A higher purpose

Eteraz has a piece up about a letter from a man who watched his mother being stoned to death in Iran, 26 years ago.

Myself, I am always afraid to click on links in which this topic is discussed, because I don't want to see the pictures. It's not that I can't stomach them, but that some part of me rebels at the idea that, by voluntarily choosing to look at something that I don't need to see to get the point, the death of that victim becomes a matter for titillation instead of dialogue.

This is what I worry about, because it takes a choice to avoid graphic images that are potentially dehumanizing, both to the victim and to the viewer. Even a squeamish person like me is momentarily tempted by the spectacle alone.

At the same time, a publisher must publish such images in spite of concerns about exploitation. They are documentary evidence of a crime.

Further down in the post, another choice awaits the reader.

By the way, I really want to warn all of you to not use such human rights violations as a way to try and undermine Iran’s national interests. Ms. Kars seems to be opposed to that.

There's a bit of conflict here. Ms. Kars states plainly that the regime makes it all but impossible to repeal the stoning law, yet she appeals to us to not use these stonings against the regime.

We're being asked to square a circle, to act on this horror and yet avoid attacking the regime that is responsible for it. I'd like to hear suggestions.

One thing I would point out is that the letter has been posted by Eteraz at Kos and by others at sites that lean more, in fact all the way, to the right. While there was no shortage of invective against the other side of the domestic political scene in either location, there were similar and similarly sourced expressions of sympathy for the victims. Maybe it's an opportunity.