Reykjavík Grapevine - 09.03.2012, Blaðsíða 19

19
The Reykjavík Grapevine
Issue 3 — 2012
“We tried this place
purely on the back
of its excellent
review on
Tripadvisor
and weren’t
disappointed. “ CAFE HAITI by the Old Harbour
Geirsgata 7b, 101 Reykjavík
tel: 661 5621 / 588 8484
Opening hours: 8.00 – 23.00
Quality coffee roasted on the premises
tel. 578 8555www.gamlasmidjan.is Lækjargata 8
Opening hours:
mon-thu 11-23
fri 11-06
sat 12-06
& sun 12-23
Heavenly pizzas!
Home delivery
See our menu at www.gamlasmidjan.is
HOW TO JUSTIFY pASSIvITY
Opinion | Kristján Guðjónsson
After the BBC reported
human rights violations
in Baku, Azerbaijan—
the unfair eviction
of poor inhabitants
to make room for
the crystal palace being built for the
Eurovision song contest—pop-icon Páll
Óskar suggested that Iceland withdraw
from the competition. “Human rights
first, glamour second,” he said.
Taking a moral stand usually
requires making sacrifices. It is unde-
niably easier to retreat than to throw
oneself into the line of fire. Uncon-
scious defence mechanisms are turned
on and we start justifying, to ourselves
and others, our lack of action. Unsur-
prisingly, the opposition argued their
case by using all of the classic justifi-
cations for moral passivity. With slight
simplification, three classic arguments
can be distinguished: the argument of
hypocrisy, participation, and discon-
nection.
The argument of hypocrisy
The hypocrisy argument, which might
be the most overused and damaging
argument of moral passivity, argues
against fighting for a specific cause if
one doesn’t, or can't, fight for other,
similar, or even more important causes.
Following this line of thought, some
have argued that it is hypocritical to
denounce Azerbaijan because Iceland
has not stood up against the United
States, China or other blatant violators
of human rights.
This argument is grounded in a
cynical worldview that acknowledges
the disadvantages of society, but does
not believe in the possibility of its
improvement. Thus, this argument’s
aim is hardly ever to encourage people
to act on other causes, but rather not
to act at all. Moral superiority of the
activist is thereby disproved and better
yet, seen as hypocritical for criticis-
ing injustice in one area of life while
neglecting it in another. Attempts to
improve the world are seen as naïve,
and rather than being admired for do-
ing something, the activist is detested
for not doing everything.
However, the fact is that our society
has so many defects that one would
have to live in total isolation to avoid
all injustice. Inevitably we must choose
our battles. A single person can only
fight so many in his or her lifetime,
but each battle should inspire other
people to take further action. Although
we have not protested human rights
violations of neighbouring countries
sufficiently before, it should not be
accepted as an excuse for not acting
now. We must begin somewhere. A
boycott of the bloody crystal palace
should, and can, become an inspiration
for a stronger stand on human rights
issues.
The argument of participation
The second argument is based on the
idea that the defects of a system must
be tackled by working from within it,
and according to its accepted proce-
dures of change. Many have suggested
that we could have greater influence
by not mentioning the violations before
the contest, but by doing it after we
arrive in Baku, on the stage of the
crystal palace where we would have
everyone's eyes and ears.
This could be effective if it was
done properly (for instance, by smug-
gling a local evictee up on the stage
Jimmy Jump style). But would the Ice-
landic competitors dare to potentially
offend or upset their hosts? Simply
mentioning the issue in passing at a
press conference would be useless.
Furthermore, when you try to clean
up a stinky system from the inside, you
always risk catching the stink yourself.
In Baku, we will most likely be so blind-
ed by the clear crystal and euphoric
confetti that we’ll forget about the foul
odour of the cruelty upon which it is
based.
The argument of disconnection
The argument of disconnection
claims that there is no causal relation
between different parts of society
and that they can therefore be dealt
with independently from one another.
Rather than seeing society as the
endlessly complicated spider web that
it is, proponents of the disconnected
society see it like a Lego building,
wherein each component is easily
identifiable and can be broken away
from the rest without too much effect
on other parts. From this worldview,
many have argued that Eurovision is
not a political contest and that pop
and politics should not be mixed: we
should let the pop stars do the singing
and the politicians the nagging.
However, when the staging of a
pop event is in such a concrete fashion
based on human rights violations, it is
difficult to see how we can disconnect
the two. So we can either choose to
use the political power of pop for the
good, or to do the opposite by remain-
ing silent (or in this case, by singing a
song) while injustice is taking place.
May it begin with me
Greta Salóme Stefánsdóttir, composer
and performer of Iceland's Eurovision
contribution, “Mundu eftir mér,” has
simply been too busy to think about
this issue, according to a Kastljós in-
terview. However, I sincerely hope she
will at least give it some thought before
she takes off.
The world will not be changed with
a single act, but we can all contribute
to greater change by taking a stand on
issues that are dear to us. Therefore,
we should be inspired by Páll Óskar
whose gradual development from a
shock-Euro-pop-diva to a politically-
conscious-pop-president is poetised in
his newest human rights disco banger,
"Megi það byrja með mér" (“May It Be-
gin With Me”), the only song appropri-
ate for the stage of the blood-stained
crystal palace of Baku.
"I pray that this world of ours,
may become a bit better than it is,
and may it begin with me"
(Lyrics translated).
Páll Óskar and the stained crystal palace of Baku