This is infantile stuff. You should be ashamed: doing the Right’s wedge politics work for them. What do you gain by insulting this bereaved woman – however misguided her views – calling her a witch and likening her to a pedophile? Do you realise how stupid it sounds to use these kind of cheap shots when advocating a measured and reasonable criminal justice system?

Wow, this is worse than the first article. At least that one had the slightly out of context explanation.

Elementary logic fail. It’s not just having a bereavement that gives you a right not to be mocked for anything ever. Just on the particular topic related to that bereavement. If Gordon brown had a particular policy idea on the basis of the death of his son, say free and more expansive screening for congenital disorders, then even if the policy was totally wrong headed (eg somehow led to more harmed foetuses) then it would still be really crass to mock him about that particular thing. See?

………… “sick kicks”, eh?

Are you Chris Morris in disguise?

Hang on a minute – aren’t we on the correct track here?

Isn’t the essence of this piece, and septicisle’s, that rational thought ought to make policy, rather than extreme emotion (however justified in individual cases) and/or various types of celebrity?

I’m not understanding the backlash here.

If Gordon Brown (or Dave Cameron for that matter) came up with a policy based on their (tragic I agree) personal experiences I would be more critical of it , not less.

Critical in the sense of wanting to work through it with logic rather than dismissing it out of hand though.

Hard cases do make bad law which is why we absolutely don’t want people using their own experience of hard cases to create the law.

As to JohnB’s point above, that the desire for such revenge is entirely natural but that giving in to it is the error, yes, of course he’s right.

What’s really going to annoy JohnB though is that on the paedo point, he’s just found himself in agreement with Megan McArdle.

@4 Kate: essence, yes; rhetoric and tone, not so much.

[4] Kate, do you remember that Kilroy programme where a woman widowed by an IRA bomb said she forgave her husband’s killers? At one point it looked as though she might not get out alive.

People who argue for the primacy of the feelings of the next of kin do so only when the next of kin are vindictive. (In Egypt I believe this is institutionalised in their legal system.)

The widow I mentioned was an educated woman (she became a Labour Euro-MP and her husband had been Ambassador in Dublin) and I think the rage against her is at least in part about this – because educated people can and do use their education as a resource for emotional management, a resource others don’t have – forgiveness itself, when practised by the educated, can create resentment and even anger.

This is ridiculous. It seems particularly inappropriate given that last time I looked Septicisle seemed to have accepted the two main points made to criticise his article.

These two points were:

1) That the tone was ill-judged. Being the victim of a terrible tragedy doesn’t put your views beyond criticism but one does wonder if sarcasm and insults were the most appropriate form of criticism.

2) The comments about forgiveness which, as grounds for attacking someone, seemed inappropriate given that it would take a saint to forgive the terrible crime her family have suffered from.

At no point was did the view appear (except as a strawman) that her views were beyond criticism because of the ordeal she suffered. The fact that you have decided to use this strawman to resurrect an argument that I thought had now been resolved does not reflect well on you.

A further point, and it applies to you and the other people defending septicisle, but probably not to septicisle himself, is the one about hypocrisy.

When talking about a view they disagree with we have comments like:

“I’d also be aware on a rational level that that desire was wrong and beneath me, and therefore wouldn’t base any public statements or political campaigns on it”

i.e. the principle of rational consideration of the issues.

At the same time we have comments about a view they disagree with like:

“a scary combination of 12th century barbarism with Orwellian database fetishism”

and

“Mr Brown a pompous Presbyterian prig and Mr Cameron a vacuous, PR-friendly puppet of the far right”

i.e. emotive and emotional attacks.

It does seem as if people’s anger at people who disagree with them is fine and dandy as part of public debate, but anger at rapists and murdererers is illegitimate.

Do you not get why you can’t have it both ways? You can champion clinical detachment if you like, but you can’t combine it with emotive attacks on other people for, well for being emotive.

Do you understand?

@2, I disagree completely. If GB had suggested an utterly stupid policy based on his grief at his son’s death, he’d have deserved *absolutely slated* for that, up to and including the point that he shouldn’t be allowed to be PM anymore because he was making his policies based on personal derangement rather than sensible judgement. Because both DC and GB are civilised human beings, they haven’t done so – whereas LB has, and has been given a pass on it (see: this thread and the last one).

@5, I don’t actually hate MMA as much as most lefties do. While she’s often wrong and frustrating, I like the fact that her posts are based on reasoning, and when they’re wrong it’s usually because her priors are wrong.

@7, similarly, socially maladjusted people sometimes piss in lifts. Is the correct response a) “whilst I’ve had the luck in upbringing and education to know that it’s wrong to piss in lifts, you haven’t, so let’s give you a platform to advocate the legalisation of pissing in lifts, and call anyone who criticises you ‘infantile’ or b) “you shouldn’t piss in lifts, because it’s revolting and wrong; we’re going to ostracise you until you stop pissing in lifts, and try and educate other people that pissing in lifts is wrong”?

@8:

The reason I posted this was because I utterly disagreed with Septicisle’s decision to recant his original article because of its heresy against the Church of Victimhood, despite the fact that it was absolutely correct.

The “12th century / Orwellian” comment on LB isn’t emotive or emotional, it’s simply accurate: torturing people to death is 12th century, and storing everyone’s DNA on a database is Orwellian. You can argue that that aspect of the 12th century was more sensible than ours if you like, and you can argue that there’s nothing wrong with a bit of Orwellian-ery every now and then if you like.

