Unfair Dismissal

John Galliano, Christian Dior's chief designer, has been fired for anti-Semitic comments he made at a Parisian cafe. I am not surprised at the action taken by Dior but, is it the right decision?

John Galliano with Charlize Theron. Letter Chen/Flickr

In France, inciting racial hatred is a crime and the local police is already investigating the incident. So why should a person lose both his job and face criminal prosecution? Is it not one punishment enough? I think it is.

It is an undisputed fact that Galliano's racist remarks do not affect in any way, shape, or form his craft. Firing a person for abhorrent comments he has made, which he might face charges about, is not the right one. It is true that his remarks might alienate customers from the Dior brand, but either he made the racist comments or not his ability to create high fashion clothing remains the same. Galliano's firing speaks volumes about the people who made the decision to fire him. Their political correctness, could have been shown by strongly condemning Galliano's comments and disassociating the brand from those statements. Firing him, is blatantly overzealous. Separating the professional and private aspects of one's life, although difficult, it is vital.

The rapid response of Dior in firing Galliano is another example where our desire to seem politically correct leads us to incorrect decisions. Other examples of excessive political correctness include Don Imuse's comments, Keith Olbermann's temporary suspension for contribution to members of Congress etc.

In conclusion, we all agree that the comments made by Galliano and Imus are flat-out wrong and despicable, and Olbermann's action incorrect. However, we should not correct a wrong by committing another wrong.

Another mistake in the making?

Are the United States and Great Britain heading towards making the same mistake as they did in Iraq and Afghanistan? Recent statements by David Cameron, British Prime Minister, and Hillary Clinton, the United States Secretary of State show that they are prepared, if need be, to take military action against the Libyan regime.

Military intervention followed by nation-building are endeavours that are costly in time, money, and resources mostly with undesirable consequences. The Iraqi and Afghanistani examples have showed that nation-building requires far more than ousting a dictator or religious fanatics out of power. It requires a population that is educated, a growing economy, and non-corrupt statesmen and administrators. Notwithstanding the resources and money spent by the intervening country. For the time being, nation-building is nothing but a distant possibility. However, if the U.S. or Britain intervene militarily, then, it is almost certain that the relationship between the intervening countries and the host country will not end there.

That is due to the difficult position the intervening country finds itself in. If it withdraws  from intervening in the internal politics that will emerge, then it will not be able to influence or shape it. The volatile environment created in case the United States or Britain withdraws, then the country could descend into chaos or another "Gaddafi" might emerge. Thus, the only viable solution is to do exactly what the Coalition of the Willing is doing in Iraq. Attempt to build a nation on the principles of democracy, human rights, and market-based economy. However, the Coalition has failed in all three areas.

Libya seems to resemble Iraq in that both countries had oppressive dictators for decades and political dissent, democratic institutions, and human rights protections were limited and, at times, non-existent. So, what benefit would a foreign military intervention have? None. Thus, I would advocate the United States use the same tactics as in Afghanistan, where the CIA would supply the Mujahedin stinker missiles and other ammunition to fight off the Russians in the 80's. Such policy would make more sense and it has proven to work.

Given the bad shape the American and British economies are at, it seems improbable that another foreign military entanglement is imminent. However, firm political stance toward the Gaddafi regime is the proper response.