SHAKSPER 2000: Re: Old Bill

From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu)
Date: 05/08/00 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0976  Monday, 8 May 2000.

[1]     From:   David Nicol <drn5@hotmail.com>
        Date:   Friday, 05 May 2000 08:40:02 PDT
        Subj:   Re: Old Bill

[2]     From:   Abdulla Al-Dabbagh <al-dabbagh@rocketmail.com>
        Date:   Friday, 5 May 2000 23:23:56 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0967 Re: Old Bill

[3]     From:   Terence Hawkes <hawkest@compuserve.com>
        Date:   Saturday, 6 May 2000 09:36:53 -0400
        Subj:   SHK 11.0967 Re: Old Bill


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Nicol <drn5@hotmail.com>
Date:           Friday, 05 May 2000 08:40:02 PDT
Subject:        Re: Old Bill

Regarding Terence Hawkes's posting about the suppression of the Tibetan
protestors in London, Sean Lawrence writes,

>Some leap of logic seems to be made in this paragraph.  Are you saying
>that because the police actions were unlawful, they must have been
>ordered by the government?  That's not exactly a logical necessity.  In
>fact, such a leap seems doubly odd coming from a man possessed with a
>widely-admired critical intellect.
>
>Cheers,
>Seán.

Actually, a representative of the police force was interviewed on the TV
news a couple of nights ago and was given several opportunities to deny
that the order to remove the protesters came from the British
government. The man equivocated and fudged, but there was no denial. One
didn't need a "widely-admired critical intellect" to draw the obvious
conclusion.

David Nicol

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Abdulla Al-Dabbagh <al-dabbagh@rocketmail.com>
Date:           Friday, 5 May 2000 23:23:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 11.0967 Re: Old Bill
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0967 Re: Old Bill

I am surprised at Sean's bewilderment. I think what Terence is saying
makes perfect sense. It is the classic case of "we were following
orders" said in defense of actions regarded as illegal, unlawful,  or
even downright criminal (as in the case of war crimes).

Abdulla al-Dabbagh

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Terence Hawkes <hawkest@compuserve.com>
Date:           Saturday, 6 May 2000 09:36:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Old Bill
Comment:        SHK 11.0967 Re: Old Bill

Dear Sean Lawrence,

The events that the police now agree were 'unlawful' were not the
isolated acts of individual officers. They involved the large-scale
strategic deployment of vehicles to screen the Chinese party from
protesters, the systematic confiscation of placards and flags, and the
pre-planned targeting and removal of certain demonstrators from the
scene. It must be assumed that the senior police officers who gave the
orders for these strategies knew the law, and therefore knew that such
actions would be illegal. That is the illegality that has just been
admitted in the High Court. You may of course believe that a number of
high-ranking police officers collectively, and for no apparent reason,
conspired to break the law, or that suddenly and simultaneously they
decided to break it on the basis of personal whim. Otherwise, it seems
not unreasonable to presume that they were carrying out instructions
from a higher authority. To suggest that the source of this authority
might be a government anxious to preserve and reinforce friendly trade
relationships with China, does not strike me as a 'leap of logic'. Of
course, it could have been Mick Jagger, the Spice Girls, or even, given
the final recourse to the new Globe Theatre, the clamant shade of the
Commander himself. But so far, my withers are unwrung.

T. Hawkes


about SHAKSPER | current postings | submitted papers | browse SHAKSPER | search SHAKSPER
  
Copyright © 2002, Hardy M. Cook, design by Eric Luhrs. All rights reserved.