According to Oxford Learning Dictionaries, the word condemn can mean:
- to say very strongly that you think something is bad, usually for moral reasons
It can very well be likened to a parent’s slap on the wrist and a verbal reprimand of their child with the expectation that this will be enough of a lesson to deter any such further behaviour. With children it might work. With people on the political landscape, not so much.
For the past few years, I have noticed a growing number of “world leaders” bandy about the word ‘condemn’ like it’s supposed to mean something. In my country for example, our leader (cough cough) during media opportunities quite often states that he condemns this action or that country. To be honest, when I hear him utter those words it makes me laugh because the words lack any weight. But, because he is recognized as a “world leader” (said tongue-in-cheek) he can use it and we, his subjects, are supposed to be comforted that his words will somehow protect us. They’re just words, nothing more, nothing less.
Now, if he, or any other ”world leader” were to back up their words with something with a little more pizzazz or umph than a sanction, there might be something for me/us to take seriously, but until then, the words remain as a bad punchline to a Saturday Night live skit (at least in the last three decades that is) … That’s the problem, they don’t. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not looking to start the next war to end all wars, after all, we know how the first two went, they didn’t end a darned thing.
Let’s use the example of condemning a house, what happens? It gets boarded up to prevent people from getting in or from being injured in some way, usually for their own good, and then eventually it is torn down and replaced by something newer and better. I am in no way trying to make a statement against or for any particular political idealism, at least not yet.
What would happen if I were to state publicly that I condemn the leader of my country for the things he has either said or done which were against the moral reasonings of society en-masse?
Question: What do you call a kid on the playground who pushes other kids around?
Question: What do you call a government who tries to force their political structure upon another country?
What is the difference between the aforementioned scenarios?
We can be certain that on paper both communism and democracy look and sound like viable systems of governing. Once they leave the pages and are taken up by the hands of ambitious men and women they become corrupted. Am I wrong?
Oh, please don’t think this is a push or cry for a monarchist or a theocratic rulership because we have seen how these are corrupted by the hands of the ambitious as well. All these forms of government or rulership possess at least one thing in common, when they see something they don’t like or agree with, they have condemned, do condemn, and will condemn it in the future.
Question: How did organizations such as the United Nations (UN), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the World Economic Forum (WEF), all non-political, get to the place where they can wield so much power and authority over nations?
Does anyone else have concerns about this?
Let the record show that I think Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has ruined the moral fibre of this country by imposing his personal beliefs upon the people of Canada. I also think that the UN, WHO, and the WEF are ingenuine and have also contributed to the moral decay around the world but also the collapse of society in general and I therefore CONDEMN them all and I will in no part permit them to speak or act on my, anyone I call family or friend’s behalf.
NOTICE SERVED!
I am visually impaired (legally blind). Creator of varied spice blends and hot sauces. Writer of poetry, fiction and non-fiction. Lover of life. Man of faith.