• 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.

5 responses to “The Anglican Covenant and Communion Motions”

  1. Tim Avatar

    A is for Anglican is for Affirming things and for Adopting things even when they’re mutually contradictory?

  2. kelvin Avatar

    It will be entirely up to the synod to decide whether to adopt either of these motions. My hunch is that it will adopt one of them resoundingly.

  3. Brother David Avatar
    Brother David

    I hope the Synod votes against the first motion and approves the second motion.

    BTW, we in Mexico thank you for the consecration of Bishop Seabury because of our TEC heritage.

  4. kennedy fraser Avatar
    kennedy fraser

    For those who aren’t able to be present for the debate (or for any part of Synod’s business) a live audio stream will be available from the Provincial website when Synod is sitting.

    Kennedy

  5. Tom Wilson Avatar
    Tom Wilson

    It is interesting to ponder that if an “Anglican Covenant” had existed in the 18th century, that it is distinctly possible that the SEC might have been “excluded” from the Anglican Communion for consecrating Bp Samuel Seabury, the first American Bishop, as the Church of England Bishops had refused to do so.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Previous Posts

  • UnGlee

    Anyone else think that last night’s documentary on reliquaries, though glorious, was no substitute for Glee on a Monday evening?

  • Evensong (with Dragons)

    Quite an exhilarating Choral Evensong last night. Three ribbons to give out to young choristers to indicate their achievements and then straight into an exciting musical service. The psalm was 148, which is one of my favourites, particularly in the setting that they sing here. In common with very many choral churches, we usually sing…

  • Mission Plans

    I’ve written (and lots of people have commented) on previous mission and ministry plans, policies and plots – here and here. We now have a new Provincial Whole Church Mission and Ministry Policy to absorb. It is fourteen pages long and has some good things in it. Like lots of long documents, it also has…

  • The Syrian Lesbian Blogger Story

    Most people will be familiar with the details by now.  A forty year old straight American male based in Edinburgh wrote a blog which purported to be written by a Syrian lesbian woman. And it took a lot of people in. It is an interesting story on a number of levels. There has been a…