Is Picard a hypocrite?

[The Overlord]

In "Journey's End" Picard was, reluctantly, willing to remove a group of aboriginals from this planet they moved to, because it was claimed by the Cardassian Union. In Star Trek Insurrection, Picard was ordered to remove the Ba'ku, aliens who looked like white people, from an a planet they moved to, Picard actively fought against his superiors. That seems like a contradiction to me.

Why is Picard willing to removed the aboriginals from their adopted home, but he fights the removal of the Ba'ku with every fiber of his being.

Removing the aboriginals from their new planet was done to appease a morally repulsive dictatorship who had no real desire for peace with the Federation. Removing the Ba'ku could have resulted in medical cures that would have helped billions of people, one of these goals sounds better then the other. So is Picard a hypocrite on this issue?

 

[MacLeod]

A few points

1.>The planet was ceded to the Cardassians as party of a peace treaty, some cardassian worlds became Federation worlds.

2.>The Inhabitant's were Federation citizens

3.>With the Ba'ku the orders were based on a false assumption. Once it became known that the Sona and Ba'ku where the same race. the Prime Directive kicked in. i.e Starfleet officers should take all steps to avoid becoming invovled in the internal affairs of other races.

As for whether or not the Cardassians intended to keep their end of the treaty is a moot point. Are you really trying to argue the point that the UFP should perhaps force a war that could cost millions of lifes just because the Cardassians MAY not keep the treaty.

 

[Chico Zanzabar]

Maybe. But maybe his opinion of what is right and wrong in a situation like this has changed, being formed by the experience he has in Journey's End.

 

[The Overlord]

A few points

1.>The planet was ceded to the Cardassians as party of a peace treaty, some cardassian worlds became Federation worlds.

The Cardassian government did everything they could to get around that treaty as soon as it was signed, that's why the Maquis was created. The Federation was willing to remove its own citizens to appease a dictatorship that has been shown to be untrustworthy and aggressive, using any peace agreement to secretly further their militaristic ambitions.

2.>The Inhabitant's were Federation citizens

They moved away from the Federation though, should the Federation still have power over their lives if they choose to move away? In that episode it seemed like the Federation was more interested in placating a dictatorship, rather protecting the rights of its own citizens, that comes off as cowardly and immoral.

3.>With the Ba'ku the orders were based on a false assumption. Once it became known that the Sona and Ba'ku where the same race. the Prime Directive kicked in. i.e Starfleet officers should take all steps to avoid becoming invovled in the internal affairs of other races.

Except Picard didn't know that when he started this little insurrection, so before that revelation, there was no good reason for Picard to side with the aliens who looked like white people and not the aboriginals.

As for whether or not the Cardassians intended to keep their end of the treaty is a moot point. Are you really trying to argue the point that the UFP should perhaps force a war that could cost millions of lifes just because the Cardassians MAY not keep the treaty.

I'm saying they should have been a bit more forceful with the Cardassians and stopped bending over backwards for them to protect a rather unjust and corrupt peace. The Federation looked like it was run by Neville Chamberlain in that episode. There is a huge middle ground between appeasement and open conflict.

War is bad, but having an unjust peace with a dictatorship that doesn't act in good faith and doesn't plan on abiding by any agreement is also bad.

 

[MacLeod]

We now very little about the treary between the Cardassian Union and the UFP that created the DMZ. For all we know the Federation got most of the terms it wanted.

 

[The Overlord]

We now very little about the treary between the Cardassian Union and the UFP that created the DMZ. For all we know the Federation got most of the terms it wanted.

We do know it was bad for the Federation colonists who ended up on the Cardssian side of the DMZ, because the Cardassian government ended up giving weapons to its colonists and in turn the Cardassian colonists did everything they could to drive the Federation colonists out. The Cardassian Union did not sign this agreement in good faith. So in the end the Federation looks either extremely naive and incompetent or just cruel and uncaring to plight of its own colonists, either way the Federation doesn't come off good in that episode.

 

[Tora Ziyal]

The Federation was willing to remove its own citizens to appease a dictatorship that has been shown to be untrustworthy and aggressive, using any peace agreement to secretly further their militaristic ambitions.

