Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Let’s not be rational about torture

By Matthew Zagor - posted Wednesday, 1 June 2005


In the absence of constitutional protection against torture, we must ultimately rely on the third, most potent reason why torture is universally and absolutely prohibited: our collective abhorrence of torture as the violation of our common humanity. Torture destroys the moral fabric of our polity. The abused body of the victim is reflected in the devastation of the body politic.

This is, of course, a metaphysical analysis, but it also has physical manifestations. A country that condones torture risks losing its moral authority and political influence on the international stage, as well as its legitimacy in the eyes of its own people - thereby undermining democracy. Yet, the metaphysical aspects of the moral prohibition against torture are no less significant. That many of us had an almost physical revulsion to Professor Bagaric’s argument is a reflection of the way certain legal prohibitions -, such as that against torture, slavery or genocide - can become ingrained into a society’s collective unconscious and operate hand-in-glove with social morality. The connection between law and the visceral attitude towards torture is reflected in the language used by judges to define international crimes such as torture: “repugnant”, “heinous” and “crimes against humanity”.

Our gut reaction against the proposition that torture should be legalised should therefore not be considered as mere ill-informed populism. It reflects much deeper-seated values and legal rules - an emotional intelligence borne of historical experience, and now ingrained into our culture and legal system. As Jeremy Waldron, Professor of Law at Columbia University says, the prohibition of torture now operates as an archetype in our legal system, shared by all participants, and reflecting the spirit of the law.

Advertisement

In conclusion, anything can be rationalised. And without an entrenched Bill of Rights, almost anything can be legislated away, even the most basic human rights. Let us look to our moral instincts and hope they prevail.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

Article edited by Leah Wedmore.
If you'd like to be a volunteer editor too, click here.

First published in The Canberra Times on May 24, 2005.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

25 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Matthew Zagor is Senior Lecturer in Law, ANU and Deputy Director of the National Europe Centre and a board member, Australian Lawyers for Human Rights.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Matthew Zagor

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Matthew Zagor
Article Tools
Comment 25 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy