• 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 “The Marriage Business”

  1. Rhea Avatar
    Rhea

    I thought that what the government actually said was more of a “obviously with the current canon laws in place, the C of E and the Church in Wales won’t be able to opt in to marriage equality because their canon laws clearly state that marriage is between one man and one woman.”

    To me the ultimate issue is with the churches and their canon laws that need to be changed, no?

    1. Rhea Avatar
      Rhea

      I just saw this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20680924

      What in the world is the government thinking?!

      1. kelvin Avatar

        Here’s the original announcement – quite clear that it isn’t just about Canon Law. They really are trying to make it illegal for the C of E and Church in Wales to opt in.

        http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/media_releases/9585.aspx

      2. Beth Avatar

        The irony that that Department of Culture page is titled “Marriage For Everyone” absolutely knocks me down.

        I think that this more than anything else that has happened in equal marriage legislation this year has a real chance of being ruled illegal under Article 9 of the Human Rights Convention.

  2. Peter Higson Avatar
    Peter Higson

    Church of England clergy, and Church in Wales clergy, may take note of Giles Fraser’s suggestion: “So it will now be illegal for me to marry two people who live (with) each other. Now there is a cause worth going to prison for.” as report in the Independent.

    1. kelvin Avatar

      Yes – I saw that tweet from Giles. Whilst supporting the sentiment, I suspect that he is going to have to work quite hard to find a judge willing to send him to prison for it.

  3. Martin Reynolds Avatar
    Martin Reynolds

    Yes, bizarre is the right word!

    When the Church in Wales was disestablished back in 1920 it retained its priveledges and responsibilities with regard to marriage.

    So, parishioners’ absolute legal right to be married in the parish church remains, as does the automatic right of Church in Wales clergy to be able to conduct marriages by virtue of their ordination alone.

    We recently amended our requirements for residence to stay in line with the CofE, while they were able to do it through General Synod we had to resort to a Private Bill.

    It now seems there are to be no EXTRA hurdles required by these two Churches, other than the separate Acts of Parliament they would need to change their current practice following agreement of General Synod or Governing Body.

  4. Ali Avatar
    Ali

    “if your denomination cannot or will not opt in then the time has come for you to stand up for what’s right. If you support equality, do something about it and show us what you are made of.” you not doing any more weddings until the SEC opts in then. Kelvin?

    1. kelvin Avatar

      I think it quite likely that should the Scottish Episcopal Church chose not to opt into the coming legislation then I would come to be view that the time had come to stop signing marriage papers. That is not the same thing, of course, as stopping doing weddings.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Music at St Mary’s

    For a number of different reasons, I find myself reflecting on the musical tradition that I find myself in the middle of at St Mary’s. It obviously matters to people and it obviously matters to me, but what is it? It isn’t the pure English Cathedral choral tradition though it has been deeply nourished from…

  • Ordination Anniversaries

    Today is the anniversary of my ordination to the diaconate. The fourth of July, marked as Independence Day by some seemed an appropriate day to be ordained. It was all about being independent and free from TISEC (the Scottish Episcopal Church’s training institution). This time of year tends to be one with quite a lot…

  • What I was up to last week

    Well, it was good to arrive home on Saturday after a few days gadding about in Englandshire. I’d been in Cambridge to act as a respondant to a colloquium on affirming the Jewishness of Jesus in Christian preaching which had been organised by the Centre for the Study of Jewish Christian Relations. There’s more about…

  • What people are searching for

    Latest interesting list of search enquiries which have led people to this blog:   Lammastide sermon virgin mary knitting churches for gay people scottish episcopal tartan collective noun for midgie how to strip tease for beginners I hope that all were satisfied by what they found here. Especially the last one.