Laws are made with the intent to protect a nation and, to a lesser degree, its constituents. Within the story of Home Fire, this concept is embodied by Karamat Lone who, although extreme and draconic at times, takes measures to ensure terrorism has no effect on Britain. Not dissimilar to the US and the Patriot Act following 9/11, Karamat sacrifices the personal freedoms of his citizens, namely British Muslims, in exchange for what he believes to be heightened defense against Islamic terrorism. Despite what Eamann says, Karamat is not doing so out of personal animus, which Alice told Eamann to say in order to damage Karamat's image. Karamat entirely sets aside his personal biases and wants when in office, going so far as to completely separate himself from his familial obligations while on the clock.
Justice, on the other hand, is an inherently personal quality. When Aneeka brings Parvaiz's rotting corpse outside the embassy, that is her justice. Being alongside her twin and sharing his fate is just for her. Legally, there is no reason for her to be there. Legally, the presence of a rotting corpse in a public space is an instance of public disturbance, and even if it isn't in this scenario, it could be in others. Despite this, legality is irrelevant to Aneeka, because her twin has been wronged and she will stay by his side in death as she had in life.
Justice is when Eamonn goes to be with Aneeka in Istanbul. Legally, going to Istanbul is detrimental to the narrative the state has so painstakingly crafted. Legally, there is no reason for Eamonn to go support a deceased terrorist and his sympathizer sister. Yet for Eamonn, he had unwillingly abandoned Aneeka in her time of need, and it was his personal justice to be there for her, at least to make up for when he couldn't.
Justice is when Karamat Lone makes preparations to allow Aneeka and Parvaiz's corpse to return to Britain. Legally, Karamat Lone's stance is the same, as his logic is unchallenged and should thus be unchanged. Legally, allowing the twins to return to Britain could set a dangerous precedent for terrorists, and displays acceptance that he spent so long purging from the nation. No matter the reasoning that he can use to validate keeping the twins in Istanbul, Karamat had a heart-to-heart with his wife, and, taking from the death of his own mother, felt empathy for Aneeka; allowing her to mourn her twin, to have the same opportunity that he himself had, was only right, was only just.
Justice is personal, which means that it cannot truly be denied or stifled. Laws are general regulations that, in theory, protect as many constituents of a nation as possible. Shamsie doesn't make a statement on which should supersede the other on a larger scale, but, based on the character arcs in Home Fire, it is clear that she believes that, on a personal basis, justice should take precedent over laws.
I completely agree with what you are saying here, Kris! I also believe that justice is based on one's moral and values and what they think is right and wrong. In the United States, there is a constant debate on the death penalty. Many people believe that the death penalty is the only way to gain justice within the system, whereas other people, including myself, believe quite the opposite: that the death penalty should never be an option. There is not one way to achieve justice, it is ever-changing.
ReplyDeleteDo you think the law and justice should coincide, despite one being more personal and the other in the service of the state? If they are at odds, what are the consequences for people and for nations?
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to say that law and justice should absolutely coincide or should be absolutely separate. Laws, in theory, are made so that the most justice is done for the most amount of people possible in as many scenarios possible, so in that sense they already coincide. That being said, in practice this is not always the case, as lawmakers are more than capable of introducing laws that protect their key constituents, which essentially minimizes the amount of justice done. There's a balance to be struck that should favor justice, but we don't seem to see that, since people in power will most always enforce their own justice, as modern politics seems to have shifted away from political positions and more towards parties and persons. When politicians and lawmakers minimize the justice done through laws, schisms form in populaces, as people have their justice done in equal number as those who have their justice denied, and that is the worst consequence, I believe, of the current state of affairs. If justice and laws were completely divorced, then almost nobody would have their justice done, and there would be public outcry and eventual change or revolution. By dividing the populace, the status quo is maintained on a hairstring's breadth preventing conflict, all because it is more beneficial for those in power to divide rather than unify.
Delete