Ashamed To Be Human

I have concluded I don't suit the human race. I think I would be much more comfortable at being part of another species on planet Earth, such as a rabbit or a tortoise. They always seem quite happy and contented and unbothered by what is happening in the news. A rabbit’s hutch will be lined with newspaper, but being a rabbit I wouldn't be able to read the text nor really be able to understand the context of the pictures. And even if I could understand it, I'd either eat or poo on the offending article. It's easy as a rabbit. I can even wiggle my nose and ears like a rabbit. Maybe I was meant to be a rabbit? Or if you believe in reincarnation, maybe I was once a rabbit. I wish I had a simple life like a rabbit, where I couldn't get offended.

Why am I considering the rabbit’s life? Well, the news the past two days has completely depressed, revolted and ashamed me. I am part of a species that murders. I know it's hardly a news flash: “Human Race Murder”. I'm thinking more about a specific murder carried out yesterday; a murder of a bad man. A terrible man. A man most would agree didn't deserve to live in the first place. However, what has bothered me more is not the murder itself, but the aftermath. His death has been glorified, and that is what I have a problem with.

Almost every newspaper carried a picture, on the front page, of Colonel Gadaffi. His lifeless face, covered with blood and a bullet hole in his head, is a picture which can be seen everywhere today. The Mirror had the worst, most disgusting picture and The Sun had a headline, which seemed to be full of pride at his death: "That's For Lockerbie", with the sub-heading "And for Yvonne Fletcher. And IRA Semtex Bomb victims." That headline is typical of The Sun, and its approach to anything done by, or as a result of, our Army. They are often blinded by a sense of pride. Morality doesn't come into their field of approach to news stories like this.

I hate myself for having to put his picture in my blog, but I just wanted to share the front cover. You can hate me and call me hypocritical if you like...

It comes to something when the human race uses technology to spread footage of a man being tortured and killed, all done within minutes of the event happening. Within an hour of hearing about the capture and possible death of Gadaffi, I was seeing pictures on the BBC Website, and video footage on their news channel, of his dead, bloodied and beaten body. The BBC defended it, by stating that they used the video to convey the scale of the "dramatic and gruesome" events. This is the same for every international news outlet in the country. To me, that is just seems wrong. It seems inhuman to put the face of a dead man everywhere; we wouldn't even treat an animal in that way.

Of course, we have to appreciate that as a nation, we are cynical enough to take the opinion that we won't believe something until we have seen it, and studied it for ourselves. Seeing as we can't all fly to Libya and poke the body ourselves; video footage is the next best thing. Saying to news outlets that they cannot show the pictures in their papers, and websites and news channels would be censorship, and I am against censorship. I just believe that we don't need to see these pictures over and over and over and over again. He isn't a very attractive man in the first place, let alone dead, bruised and bloodied. Why couldn't it just be confined to the Internet and after the watershed on TV? It seems wrong to have this man, who has essentially been 'happy slapped', in this state, as a picture to symbolise Thursday 20th October 2011.

To take an extreme view; we wouldn't do this to a victim. If Gadaffi had captured, then beaten and killed an innocent person in public and filmed it and uploaded the video to the Internet, the media would handle the whole event with moral decency. The same was done with Osama Bin Laden in May. We had a blurry, inconspicuous picture of a body said to be him, which was plastered everywhere. It seems revolting to do this, time after time. WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

It seems the newspapers have become the medieval equivalent to putting heads of bad people, on spikes for others to treat as they will. It dehumanised them. Now, the papers print the picture of a lifeless head on the front page instead.

There is also the argument of whether he should have been killed in the first place, and even the circumstances of the death are hazy. We have a video of Gadaffi in a bad way, being dragged through the streets of his home town, after been beaten up and having blood pouring off of his face. Then the next video we have is of him lying dead with a small bullet hole. Apparently it was cross fire. However, chances are, it was an emotional person, who probably knew some victims of Gadaffi's regime, and then, consumed with hate, put a gun to his head and blew his brains out (metaphorically).

However, now he is dead, people will never know the truth. People will never know his darkest secrets (which is possibly a relief for Western countries, who were heavily affiliated with him). He can never be tried in court, and can never be punished in the humanly correct way. Many questions will remain unanswered. How can a 'new Libya' claim to be any better than Gadaffi, when they begin like this? But then again, his trial was expected to have taken 10 year. It could be said to have been a waste of money and time. I know I will still disagree with his death, and especially how our media have dealt with it.

If God existed, and I was him, I would be putting the human race on the naughty step. No, don't argue and sulk, you done a bad thing, now sit there quietly until I say so; especially you media bastards!