It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Archbishop makes Zimbabwe protest

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Archbishop makes Zimbabwe protest


news.bbc.co.uk

The Archbishop of York has cut up his dog collar and said he will not replace it until Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe is out of office.

Dr John Sentamu made the symbolic protest gesture live on BBC One's Andrew Marr Show.

He said Mr Mugabe had "taken people's identity" and "cut it to pieces", prompting him to do the same.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 05:22 AM
link   
Hero and such a great man.

Britain needs to deal with Mugabe. The suffering cannot continue in Zimbabwe, but the only thing our weak Prime Minister will do is boycott a EU-Africa summit.

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 9-12-2007 by infinite]



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I saw this and, even though I'm not religious, I felt very proud that the Anglican Church is taking a strong stand on this. It's a very powerful symbol and I found it refreshing that the Archbishop confronted the potential accusations of the West intervening as 'colonialism' head on.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   
It was also nice to see Merkel making a public attack on Mugabe's human rights record instead of being an apologist to his regime (like the government of Portugal who invited him).

I am too, proud of the Church of England for making this public protest, or their continous support for the democracy movement of Zimbabwe. Too bad our weak Prime Minister is scared to take action.

[edit on 9-12-2007 by infinite]



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Dr Sentamu is a breath of fresh air to the Anglican Church and to York in general. From the moment he took office he has campaigned relentlessly on a number of issues and he has brought York Minster back as a focus of community in York. He is to me everything a modern Christian should be and is in his very nature a humanist. I'm not an Anglican but I welcome his input here in York.

That said though I am not sure that he has adopted the best target in this one. He is a position to help to polarize two very opposing cultures. Excluding Mugabe will not make him go away, the other African nations want him to be included and it is about time that the former colonial powers allowed Africa some say in its own actualisation. If we keep nannying them, they will never grow up. Mugabe will not go away because we want him to, he could be forced out certainly, we could empower his people to force him out - or heaven forbid we could allow the other African nations to sort out the problems on their own continent.

Britain, the EU and the Anglican Church, should butt out unless they have something useful to add. Exclusion is not the answer according to the African nations - isn't it about time we started letting these nations make decision for themselves. If they ask for advice fair enough, but until then how about we tend to our own problems.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Britain, the EU and the Anglican Church, should butt out unless they have something useful to add.


They have, but everytime we (including the United States) trys to do anything constructive, African leaders play the colonial card


What are we suppose to do?



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


Point out that it just isn't colonialism in any way and that, whilst African leaders fiddle around throwing outdated concepts at people trying to help them, the citizens of Zimbabwe and elsewhere are starving to death or dying of disease. And it's not the leaders themselves or their families that are dying of malnutrition or AIDS - it's ordinary Africans who want a better life but are being denied it by their leaders who put their pride before their people.

Africa deserves better, and some African leaders (Mugabe in particular) should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for neglecting their people - the people whom they are supposed to look after.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 05:47 AM
link   
There is offering advice and then there is setting constraints and conditions up on that advice. We do only what is useful to us, this is not altruism.

Yes Mugabe should be ashamed but then so should any nation that does not face up to the responsibility it has to its own people. I can't talk for the people of any nation but my own. Britain has more than enough problems right now, we are not a super power anymore, we HAD an Empire and we lost it. End of story. We now have a population that is unsustainable and reliant on foreign imports simply to feed us all. We have neither the time, the money or the resources to interfere in the day to day running of our former colonies.

If they ask we say No. Dependency takes two. Someone has to cut the cord. Britain has its international obligations and they should be proportionate to our influence. While out leaders are still playing at Empires the country that they represent is in economic and social melt-down. For the long term we need to start addressing problems at home, we cannot seek to solve them the same way we have been doing since Elizabeth the First. It is ridiculous and it is suffocating this country.

Mugabe is a problem for Africa and only Africa, with the support of the International community, can solve it. None of our business, none of the business of the Anglican Church. We are not the world's parent.

If we are so concerned with how Mugabe is treating his people, why aren't we as concerned about the way the Saudi's treat theirs? Double standards, Absolutely.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
If we are so concerned with how Mugabe is treating his people, why aren't we as concerned about the way the Saudi's treat theirs? Double standards, Absolutely.


We are concerned about the Saudi's, but as many have said, there is nothing we can do or say until we don't need their oil.

That country has us by the balls.

Saudi King can do what he likes until we find another source for our energy supply




[edit on 11-12-2007 by infinite]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
We are concerned about the Saudi's, but as many have said, there is nothing we can do or say until we don't need their oil.

That country has us by the balls.

Saudi King can do what he likes until we find another source for our energy supply



I know I am slipping into idealism here but I am just sick of it. We have wind and water coming out of our ears - we do not need the Saudis for energy we really only need them for plastics and chemicals. Cut imports, increase home production and remove unsustainable sources of packaging, we need ever less oil. Phase in hydrogen cell engines - no petrol. We still have coal we have the means to phase in all these changes gradually. We need to introduce land reform to encourage greater food production, we have the land to feed all the people, we are just not allowed to use it.

Fantasy perhaps, but the truth of the matter is that there is no economic argument that justifies our continued relationship with the highly oppressive Saudis. Only profit justifies it. The Guardian is not even allowed to publish the stories that it has investigated in Saudi Arabia. No other paper even bothers to do that.

They and we are allowed to criticise Mugabe. He is considered fair game, which makes me a little more inclined to hear his side of the story.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join