I didn't see it as appeasement, but as the Federation living up to its own word. In other words, being trustworthy.

 

[horatio83]

Why does everybody simply believe the words of the So'na? They cheated the Federation and stabbed it in the back so why shouldn't the have lied about the medical benefits of the radiation?
If anything is hypocritical it is this distasteful "working together with a bunch of murderous scumbags is a small price for XYZ" stance of Dougherty which many fans repeat without thinking or being aware of what they say.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

They moved away from the Federation though,

At the end of the episode as part of the compromise that let them stay on the planet before that they were still federation citizens.

Why does everybody simply believe the words of the So'na? They cheated the Federation and stabbed it in the back so why shouldn't the have lied about the medical benefits of the radiation?
If anything is hypocritical it is this distasteful "working together with a bunch of murderous scumbags is a small price for XYZ" stance of Dougherty which many fans repeat without thinking or being aware of what they say.

plus the medical perks they would get from it are redundant seeing as using the transporter would do the same thing without having to waste a perfectly good planet.

 

[horatio83]

Removing the aboriginals from their new planet was done to appease a morally repulsive dictatorship who had no real desire for peace with the Federation.

Some folks thought the same about the Klingons and yet a hundred years later a fragile peace between the Feds and the Klingons existed.
Nobody in Starfleet believes that the Romulans have a real desire with peace, their agenda is unlimited expansion. Nonetheless a peace treaty between the two powers exists and it is worth to fight for any time.

Playing the "oh my God, they are wicked fascists, no peace with them" is something I agree with if we talk about intraspecies conflicts, i.e. our really existing world. Not so in the case of interspecies conflicts, here such rhetoric is plain warmongering. Plenty of nasty folks out there, you can't wage war against all of them just because you got a moral boner.

 

[7thsealord]

In "Journey's End" Picard was, reluctantly, willing to remove a group of aboriginals from this planet they moved to, because it was claimed by the Cardassian Union. In Star Trek Insurrection, Picard was ordered to remove the Ba'ku, aliens who looked like white people, from an a planet they moved to, Picard actively fought against his superiors. That seems like a contradiction to me.

Why is Picard willing to removed the aboriginals from their adopted home, but he fights the removal of the Ba'ku with every fiber of his being.

Removing the aboriginals from their new planet was done to appease a morally repulsive dictatorship who had no real desire for peace with the Federation. Removing the Ba'ku could have resulted in medical cures that would have helped billions of people, one of these goals sounds better then the other. So is Picard a hypocrite on this issue?

I don't see a contradiction here.

In 'Journey's End', the people were (at that point) still Federation citizens, which I daresay Star Fleet felt obligated to protect. If they stayed, the Cardassians would see this as the UFP breaking its word and intruding on what was supposed to now be THEIR turf. If the Cardassians then started acting aggressively against Federation citizens, what was Star Fleet supposed to do then? Start another war?

Also, most of the .... less palatable aspects of the Cardassian Union were yet to be fully established. Even if they were KNOWN to be a bunch of scumbags, does it follow that the UFP should only keep its word if the other side fits the UFP's moral code?

It is also conceivable that similar things happened on BOTH sides of the DMZ, as various groups of colonists on either side were obligated to up stakes and move on.

The Baku. Their world. Not UFP citizens. Different ballgame.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Don't forget "Ensigns of Command" when Picard had Data effectively convince the people of Tau Cigna to relocate to give in to Sheliak demands. In both "Ensigns of Command" and "Journey's End" the people being relocated were subject to a Federation-ratified treaty.

 

[BillJ]

Why does everybody simply believe the words of the So'na? They cheated the Federation and stabbed it in the back so why shouldn't the have lied about the medical benefits of the radiation?

You know this really makes no sense? If the S'ona simply wanted to exterminate the Ba'ku, they could've run in, did the deed and been out before the Federation was aware of what happened.

It wouldn't have taken long since all six hundred are in a centralized location, not spread all over the planet.

