credits to source: http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=30043
RUSSIA: 20 January 2009
Horrifying double murder of lawyer and journalist in central Moscow underlines climate of impunity
читать на русском
Reporters Without Borders today reacted with horror to the double murder in central Moscow of lawyer Stanislav Markelov, specialising in murders committed in Chechnya, and journalist on the bi-weekly Novaya Gazeta who was with him, Anastasia Baburova, shot dead as they left a press conference given by the lawyer.
Markelov had at the 19 January press conference condemned the early release of Yuri Bodanov, a Russian former colonel who was sentenced in 2003 to ten years in prison for the murder of an 18-year-old Chechen, Elza Kungayeva, whose family Markelov was representing.
As they left the press conference at 2pm, a masked man wearing a chapka (Russian fur hat) shot Markelov. The young journalist was shot in the head as she tried to prevent the killer from escaping and died a few hours later from her injuries without regaining consciousness.
Stanislas Markelov had recently received death threats. The prosecutor general Yuri Chayka said he was taking control of the investigation.
“We offer our condolences to the families of Anastasia Baburova and Stanislav Markelov” the worldwide press freedom organisation said. “Their deaths are a tragedy, resulting from the persistent hold of violence on Russian society but also the impunity that reigns in cases of murders of journalists and human rights activists.”
“We salute the courage of Markelov, who had defended many journalists including Anna Politkovskaya, who was murdered in October 2006, and Mikhaïl Beketov, brutally assaulted last November. Russia has lost a tenacious lawyer who did his utmost to defend the interests of families of victims of atrocities in Russian Caucasia”.
“Our thoughts are with the family and colleagues of Anastasia Baburova, who made the choice to become a journalist and deal with sensitive issues, particularly ultra-nationalism. She was a brave young woman, which is clearly demonstrated by the fact that she was fatally injured while trying to stop the gunman” the organisation added.
“The authorities must quickly hunt down, identify and try those responsible for this double murder. Murders of journalists, lawyers and human rights defenders in Russia can only be stopped by breaking the cycle of impunity.” it concluded.
The trial of the four suspects in the murder of Novaya Gazeta journalist, Anna Politkovskaya, who tirelessly exposed crimes committed in Chechnya, resumed the same day in Mosocw. Neither those who ordered her killed nor the suspected gunman are among those in the dock.
Ceremonies in memory of Stanislav Markelov and Anastassia Baburova were held in Moscow and Chechnya.
(the above had been posted here for the convenience of readers, with no disrespect to its original writer. this blog is purely for academic purposes.)
Pretty shocking news that we don't get on this side of the world usually. But with a headline like that, it sure catches the attention – and it had caught mine really fast. Looking through the article, the part of me that's focused on completing my assignment on this blog seems to simply scream our "LOGOS" and "PATHOS" (which for the layman, it's simply to appeal to reason and to appeal to emotion - of the audience, that is). Yet another part of me - the audience self is already reading on, interested to find out the cause of the horror reflected in the title.
Perhaps it is fine example of effective communication, where the message of the injustice and audacity of the act - the murder of two individuals who were standing on the side of justice and truth - springs loud and clear off the board of sound explanation of what had occurred, injected with statements made by no less than the worldwide press freedom organization. Sadly, a stand for the two individuals made too late - for their silencing had already occurred.
Yet their voices, while no longer audible in sound, may now be louder than ever in their silencing – as it now is held in the hands of those who would not see their work end with the loss of their lives – as these reporters have done, through their reporting of the incident. Many tend to over-generalize people by their occupation, like how journalists tend to be associated with adjectives like nosy and lawyers with words like unscrupulous. This report, however, would urge one to re-evaluate the truth or rather, untruth in such an all-encompassing view of a collective group of people – with the presentation of two individuals who had taken a solid stand in their pursuit of justice which they had prized above their very lives. Change in perspective, anyone?
With that in mind, are there those whom you hold in a certain view – whether good or bad – simply by their occupation or social position? And having read this, would you rethink that opinion you have? Whether yes or no, do tell.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The taking of another life especially if its not physically provoked is totally unjustifiable..
ReplyDeleteIt doesnt matter if he's a journalist, lawyer, layman, etc.. Everyone on this planet have their roles and purpose as they go abt their daily lives..
Surely verbal reasoning can be applied here right? No need for murders and all..
Like how mats would put it, "Rilek ah, dok.. Jangan tension, Boleh berbual kan??"
(Translation: Relax bro, no need for the tension, we can talk this through right?)
farhanfranhafraahn
Hi, i chanced upon this blog. I agree with mr farhan. The act of taking an individual's life, not by order of the law, the very law which governs us is totally unacceptable. Even if its physically provoked, no individual should attempt to carry out means of killing on his/her own.
