The Guardian has a headline this morning, which reads as follows:
I admit to being worried about this. I have no idea why Ann Widdecombe was killed. I am truly sorry that she was. I am very worried that, at this moment, so much speculation about her death is going to prejudice the chance of anyone having a fair trial if they are accused of the crime. But, added to that, is my concern that her death is being weaponised.
The reality is that we do not, at present, know why anyone chose to kill Ann Widdecombe. It is an act beyond the comprehension of most people, and rightly so. We respect human life, whoever possesses it, and in a democracy we should respect the right to disagree. I disagreed with almost everything that Ann Widdecombe stood for. But I absolutely stand for her right to hold her opinion.
It is not a left-wing view to think that she should have died for her opinion. Such a claim is wrong. It makes no sense at all. There is no overlap between holding left-wing views and wanting to murder politicians. I would add that I do not think that there is any link between right-wing politics as we have known it in this country and a desire to murder a politician.
The desire to murder is not political, is what I am saying. It is instead based on hate. That is something quite different, but saying so I entirely accept that hate has been politicised in the UK, and elsewhere, because that is what fascists do.
Fascism deliberately creates a culture of hate. It picks on someone, a group, a characteristic, or an identity that differentiates some in society from what is believed to be “normal” and uses that as the basis for grievance. This is its weapon. There is nothing positive about this. The whole basis of this politics is negativity. It is not solution-focused. Its aim is to secure power. The desire is to perpetuate elite control, which it pursues by exploiting the grievance it promotes. But the consequence, and we have seen it, is hate.
Those who have promoted hate cannot now be allowed to walk away from its consequences. Nor can they be allowed to exploit those consequences to further their own goal. That is the risk that we face by having the murder of Ann Widdecombe framed as a left-wing attack. It was not. If it was anything, it was an act of hate.
But, I reiterate, acts of hate are not about politics as such; they are about deliberately generated hostility, provocation, manipulation and abuse. That is why the promotion of hate as a political weapon should be condemned, unreservedly, whoever uses it. The approach has consequences. None of them is good. And the worst thing about it is that hate can feed on itself, with consequences that spiral out of control.
In this situation, the police and journalists might be wise to reserve judgement until a trial, at the very least. Even then, the trial should be on the facts, and not on politics, because a murder should never be considered a political act within the context in which we should use the term. It is always an act of violence. It is always to be condemned, and politics should be neither.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Well said.
On reading the Guardian article I see the expression “leftwing, anarchist and single-issue terrorism (LASIT)”, and on searching for that I find it defined on the “ProtectUK” website which seems to be run as part of the Home Office. So “left-wing” is now bracketed with anarchism and single-issue terrorism, under a single acronym. Orwellian, and shocking.
Much to agree with
Apologies if our tongues were supposed to be in cheek. LASIT is a catch all for the remainder of terrorist activity after the three main ideological groups that counter terrorism police track.
ERWT — Extreme Right-Wing Terrorism
Islamist terrorism
Northern Ireland-related terrorism
LASIT
IT acronym was reserved for tech bros…
If we can’t laugh and retain humour during these challenging times we will just end up spiralling downwards and wallowing in pity and despair.
In the face of adversity and bullies, have to change the mindset from that of victimhood to one of realisation that with time, effort, assistance, collaboration, cooperation, perseverance, truthfulness, conviction, then one can make small steady changes to a mindset that of a survivor and victor.
As an amusement as part of discussion about the shock of her murder, I posted in my Green Party social chat that no doubt membership if the Greens and a Palestine flag will be found, as an excuse for banning orders. Doesn’t seem as far fetched suddenly. Why the terrorism squad felt this should be released to the public I find very concerning.
Might the headline in question also be a manifestation of the submerged policy of the main stream media cartel to spread fear of any form of political attitude, thinking and/or behaviour which facilitates questioning, clarity and reasonable equity?
I too was disturbed by the reference to left-wing terrorism in the article. Especially as it seems to be an official designation as per:
“Investigators are considering whether leftwing, anarchist and single-issue terrorism (LASIT) played a role in the suspect’s alleged motivation, but are keeping an open mind as new material emerges.”
Just how, when, and by whom, was this designation formulated?
And what are the other designations? Right-wing, monarchist and general purpose terrorism (RMGPT) ?
And are our police now determining what brand of terrorism to investigate and charge? And if so, do they know that governments too can be accused of terrorism?
It is extremely worrying.
This is Home OFfice thinking
It is deeply sinister
It is extremely worrying. When reading about the National Security bill recently, it was pointed out that the list includes ‘extreme right wing’ and ‘left wing’.
I think the main worry is that the activists, and extremist views at both sides of the spectrum whether left or right can be shown to be using tactics/methods that is bringing violence and harm to happen, because of the intensity of their ideologies and grievances to stoke up fear, anger, chaos, confusion, misinformation, division within the majority of society that despite having their differences, want to live in harmony with each other. The space for reasoned debate, discussion, open discourse and communication gets drowned out by those that shout out, those that have influence/power with their money and networks to shut things down or promote others, and perceptions can be changed and influenced by the dangers of the digital age and algorithms.
I was very scared the Matt Shea Tech Billionaire documentary in how those with power/money want to basically become the new feudal lords through their blockchain model of finance/governance.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j7aK5abpVDY
Furthermore, this week there has been a concerted campaign to silence Amnesty International UK when they updated their anti-human rights report:
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/about/strategy-and-impact/our-impact/uncovering-a-growing-anti-human-rights-movement/
but have had to withdraw it because their findings have offended some groups, threatening legal action, but have now seen that have got politicians behind them to table a motion in Westminster:
https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/66338/amnesty-international-uk-report-on-the-antirights-movement-in-the-uk
Where are these supposed extreme leftwingers?