 

[horatio83]

Don't forget "Ensigns of Command" when Picard had Data effectively convince the people of Tau Cigna to relocate to give in to Sheliak demands. In both "Ensigns of Command" and "Journey's End" the people being relocated were subject to a Federation-ratified treaty.

Such colonists perceive themselves as sovereign because they have virtually no dealings with the Federation and because the world which they experience everyday has been created by them and not some UFP bureaucrats. Yet they are Federation citizens.
This conflict seems to have also been the basis for the Maquis issue.

Why does everybody simply believe the words of the So'na? They cheated the Federation and stabbed it in the back so why shouldn't the have lied about the medical benefits of the radiation?

You know this really makes no sense? If the S'ona simply wanted to exterminate the Ba'ku, they could've run in, did the deed and been out before the Federation was aware of what happened.

It wouldn't have taken long since all six hundred are in a centralized location, not spread all over the planet.

Sure, they obviously needed the Federation. Doesn't mean that they might not have manipulated the data to exaggerate the medical benefits of this funky radiation, doesn't mean that they wouldn't have stabbed the UFP in the back if Picard had not interfered, doesn't mean that Dougherty's "let's trade-off lives" calculation is not totally obscene and wicked.

 

[BillJ]

Sure, they obviously needed the Federation. Doesn't mean that they might not have manipulated the data to exaggerate the medical benefits of this funky radiation, doesn't mean that they wouldn't have stabbed the UFP in the back if Picard had not interfered, doesn't mean that Dougherty's "let's trade-off lives" calculation is not totally obscene and wicked.

They didn't need the Federation to simply exterminate the Ba'ku. You don't think that Federation scientists looked at situation and ran their own experiments to back up the S'ona conclusions?

It never ceases to amaze me how people look at the move of the Ba'ku in a vacuum, to paraphrase Spock: "even morality must give way to reality".

 

[horatio83]

Pity that Picard had interfered, if it weren't for him the Feds could have just removed people from a planet on which they didn't belong anyway and taken for themselves what they wanted.
You know that "never ask when you can take" is a Ferengi and not a Federation rule, do you?

 

[BillJ]

Pity that Picard had interfered, if it weren't for him the Feds could have just removed people from a planet on which they didn't belong anyway and taken for themselves what they wanted.
You know that "never ask when you can take" is a Ferengi and not a Federation rule, do you?

Would I have pursued the move of the Ba'ku the way the Federation did in the movie? No

Would I have moved the Ba'ku? Yes

And meta-phasics are only a minor reason for it. What happens when other species catch wind of the fountain of youth?

You really have three choices:

Move the Ba'ku.
Protect the Ba'ku.
Or declare open season on the Ba'ku.

Both moving and protecting the Ba'ku have Prime Directive ramifications. But moving them costs nothing in Federation lives. How many Federation lives are you ready to lose if someone wants to take meta-phasics by force? Declaring open season on the Ba'ku only ensures they die a bloody, pointless death.

 

[horatio83]

If you did any of these things you'd be court-martialed and probably spend a few years in prison because you have violated rule number one.
Independent of the Prime Directive you might want to ask the Ba'ku first if they want your help. Or do you in general force people to do your bidding when you think you know what's best for them? I usually ask an old lady before I help her over the street lest I get handbag-smashed.

 

[BillJ]

If you did any of these things you'd be court-martialed and probably spend a few years in prison because you have violated rule number one.
Independent of the Prime Directive you might want to ask the Ba'ku first if they want your help. Or do you in general force people to do your bidding when you think you know what's best for them?

Actually, the only thing the rules allow you to do is to declare open season on them and allow them to be slaughtered by the S'ona while you sit back and watch. Since they thought they were a pre-warp civilization you're not even allowed to talk to them.

The Prime Directive dictates survival of the fittest no matter how inane the situation, which is why it's a bad rule and doesn't fit the situation in the slightest.

 

[horatio83]

You have not answered my question. Do you in general violate people and force them to do your bidding because you think you know what's best for them? I hope you proceed differently, explain them the danger they are in, offer your help without applying any force and don't mess with them if they don't want your help.