- that would be like the US allowing a shrine for Lee Harvey Oswald! The main difference between Goldstein and Rabin's assassin is that Goldstein killed Muslims and Rabin's assassin killed the Prime Minister. Allowing Goldstein's tomb to become a shrine would therefore have very unfortunate implications!
I also don't think the parallel with Antigone is perfect, because her brother who Creon won't allow buried was fighting to get the throne that was rightfully his from his brother who refused to give it to him. Of course, many terrorists would argue that their causes are similar...perhaps the parallel is actually better than I thought at first.
Thank you for this blog post, it really made me think.