Barbarities old and new

Today is November the 5th - in Britain, "Guy Fawkes Night" when the death in 1605 of Gunpowder Plot conspirator Guido Fawkes is marked by fireworks, bonfires, baked potatoes, and sundry other open air jollity.

Fawkes may or may not have been part of what may or may not have been a serious and genuine plot by to blow up the incumbent protestant British monarch of the time, along with both chambers of his parliament ... pick your historian. Either way, the manner of his death is a matter of record: he was hanged, after torture, though he managed to avoid the full sentence required (hanging, drawing and quartering) by jumping from the gallows and breaking his own neck. Under the requirements of the law his entrails and genitals would, after disembowelment, have been burned in front of him while he was still alive on the rope; tonight, all across Britain, effigies of him (called "guys") will be placed on bonfires and burned.

That punishment for treason was only removed from our law in 1840.

As a small child, I was afraid of the fireworks. As I got older, I enjoyed Guy Fawkes Night - the warmth, the social atmosphere, most of all the baked potatoes. As a teenager I delighted in experimenting with bangers - blowing up sandcastles, dropping them into water, and so on. More recently, having seen more combat than I wanted to think about, I hated the bangs and, even worse, cowered at the screech of rockets. Now I'm more or less uninterested, though glad that most of the bangs are restricted to few days around the date itself - but I do find myself thinking that of all the things marked around the world by fireworks (Chinese new Year, US Independence Day, etc) the wish for enhanced cruelty in the death of a scapegoat four hundred years ago is not the most edifying example.

There is an old children's playground rhyme:

Remember, remember,
The fifth of November,
Gunpowder, treason and plot!
I see no good reason
Why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.

I used to chant it with glee, in the playground. I must be getting old, because now I see no reason for remembering horrors.

Today is also the day when Saddam Hussein, erstwhile dictator of Iraq, has been sentenced to death by hanging. Hanging in modern times usually includes as standard the broken neck which Guy Fawkes had to engineer for himself, so is a quicker business than it used to be - and, thankfully, the extra frills of disembowelment etc have been dispensed with in most places. Hanging is still not a pleasant business, however.

How do feel about this sentence?

In principle, I am opposed to capital punishment and must, therefore, be opposed to its use in this case. Emotionally, on the other hand, I find it difficult to care over much - whatever the rights and wrongs of the war which deposed him, Saddam is not a nice man and his hanging will be far kinder than the ends to which he sent many other human beings in his time (including some ends which would have seemed familiar to Guy Fawkes). I heard a canon in one of the Christian churches, normally an opponent of the death penalty, say that in this case he was for it; while I can't agree, I can certainly understand.

In practice, whether the sentence is carried out or commuted will be decided not on principle or sentiment, but on political calculation. As long as he is alive Saddam will be a focus for insurrection against the new government - and, as time goes by, his sins will fade while his status grows. On the other hand, his death will make him a martyr and, therefore, once again a focus for opposition. Then again, there is that business of why the war was fought and who exactly is condemning him to death.

As I said recently, I was opposed to the war which was actually fought although I might have been able to support one which had clear humanitarian aims. Before invasion, the US administration was very clear in saying that régime change was not a reason; Britain dithered, some of its ministers dissenting, but, for most of the time, took the same line. Only after extensive searching turned up no sign of any weapons of mass destruction did embarrassment produce a volte face and suddenly regime change for humanitarian reasons had been the important point all along. The new Iraqi government was then effectively set up (apparently with little advance planning) by the occupation. That being the case it is hard to avoid the perception, true or false, that whatever happens to Saddam is being decided by the US at arm's length through proxies.

If the US expresses approval for the hanging, it will look vengeful. If it expresses reservations, it will seem hypocritical (given that the death penalty is widespread at home, with several states implementing particularly barbarous methods). If it says nothing, it looks like Pontius Pilate - and, for some in the extremist religious camps, that is a very appropriate analogy. Whatever it does, there will be consequent violence directed westward.