It is a matter of perception from where the observer stands.
In this modern era, I still find the age old teachings within Jain philosophy to be of value, especially that of anekantavada: ‘non-onesidedness’, ‘non-absolutism’; to accept multiple viewpoints and perspectives, and to think outside the binary of either/or but rather neither/nor.
https://globalcritical.barefield.ua.edu/self-and-persistence/anekantavada/
Looking at Wikipedia, as far as I can see the motivation of all Terrorist incidents in the UK seem to be Irish, Islamist or Right wing.
I see no evidence of any ‘Left Wing’ threat
The most recent example of left wing terrorism is holding up a piece of cardboard bearing certain unmentionable words. Very vicious and dangerous indeed, we are told: some people’s feelings are hurt.
Farage and his cronies are desperate for this to be politically motivated, which sums them up entirely and makes me suspect crocodile tears on their part. A point that many seam to be missing is that once again it is a woman being murdered, bearing the brunt of violence in our society.
Where a fire is burning already, don’t try and stoke it by pouring in more fuel.
Where there are differences in opinion, there have to be other ways of getting the messages across rather than shouting back, aggravating the situation and eventually causing more harm to be done to whichever ‘side’ of the argument, or along the distribution spectrum a person maybe.
I had never heard of the Overton window until recently, and when the likes of multi-named Robinson comes out with it, there is this realisation that there is a much bigger tactical “game” being played with lots of funds and agenda behind it. That is what I feel anyway.
“Divide and rule” is a strategy out of the colonial rule book – and if the vision of some is that there will be a division of the globe into spheres of influence, then it will need some clever collaborative resistance from those that already seem to be holding the cards and willing to play and gamble in their casino of the elites.
Did any one read the peace about the the late Lindsey Graham on Naked Capitalism on July 12th? To call it ‘celebratory’ would be on understatement. I had no reason at all suspend belief in the man’s crimes just because he was dead. But I have to say that I was not used to such language.
And then to top it all, a relative of his is sworn into his seat without it seems a vote!. Cronyism? Despotism? Which is the worse crime – those, or approving that someone with a record of involvement in some questionable policies has met his maker? What choices we are faced with today.
Widdicombe? She had the right to an opinion but she did not have the right to use the architecture of state to express it but she did. She went far too far as did many of her party. And until there is more accountability for this in politics, this failure of politics might well continue to fire up incidents like this.
This is what a ‘zone filled with shit’ looks like – dubious ethics and morals abound, poor choices and remedies are everywhere and then the same old enemies wheeled out – the left, workers, teachers, unions and then the same old sanction – loss of freedom.
Because politics is now about goading the people who have been let down by it. It is recipe for death and a dangerous game.
Almost nothing has been heard or reported about the alleged assassin of Charlie Kirk.
This is because the alleged assassin of Charlie Kirk was a Right-winger; he was one of their own.
If the alleged assassin of Charlie Kirk was a “Left-winger”, we would have hourly reports daily on FOX News and Newsmax.
The press is playing the death of Ann Widdecombe for all the clicks and comments can get out of it.
I think that terminology is important here.
LASIT is an umbrella category covering left-wing, anarchist and single-issue terrorism, rather than being a label that automatically indicates a specifically left-wing motive.
Single-issue terrorism can arise from a range of motivations, including political or non-political causes.
The Guardian headline focuses on “possible leftwing motivation”, whereas the article itself describes the investigation as considering whether LASIT may be relevant, while stressing that police are keeping an open mind.
My concern is that the headline could lead a casual reader to interpret this as police having identified a specifically left-wing motive, which is not what the article establishes.
It is also notable that the police discussion reported so far has referred to LASIT but not to the separate category of extreme right-wing terrorism (EWRT). That does not by itself indicate anything about the eventual finding, but it is a distinction worth noting when interpreting the reporting.
In any event, Ann Widdecombe’s murder is horrific, and the perpetrator(s) must face justice. My sympathies are with her family and those affected by this tragedy.
We agree: this is a misleading and unhelpful claim. The Guardian should know better.
“The desire to murder is not political”
But there are many examples of assassinations and violent acts of resistance that are rooted in politics not hate.
No, always in hate. Murder is a perversion.
At first we were told by the police that there was no evidence of political motivation in Ann Widdicombe’s murder. We were told to stop speculation on social media.
Then, suddenly, we are told by the police that they are investigating ‘terrorist’ connections to the murder—ramping up the speculation to a level it hadn’t reached before.
What game is being played here? It seems deliberate. If we are not to speculate, why fuel the speculation? …even revealing pictures of the alleged murderer leaving his home? I am deeply suspicious. Somebody is directing this show.
Following all the spread of misinformation, the politicisation of the tragic case of Henry Nowak; together with the horrific scenes in Belfast with the rioting in June is it no wonder that there is a tinderbox situation again arising on how to manage a very delicate investigation and having to tread a careful balance in this climate of constant criticism of whatever the police seems to be able to want to do to go about their work, and to ensure that those who have committed the crime will actually face justice, together with ensuring that the remainder of the public can remain safe because of whatever conspiracy rhetoric maybe going on that needs to be squashed early before it creates a false narrative and further division.
Challenging times ahead.