ReplyDeletePertaining to the generalizing of specific group of people. I believe there is always two sides to a coin. 'Nosy' and 'unscrupulous' are probably words given by some individuals who encountered bad examples of the profession. The question is where is the benchmark? who decides whether a particular act to get job done is nosy or committed? unscrupulous or formidable? what you have given is a positive example of a reporter who had given everything to bring out the truth in injustice acts. what about reporters who invaded celebrities' privacy just to get the most exclusive photos?
To conclude, effective communication is effective if the message that is to be brought across rings a bell to the society. In this case, because its injustice done to the two individual, especially their actions are of something justice and morally right, therefore the communication as it seems is effective. Just some of my opinion. Kind of lengthy. sorry about that. =)
farhan franha: I agree. The worth of a human life is surely more significant than the cause of tension - but we're looking at it from our point of view, not that murderer who was being put in prison by their speaking up against him. So yes, we both agree on the same point, but sadly it's a view that doesn't always stand in reality - cause like in this case, they were assassinated.
ReplyDeletehighlomilk: Hello there, and no your comment isn't lengthy and actually very welcome. Yes, the reason I posted this up was precisely because of what you brought up - that reporters (at least in my experience) tend to be more associated the negative side of things - like those who invade the privacy of others - for the sake of sensationalism. For me at least, the article opened up another side of journalism - maybe in one of it's most ideal forms - that usually isn't seen, and to some extent, gives me hope that there are those journalists who continually prize the accuracy of what they report above whatever material benefits they may get from twisting the truth.
I find actors and actresses to be often lacking in morals. Or perhaps they are unable to handle the pressure that comes with their success.
ReplyDeleteHaving read this article, I don't think my views about that has changed. I admit to being a person who generalises. Nonetheless, I recognise that there are many exceptions to every generalisation.
But I believe we cannot deny the fact that a certain type of people would be more prone to appear in certain types of professions.
People form perceptions that are so handy when we meet them for the first time. For e.g. if you have the perception that lawyers are unscrupulous, when you meet one you tend to think he is one and react in an apropriate manner, i.e. more guarded.
ReplyDeleteSuch perceptions aren't bad. While they may hinder sensing an accurate first impressions, it can come handy in other social circumstances.
Imagine if you were driving alone at night down a lane with no cars around. The street is darkened and you stop at the traffic lights. This motorist pulls up beside you. Harley-davidson, metal chains for a belt, leather jacket, studded, tooled and mean looking. And he knocks on your window.
What would you do?
Wind the window and ask can I help you or drive the heck out of there?
Our perceptions of others are formed by being socialized usually. So nothing wrong with that in my opinion. One just has to learn how to diffferentiate, be objective and learn to stay neutral towards one's own emotions.
-hy
Nothing is absolute, not even this statement (well there's a philosophical dilemma). Conclusion: Occupation/profession does not determine person. That said, I highly doubt that you, dear reader, would have the neighbourhood pimp/drug pusher/arms dealer over for Christmas/Hannukah/Chinese New Year's. There are certain socially established boundaries that are not crossed except by people that have, or lack, an undesirable or desirable characteristic, respectively. This is not to say that they are bad people; they do bad things for which you would nevertheless judge them.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of freedom of speech - think on it, would any of you be able to so publicly criticise a current or former member of the government in your country of residence? (ironically, "with impunity")
And now, about the hat. What would you infer from the wearing of a chapka? Does this symbolise, perhaps, the support of mother Russia of this? Or does the person, in his delusion, believe that he represents the view and best interests of the people?
@Edwin
I respectfully ask that you consider the possibility that the perspective you hold is a result of overly publicised reports of the more...mm...morally questionable examples of those of the theatric persuasion. Taking into consideration my limited perspective, this lax approach to living I would attribute to their education and social background; that is, the traditionally trained (stage) actors (sidebar: noun, gender neutral) tend to be more mellow, for lack of a better word. Or, in the course of their education, restraint was instilled. Just a thought.
@Kailin
Does then that sensationalism speak worse of the society that consumes it, or the journalists that produce it?
If you argue the former, that they are force-fed it; why then is it that it is so greedily absorbed, all the pain and trauma and violence that sells newspapers and has CNN as (one of the?) highest viewed channels?
On the other hand, the journalists cannot be absolved of all blame; they are not simply supplying for a need, but propagating the violence. Not only do they provide a voice that leads others to believe violence a viable means of communication, but the next generation's views are polluted by the constant airing of the same.
Um. @The first three commenters.
ReplyDeleteYour absolutist views on the sanctity of life are admittedly vulnerable to those who support the utilitarian approach. Once again the battle between Kant and the many proponents of "the greater good" is rejoined (yes I know that's redundant to say "again" and "re-").
I could respond with Romans 5:19. I could respond with the problems with the implementation of triage. I could highlight the hypocrisy of the Hippocratic oath, or its contradictions (by allowing one to live, and causing many to die by that one's hand). I could cite any example of someone saving another's life by dying in their place. Is that an equal trade? I could merely posit a scenario where someone must die; your approach then has no basis in the logical determination of the "best" outcome.
Think on this.