31.738
Bearbeitungen
Homicide in the Context of Killing (USP): Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
Homicide in the Context of Killing (USP) (Quelltext anzeigen)
Version vom 23. April 2018, 15:48 Uhr
, 15:48, 23. Apr. 2018→The History and Future of Homicide
Tiao (Diskussion | Beiträge) |
Tiao (Diskussion | Beiträge) |
||
| Zeile 132: | Zeile 132: | ||
If we want to imagine the future, we should have a look at the emergent systems of mass control in today's world, where restrictions of access to citizenship, social services, and rights are already being tested. | If we want to imagine the future, we should have a look at the emergent systems of mass control in today's world, where restrictions of access to citizenship, social services, and rights are already being tested. | ||
#Repression. Populations with decimated rights living in poverty and a de facto Hobbesian state of nature (repeated or prolonged states of emergency, suffering from extended police and military campaigns and powers, raids, maltreatment, torture, extrajudicial killings, permanent war on terror). Fragile truces will be the new normal, with deaths by political violence from above and below, including extrajudicial killings and social cleansings. | #'''Repression'''. Populations with decimated rights living in poverty and a de facto Hobbesian state of nature (repeated or prolonged states of emergency, suffering from extended police and military campaigns and powers, raids, maltreatment, torture, extrajudicial killings, permanent war on terror). Fragile truces will be the new normal, with deaths by political violence from above and below, including extrajudicial killings and social cleansings. | ||
#Exclusion. With universalism retreating, parochial altruism (in-group coherence) and xenofobia are drawing new moral boundaries between classes and races. Reduced citizen rights, e.g. "hukou" in China - a kind of passport system, which limits access to public services, based on the birthplace of the holder. First established in 1954 to immobilise China's large rural population, it is still a central instrument of population control. The rural population and migrant workers do not enjoy the citizenship rights that international conventions see as essential. - Divide et impera: varying types of passports with differentiated access rights for different subjugated populations. Restrictions of movement (see: Egyptian military policy in the Sinai Peninsula 2017/2018). - Withholding citizenship (Rohingy in Myanmar). Denizenship: instead of full citizenship, the Helotes will be ruled by a differential system of entitlements and access rules, pitting them against each other through indirect rule (Bantustans, patrolled no-gone zones etc.). Resource allocation will be in the hands of the powerful and their quislings. Incursions and arbitrary arrests and killings will be embedded in that new kind of governance. | #'''Exclusion'''. With universalism retreating, parochial altruism (in-group coherence) and xenofobia are drawing new moral boundaries between classes and races. Reduced citizen rights, e.g. "hukou" in China - a kind of passport system, which limits access to public services, based on the birthplace of the holder. First established in 1954 to immobilise China's large rural population, it is still a central instrument of population control. The rural population and migrant workers do not enjoy the citizenship rights that international conventions see as essential. - Divide et impera: varying types of passports with differentiated access rights for different subjugated populations. Restrictions of movement (see: Egyptian military policy in the Sinai Peninsula 2017/2018). - Withholding citizenship (Rohingy in Myanmar). Denizenship: instead of full citizenship, the Helotes will be ruled by a differential system of entitlements and access rules, pitting them against each other through indirect rule (Bantustans, patrolled no-gone zones etc.). Resource allocation will be in the hands of the powerful and their quislings. Incursions and arbitrary arrests and killings will be embedded in that new kind of governance. | ||
#New Ethics and Legal Philosophy: While the criminal code condemns all murder, law-in-action follows a second code. By and by, what started as the split between the first and second code, will tend to be justified politically and enshrined in formal law. Extended shoot-to-kill-powers for police. See: [[Police killings]] Example: Stephon Clark. Or: Rodrigo Duterte's policy in the Philippines. | #'''New Ethics and Legal Philosophy''': While the criminal code condemns all murder, law-in-action follows a second code. By and by, what started as the split between the first and second code, will tend to be justified politically and enshrined in formal law. Extended shoot-to-kill-powers for police. See: [[Police killings]] Example: Stephon Clark. Or: Rodrigo Duterte's policy in the Philippines. | ||
These populations are not in chattel slavery, they are not possession of individual slave owners. Rather, they could be compared to earlier precedents where people were without rights because they were seen as possession of the state. One example that comes to mind is that of the helots (εἵλωτες), a subjugated population group that formed the main population of Laconia and Messenia, the territory controlled by ancient Sparta in the first millenium B.C.; while their exact status was disputed - some put them between free men and slaves while others called them "slaves to the utmost" - their function was clear: tied to the land, they primarily worked in agriculture and economically supported the Spartan citizens, whom they outnumbered by around seven to one. This also may explain the methods of control used by the Spartans, who regularly and even ritually mistreated, humiliated and even slaughtered helots: every autumn the Spartan ephors (a superior council of five men) would declare war on the helots so they could be killed (by the Krypteia - κρυπτεία) without fear of repercussion. All this having the effect that uprisings and attemtps to improve the helot's lot remained unsuccessful. | These populations are not in chattel slavery, they are not possession of individual slave owners. Rather, they could be compared to earlier precedents where people were without rights because they were seen as possession of the state. One example that comes to mind is that of the helots (εἵλωτες), a subjugated population group that formed the main population of Laconia and Messenia, the territory controlled by ancient Sparta in the first millenium B.C.; while their exact status was disputed - some put them between free men and slaves while others called them "slaves to the utmost" - their function was clear: tied to the land, they primarily worked in agriculture and economically supported the Spartan citizens, whom they outnumbered by around seven to one. This also may explain the methods of control used by the Spartans, who regularly and even ritually mistreated, humiliated and even slaughtered helots: every autumn the Spartan ephors (a superior council of five men) would declare war on the helots so they could be killed (by the Krypteia - κρυπτεία) without fear of repercussion. All this having the effect that uprisings and attemtps to improve the helot's lot remained unsuccessful. | ||