• Why government assassinations are wrong

    Earlier this week we had the revelation that British military forces had targeted two citizens of this country in Syria and killed them using a remotely controlled drone.

    I’m aware of some concerns being expressed by the usual suspects – ie lefty guardian-reading knit your own sandals people who can be relied upon to object to such action. However, I’m also aware that such such action is also wildly popular in the country. Indeed, there are reports that the action is backed 2 to 1 by the general public.

    At that point, the Prime Minister might feel that he can sit back and relax, job well done. He has removed a perceived threat cleanly and without any great risk to British military personnel and he is backed by the British people. In any case, the opposition in parliament is in disarray – Labour electing a new leader, the Liberal Democrats annihilated by their inability to be seen as liberals and the SNP famous more for playing musical chairs in parliament than anything of any substance.

    However, it seems to me that whilst the views of the moderate UK majority are interesting they are certainly not the only views that need to be thought about. I’m not particularly thinking of those whose knees jerk like mine to oppose the military action either.

    I’m more concerned with those who are our opponents.

    I don’t believe that we can necessarily defeat religiously motivated terrorism by military might. I think we have to defeat it with ideas too. And by persuading people, constantly persuading people that the rule of law, expressed in a democracy is a better thing to live under than any other system of government. If we dare to think that the rule of law can become legitimately blurred on the edges of our jurisdiction (not sending people across the Syrian border but sending a drone is as blurred as it could get) then we start to find our own legitimacy more easily questioned by those who are opposed to our freedoms.

    To put it bluntly, I think we are better than this. Or at least I did. I think we need to be a society which does not allow its government to assassinate its citizens without a fair trial. Yes, I know there is “intelligence” and I also know that intelligence can be wrong. Remember Weapons of Mass Destruction anyone?

    If we become a society in which such behaviour is normal, how are we going to win any argument with those who currently live amongst us who have some sympathy for the ISIS cause, who are tempted to throw in their lot against the freedoms that the west possesses? If, in their minds, Britain can cross borders with weapons and wipe someone out arbitrarily, why shouldn’t they?

    Why shouldn’t they? That’s a real question that not nearly enough people have been asking this week.

    The actions of the Prime Minister in ordering this action brutalise our world and will make our opponents better able to recruit people who believe soft UK targets to be legitimate.

    To whom shall we be compared? Shall we be like them or are we better than that? Is it true that Putin’s Russia, sent out state assassins to kill Alexander Litvinenko on the streets of London? If it is, are we any better by targeting Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin in Syria.

    I believed we were better than this. I still think that should be our aspiration.

9 responses to “More on the election”

  1. fr dougal Avatar
    fr dougal

    What arrant rot these people peddle. Can we excommunicate their adherents on grounds of un-Christian stupidity? Would “You are too stupid to be an Episcopalian” be acceptable in Canon Law?

  2. ryan Avatar

    A timely and usefully corrective post, kelvin. I’ve had run ins with CI fans who merely think that *asserting* that the ‘Christian’ Institute is honest and displays integrity is some sort of compelling argument. If you search their site for “Scottish Episcopal Church” you’ll find an equally (and characteristically) dishonest story on +David and the SEC’s purported ‘split’ on gay clergy

    At the risk of running afoul of Godwin’s law, the ‘Christian’ Institute pretending like their ugly ideological team didn’t *lose* the Section 28 debate reminds me, not in a good way, of Neo-Nazis petitioning the UN to refight the Battle of Stalingrad.

  3. Tim Avatar

    That’ll be the SEC *two* steps ahead of the CoE and assorted story-fabricating journalists, then: “not only CAN we have women bishops, we don’t actually HAVE to!”, which is at least a balanced attitude.

  4. David | Dah•veed Avatar
    David | Dah•veed

    Perhaps Father D, that would be insulting to stupid folks!

  5. MurielD Avatar
    MurielD

    The national press and television channels should be ashamed of themselves. They preferred to “headline” the fact that a woman priest failed to become the UK’s first woman bishop rather than straightaway honour the man who was duly elected.
    It was only on reading further down the news item that we learned that the Very Rev. Dr. Gregor Duncan had been duly elected.
    That was not fair to either of them.

  6. Jackie Avatar

    The Radio 4 news headline on the day was similar, and the first 3 linked articles on your link (from the Telegraph, Reuters and the Scotsman) are also similar. I must confess to having words with the radio at the time.

  7. Martin Ritchie Avatar
    Martin Ritchie

    Something I find irritating about press coverage is the way that it has portrayed Alison Peden as “bidding” or campaigning to become bishop of Glasgow. That seems to misrepresent the process and what leadership in the church is all about. I guess it’s probably impossible to convey the subtleties of episcopal leadership in a wider culture dominated by careerist politics? Any thoughts?

  8. Roddy Avatar
    Roddy

    The Christian (sic) Institute are a bunch of tw*ts. Treat them with the indifference and disdain they deserve.

  9. David | Dah•veed Avatar
    David | Dah•veed

    It is very disconcerting to come here and see an ad for Sarah Palin running down the lefthand side of the page!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Orchestral Evensong

    Well, the Cathedral musicians certainly ended the summer term with a bang and not a whimper this time. Just when you didn’t think it could get more outrageously better, you find yourself in the middle of the most extraordinary Orchestral Evensong. 86 singers and a 50+ orchestra somehow managed to squeeze themselves into the crossing…

  • More Corpus Christi Comment

    Just before the last fluttering rose petal hits the floor and we move on to new glories, make sure you don’t miss Beth’s comments about Corpus Christi and indeed her experience of St Mary’s both in this festival time and through the year. You’ll find what she has to say over on a post called…

  • Other Reports of the Feast

    Other reports of  last night’s festivities are now online: Rosemary Hannah had this to say. (And has a photo of a barn owl to boot). Whilst Christine McIntosh (from over the water) said this.

  • Keeping the Feast

    Well, we kept the Feast of Corpus Christi yesterday with a wonderful celebration last night which seemed to be hugely enjoyed by the congregation. It was an augmented congregation too for they came from the East (Dundee) and from the West (Dunoon) to sit down in the kingdom of God. As has been my experience…