The "liberal" paradox/dilemma/stumbling-block:

I shall probably bring on myself a whole lot of obloquy & abuse for starting this thread; but let me stress that it is implicitly in the form of questions, not statements. It will probably be recognised which two currently ongoing threads have particularly given rise to these questions at this time; though they are, of course, always present.

I am constantly exercised by the paradox that it is the very people who would shriek in horror at any attempt to make our laws stricter in the interests of the law-abiding majority by the reintroduction of such means as judicial corporal punishment, capital punishment even by such peculiarly disagreeable means as stoning or public beheading, &c

~ who will nevertheless denounce criticisms of the use of such means by countries, with whom we remain in friendly diplomatic contact and treat in every way as equal fellow-members of the international community, such as Saudi Arabia, say, or Northern Nigeria, where such means are commonly employed according to their prevailing Sharia law [even for many offences ···adultery, say, or proselytisation ··· which do not even rate as any sort of crime in most legal systems], but whose populations happen to be of different ethnic origins and differently skin-pigmented from our own majority

~ as — horror-of-horrors — "Racism!".

(By a train of thought, I feel moved to cite here the well-known axiom that a lone maiden could quite safely carry a bag of gold from end to end of Genghis Khan's empire.)

Who agrees with these formulations? Who else recognises this phenomenon? Who else is worried by its implications? What have those of you involved in this dilemma [you know who you are: you all know who I mean] to say in response?

And how long, I wonder, will it be until the first 'Racist!' stone is flung at me for asking?

~Michael~