Compassion

To me the word “compassion” implies an empathic understanding of the suffering of another and thus is a step beyond pity, which nevertheless is a sympathetic appreciation of another’s plight.

It is perhaps not too difficult to understand the anguish of those with whom we are not acquainted. If we see news footage of a starving child or hear about victims of the Asian tsunami of course we feel emotion. However, unless there is any direct involvement (where for instance someone we know was killed or bereaved) we might perhaps send a charitable donation but we are otherwise unable to help in a practical sense and do not become greatly engaged emotionally.

Sometimes, though, it seems to us that someone we know has been seriously wronged, or we have a deep sense of injustice or sympathy for that person’s anguish. If that person who is our friend or colleague has been deeply hurt or is vulnerable, we are anxious to rush to that person’s side, to help fight the battle. That is a very noble and honourable thing to do and it will be helpful to the person wronged to know that he or she has the support of others through a difficult time.

Nevertheless, often in human relationships there are two sides to every story. That does not mean that the person wronged is in any way to blame, but perhaps the behaviour of the supposed perpetrator has to be seen in the context of his or her own situation and probably that person’s emotional state. That person should not be demonised and it may be that that person requires some understanding too, indeed some compassion; an empathic understanding as to why the person acted in the way that he or she did. Perhaps the wrongful act was an accident or a simple indiscretion under stress (if it was a criminal act then that is for another discussion another time), and in some circumstances it might have been a cry for help.

These situations occur in online relationships too, and of course it is very likely that they will affect people’s daily lives. Compassion for the “wrongdoer” does not require us to agree with someone’s actions but if we make an effort to understand the circumstances it may assuage our anger.

My Oxford Pocket Dictionary defines compassion as “pity inclining one to spare or help”. Online or offline, it is always important not to rush to judgement, but to help and support the parties involved and show compassion to all those who need it.

© Jon Stow 2005

Questions Mr Blair never answered

With roughly a week to go to the General Election only about a week away I am completely mystified as to why Mr. Tony Blair is still the incumbent Prime Minister and Leader of the Labour Party.

Let us remind ourselves once again that Mr. Blair took this country to war with Iraq on the basis that Saddam Hussein was prepared to deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes. He may have come up later with the idea that removal of this cruel regime was necessary in a wider context, but nevertheless the country and Her Majesty’s Opposition were sold on the WMD issue. The Conservative Party did not just “go along with it” as Charles Kennedy said on the radio this morning; the leadership believed as many of us did that the Government had proof of the existence of these weapons.

Subsequently it emerged that the supposed WMDs were in the form of shells fired from field guns, and the intelligence community had not suggested to Ministers that they were missile-borne and capable of reaching Israel and Cyprus as had been reported by some newspapers.

The Prime Minister then let us know that he did not realise that the alleged WMDs were not missile-borne. Why on earth he did not ask for details from his Defence Secretary and the military intelligence officials? Should not any political leader of a nation make sure that if he is to take the country to war he has been fully briefed on the enemy’s military capabilities? Surely Mr. Blair should have asked his advisers for the fullest justification of his causi bellum.

Lord Carrington resigned from the Government in 1982 over his Foreign Office’s failure to get wind of the Argentinians’ invasion of the Falklands, bearing the responsibility for his Ministry’s failure even though he was not personally responsible for an error of judgement. Of course, Lord Carrington was and is a man of honour. Our Prime Minister led the country to war on false pretences and failed to establish basic facts or even the detail of current intelligence (correct or otherwise) concerning Iraqi weaponery. The British people should ask themselves what this says about Mr. Blair before casting their votes next Thursday.

© Jon Stow 2005