Compassion Revisited

On August 20th, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was released from prison by the Scottish Government. The reaction since has been most instructive about different countries, societies and cultures. We have seen the developing debate within Scotland, the reaction within Libya, America and the wider world. We have learned much about the motivations of many involved in the background to this decision.

It was deeply unfortunate that the Libyan public chose to celebrate Megrahi's return as they did. It was foolish and insensitive in the presence of so many cameras. However, it should be remembered that their society has very different values to us, and that many of those who celebrated will have been clan members, related to his family; they would have celebrated no matter what they thought of his guilt, or otherwise. It is also reported in some independent media that the Libyan police cleared the crowd very soon after the pictures we all saw.

Furthermore, in much of the world, and amongst many in Britain, there are very real doubts about this man's guilt. Respected journalists, lawyers, politicians and commentators have all supported this view. In Libya, he is viewed as a martyr who laid down his freedom for his country. And even the respected UN observer at his trial has declared it a miscarriage of justice. There are many questions left unanswered. Why was the Syrian link so suddenly dropped? What is the nature of the undisclosed evidence? Why was the Heathrow break-in not mentioned at trial?

It is particularly strange that his co-accused was found innocent, yet Megrahi convicted. The only difference in evidence seems to be that of Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper, who completely changed his description of the alleged purchaser of the clothing wrapped around the bomb. He seems not to be a reliable witness to base an entire conviction upon. The UK Government should open an inquiry as soon as possible. They owe that to the victims families.

In Scotland, we have seen the unedifying spectacle of the opposition political parties doing their best to extract as much political capital as they can from the row. Yet their own ideas are revealed to be inept, impractical and lacking in any humanity. They reveal themselves to be opportunists with no moral base, and to be mindless pursuers of popular opinion. The gist of their concern seems to be what the rest of the world thinks of us. Yet what do we really know about the rest of the world's opinion? It seems the only opinion they are remotely interested in is that of America. What does this tell us?

For all that it actually matters, I would guess that opinion throughout most of the world is either neutral or positive. It certainly seems that in large parts of Africa and Asia the decision has been greeted positively (not least by Nelson Mandela). All the religious leaders in Scotland seem to be supportive; Catholic, various Protestant denominations, Jewish, Buddhist and Quaker. It would be likely that this is widely shared by religious groups across much of the globe. Perhaps, on balance, Scotland's standing around the world has actually gone up. I think many people would be proud to live in a country that embodied such values in it's legal system. At the end of the day though, I believe that Scotland has done the right thing, and what the world thinks should be of minor concern to us.

And what of that popular opinion here, that the politicians so assiduously chase? At first this was dominated by the negative, but, as people have had time to think for themselves, they have started to move away from the artificial outrage of the media, and polls show them moving to support for the decision. Immediately after the release, the divide was 3-1 against; the most recent poll shows that opinion is now evenly split. And even amongst those who disagree with the decision, the majority support Kenny MacAskill's right to make it, and only a small minority would support his resignation. As time progresses and the dust settles, many more may change their minds, one way or the other. Only history will decide in the end.

And what of American opinion? The reports seem devoid of any understanding of compassion, never mind compassion itself. Yet this is a self proclaimed God-fearing country. Apparently they fear God, but don't listen to the message of their supposed saviour. What do we really expect from a country that continues to support the death penalty, even for juveniles and the mentally deficient? Which regards the provision of adequate healthcare to be some form of socialism, or bankruptcy an acceptable price to pay for it? Which puts the machismo of gun ownership above the lives of so many of it's citizens?

Perhaps the most depressing and disturbing aspect of American reaction is the call, by hopefully a vocal minority, for a boycott of Scotland and the whole UK because of one decision by one minister in part of the UK. Never mind the support this country has given the US on so many occasions, despite our many misgivings about their policies. Never mind the tens of thousands of UK, and especially Scottish, troops that have served alongside the US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the dozens of other places over the past decades. Never mind the thousands of wounded and mutilated amongst them. Or the hundreds that gave their lives.



Twisted and cynical it certainly is, as we witness the oil companies and Westminster politicians cosying up to the Libyan Government. But that is realpolitik. Did this play a role in Kenny MacAskill's decision? Somehow I doubt it. I can't quite see the SNP doing Gordon Brown any favours, especially as his government squeezes the Holyrood budgets. Indeed, pressure from that direction would more likely have the opposite effect. I think this was a genuine decision taken on correct legal and moral grounds.

