Wilful blindness and fear – no power except moral authority
At the outset, I shall not be spoon feed everybody’s ass (as they say in America)! Wilful blindness is exactly what the words mean. Some needing references and to ‘understand’ basic English shall start here. The concept is also known as ‘wilful ignorance’ and grew out ‘ignorance of the law’ – but today the concept is much wider and deeper, as it fans out into social contexts as well.
Everybody says that they have ‘human rights’. However, very few people actually know what their human rights are. Most people will have missed 10th December as an important day in our history. It was only Human Rights Day. To be clear, human rights are one of several sets of rights available to people (and Google could be your friend). But hold on – what happens when peoples’ rights are violated and no one takes notice? Here I’m referring not to individuals but to groups of people. What if the United Nations or the International Criminal Court, or some other legal entity turns a blind eye (for whatever reason)? Then there is a big problem! Well, the problem has been addressed, since the 1960s but few people actually know about it. Below is a mindmap with clickable hyperlinks, to show what happened in the Civil Society Justice movement. The latter is a term to encapsulate a whole lot of things – so, it’s not an organisation as such.
Wikipedia defines ‘wilful blindness’ pretty well, “Although the term was originally—and still is—used in legal contexts, the phrase “willful ignorance” has come to mean any situation in which people intentionally turn their attention away from an ethical problem that is believed to be important by those using the phrase (for instance, because the problem is too disturbing for people to want it dominating their thoughts, or from the knowledge that solving the problem would require extensive effort).” Those who need a book can go here – and stay there, while debating whether it’s ‘willful or ‘wilful’ or ‘willfull’! [Just to be clear, I do not derive advantages of any sort by sharing information].
To be 200% clear ‘tribunal’ does not mean a body prescribed by law. A tribunal is a decision-making body – it does not have to be one created by some law. Creating a tribunal outwith of law does not mean it is illegal! Chryssst!
As this is not a spoon feeding session nobody will get a full list of examples. I focus on ‘wilful blindness’ exposed at The China Tribunal. Those expecting me to read it and explain it to them, may now move to the nearest cliff edge and consider taking a flying leap! (Note carefully – I didn’t suggest which way they may consider leaping. They could well leap onto a surface just at their own feet!)
The way some rather thick people will be expected to deal with the evidence from The China Tribunal, is as follows:
1 – call it a lynch mob.
2 – say it had nothing to do with the UN – so it’s rubbish.
3- rubbish all evidence gathered.
4 – avoid reading any of it by arguing that life’s too short.
5 – talk to people who think all of the above.
6 – argue that it is irrelevant to the ‘Tesco card’ issue because everybody knows that enforced labour happens in the West too.
7 – avoid clicking the video below (cuz they’re scared or don’t like being be dared)
The China Tribunal was not a ‘lynch mob’ because they were had no powers to hang anybody – nor did they attempt to do so. In essence the Tribunal was formed because major international bodies collectively turned a blind eye to what was happening in China. Why did bodies such as the United Nations turn a blind eye? Again – people will expect me to tell them. I’m not going to do that! Laziness may have been one factor – if it affected the likes of the UN, then it affects you too!
Stupid: Why are you swearing?!
CW: Eh? What you on about?
Stupid: Don’t try to be clever. You said ‘ass’.
CW: Ass is not a swear word in this instance.
Stupid: Are you an expert on China?
Stupid: Are you an expert on world peace and human rights?
Stupid: So what gives you the right to criticise China?!
CW: I could criticise anybody I wish! I have rights to lawful freedom of expression according to domestic law and international law, equal to everybody else (except you of course, cuz you are not a live autonomous human being). I’ve made no criticism or implied any of China. I’ve simply exposed what has been found by a competent Tribunal.
Stupid: I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know anything about ‘freedom of expression’ or what is a Tribunal.
CW: So what – I couldn’t give a flying flamingo! I’m not interested in your level of knowledge. Real people can find out more if they want to about ‘freedom of expression’.
Stupid: No need to be insulting.
CW: I wasn’t insulting at all. I simply said it doesn’t matter whether you’re a lawyer (or not) and I don’t give a flying flamingo. I don’t have any flamingos, so I couldn’t possibly give any!
Stupid: Well no need to be so harsh – you’re bullying!
CW: I don’t know exactly how you got out of your cage. Watch it cuz you could be back in rather swiftly for making idiotic accusations.
Stupid: Yes I know. But I don’t see the big deal about the findings of the Tribunal.
CW: And I’m not going to educate you about it.
Stupid: So what are you trying to say? Are you trying to cause riots or revolutions in China?
CW: I’m saying, that wilful blindness exposed at the Tribunal, explains why China was not investigated. China is not subject to the International Criminal Court. The Tribunal was funded mainly by private contributions – and driven by people of conscience. I’m not trying to cause riots or revolution in China.
Stupid: Well I heard that there were riots in Hong Kong.
CW: Yes – not sure how you heard that but there actually were riots in Hong Kong caused by the Chinese government not respecting rights and agreements given to people in Hong Kong. It’s a long story – and I’m not going to go into it. People who protested for protection of their rights were beaten. Some were killed. For the benefit of others, the story is summarised on Wikipedia.
Stupid: I don’t see how the Hong Kong riots have anything to do with the China Tribunal or the Tesco card situation.
CW: It’s about wilful blindness – that’s what is in the backdrop. Right – it’s time for you to be back in your cage.. go nicely – else!
Stupid: Ok.. okay.. but..
CW: Sorry – no buts.. you’re gone.
I wonder if some are waiting around for something more. Now may be a good time to hold one’s breath!