Luckily, I know, as will many, that there are many more intelligent Americans, who understand that this was Scotland's decision to make, and who may, at least, understand the values which we have espoused in so doing. They will continue to regard Scotland, and it's people, as friends and allies. There may even be some who support that decision, but it is unlikely that the media will let them have their voice.

Compassion vs Justice

I have known the town of Lockerbie for much of my life. On the 22nd December, 1988, I drove along the motorway that passes Lockerbie, returning to my parents house for Christmas. I have never known such a feeling of despair and pain as I felt passing the site of the crashed wreckage of the Pan Am airliner which plunged into the town, after the bomb exploded on board the day before.

Scotland's government is now considering the fate of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the bombing. Mr Megrahi is terminally ill with prostate cancer, and is not expected to live very much longer. As such, his lawyers have lodged an appeal for compassionate release, which the Scottish Justice Minister is currently giving due consideration.

There are considerable doubts as to whether this man actually committed this crime; many of the relatives of the British victims, and prominent Scottish politicians, harbour very real doubts about the evidence and the process, as does the UN observer at the trial. Megrahi has an appeal against both his conviction and his sentence pending, but it is doubtful that he will live long enough to see that process to it's conclusion. This is a shame, as many questions remain unanswered, and the appeal may shed light on some of these.

The reaction to this appeal for compassionate release has revealed much about the two countries primarily involved. Britain, a largely secular, even irreligious, society seems very much divided in it's opinion. It is striking that many of the victims families in the UK are quite vocal in calling for compassion for Megrahi. In America, in contrast, there seems to be almost unanimous opposition to compassion, especially amongst the victims families, and yet the US is a very much more vocally Christian country. What are we to make of this?

As a Quaker, I am committed to both the concepts of justice and compassion. Megrahi has served 8 years in a high security Scottish jail. As a percentage of his likely lifespan after his conviction that is considerable. We certainly can not regard him as a public threat, as he is practically crippled by his cancer. He wishes to spend the little time that remains to him with his family, who are presumed to be innocent of any such crime. However, it is undeniable that, assuming he is guilty, this was a particularly horrendous crime, and that justice must be served.

It is certainly a dilemma, and not one I envy Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Minister. He is likely to be condemned whatever he decides. Luckily for him, the decision is to be taken on purely legal grounds. Or as purely as politics allows! He does not have to balance the moral considerations in making that decision, though he will undoubtedly have moral views of his own. It is, indeed, a poisoned chalice, from which few would welcome the opportunity to drink.

If we believe in a theistic God, as many of those involved certainly do, then we must also believe that justice ultimately lies in the hands of that God, and that no matter what happens here, justice will be served in an afterlife. As a Muslim, Megrahi must surely believe the same. Christians have a duty to compassion also, and there can be no more eloquent testimony to the strength of that Christian belief than showing compassion to this man, and his family, regardless of his guilt. That is what Jesus is supposed to have asked of his followers, and hard as it is, if you are a Christian, then that is the burden which you must embrace.

William Penn, a respected historical Quaker, and founder of the state of Pennsylvania in the US, famously stated that "men are to be judged by their likeness to Christ, rather than their notions of Christ". Jesus is reputed to have asked for forgiveness for his tormentors in one of his last living statements before death on the cross. There seems little doubt to me what his example to us would be, if faced with such a dilemma.

Those of us who do not believe in God, must ask themselves whether justice is actually served by keeping a dying and incapable man in jail. There must surely come a point when our necessary humane compassion towards a fellow human being forces us to overcome our qualms about his release and our desire for vengeance, whatever his alleged crime. That release would be a profound demonstration of the values of our society to those who question the validity of those values.

It is with a little difficulty that I conclude that as a civilised society, or as Christians, or as Quakers, or as simply humane human beings, there is no alternative than to release Megrahi, as the time is judged right, in order to give his family a short time with him before his death. Personally, I believe there are very grave question marks about the man's guilt, but that is almost an irrelevance in this situation. The issue is bigger than that. I find myself asking, how do we better counter and disarm the hate and violence of terrorism, than to demonstrate love and compassion towards it's perpetrators when called upon to do so?