And the point of the digs at GB and DC is that they’re examples of the kind of digs that frequently (hell, non-stop) get made at both people and nobody objects. And that I quite liked the way they sounded.

[8] I have some sympathy with the “having it both ways” point. But I cannot agree that in order to forgive in these circumstances you would need to be a saint.

You just need to be resourced, as the ambassador’s widow was, and as – through her faith – the African lady was whose son was killed in the Tube bombings (7/7/05). She grieved publicly outside Euston station – the media picked it up – and asked God to give her the strength to forgive his killers.

One reason that the likes of Linda Bowman behave as they do is becasue they have to deal not only with grief (part of which is anger of course) but also with shame because they don’t have the resources the MEP and the African lady had. And so they become publicly vindictive because they have further anger at being ashamed.

If this discussion has any point whatsoever it is this: to remind each of us to take stock and ask ourselves, what resources do I have if – heaven forbid – such a thing should happen to me?

“The “12th century / Orwellian” comment on LB isn’t emotive or emotional”

Yes, they obviously are.

Seriously.

Can you really not distinguish between rhetoric and rationality when the views in question are your own?

Do you not understand that relating a policy to the feudal era or to an author who wrote about totalitarianism is not a rational critique of the policy? It’s blatantly an attempt to bring to bear the emotions associated with feudalism and totalitarianism. (And that’s without the fact that the “torturing to death” comment seems entirely based on something she said about her daughter’s murderer rather than something said as a policy proposal.)

Can you really not see this?

Next you’ll be telling us that comparing somebody who disagrees with you to paedophiles is just an objective comparison.

” But I cannot agree that in order to forgive in these circumstances you would need to be a saint. You just need to be resourced, as the ambassador’s widow was, and as – through her faith – the African lady was whose son was killed in the Tube bombings (7/7/05). She grieved publicly outside Euston station – the media picked it up – and asked God to give her the strength to forgive his killers.”

I’m sorry, but I can’t imagine these attitudes would even be in the public domain if they weren’t examples of something exceptional, saintly even.

@11, I see your point, kinda, but surely the only thing the African lady had that Linda Bowman doesn’t is basic human decency?

“I see your point, kinda, but surely the only thing the African lady had that Linda Bowman doesn’t is basic human decency?”

If you wanted to demonstrate how utterly lacking in any understanding of human suffering or human feeling you are then you couldn’t have done better than this.

Forgiving others is one of the most difficult things we ever do. To do it in the case of somebody who has murdered somebody you love is something most of us would simply be incapable of. Are you really unable to see this?

It is made even more absurd when you are also posting angry comments suggesting you have precisely zero sympathy for people who disagree with you, which hardly makes you look like you have the virtues you are attacking others for not lacking.

“for not lacking.”

I mean “for lacking”

@15/17, actually, I retract that point, fair spot. To *forgive* the person, in your heart, is something that does require superhuman effort. To *understand that you shouldn’t advocate torturing or killing the person, despite the fact that you want to* is basic rational-thinking-being stuff.

There is a big difference between disagreeing with someone’s views and mocking the person. The first is absolutely fine. The second is not. You are doing the second, and saying “but surely you’re not saying I can’t do the first”.

Example of the first:
“I don’t believe vengeance should be an aim of the justice system, because …”

Example of the second: (with bonus sexist slur!)
“barbaric, vindictive witch”

If you want a “rational” [1] and productive debate, pick the first. If you want a shouting match with no concern for improvement of political discourse or legitimising debating tactics that can be far more effectively be used against the powerless than the powerful, then go right ahead and pick the second (but expect people to strongly disagree with your methods even if they agree with the argument you’re advancing)

[1] One other thing I don’t like about this is the assumption that emotional is in opposition to rational.

I think – as far as the African lady and the ambassador’s widow go – there are three possible positions:

1. She’s a saint/superhuman. You can no more expect me to be like her than you can expect me to be Usain Bolt.

2. She’s got something I haven’t. But you can’t expect me to have it if I don’t want to.

3. Some people use religion and/or philosophy to access resources within themselves to deal with grievous calamity appropriately. (And of course what works in extremis will do just fine for everyday living, too.) The world would be a better place if more people behaved in this way.

I would have hoped that on this site, at least, we could all take the third of these options as a given. However, it seems not. I take it that those who support either of the first two options disbelieve in penal reform on principle, too – forgiveness and repentance being closely allied practices.

20,

Surely, we can recognise that the abillity to forgive someone who murders someone you love is exceptional?

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t aspire to that level of virtue ourselves because it is exceptional. I’m just suggesting that we, nevertheless, recognise it as exceptional and don’t judge *others* harshly for failing to live up to that standard.

[21] That’s my position 1. Why I object to it is that it all too easily collapses into position 2.

FWIW I wouldn’t expect anyone in Linda Bowman’s position to forgive immediately – that would imply a denial of the necessary griefwork – but I would expect everyone in her position to do so eventually (unless they died first).

Let’s stop going on as if there were no middle ground between total forgiveness and hanging, drawing and quartering. Most people aren’t saints, but should be able to or helped to prevent eating themselves up with vengeance and anger.

The problem is whether they are allowed to. The expectation now from the tabloids and therefore to some extent popular opinion is that in certain types of crime the bereaved, especially mothers, should transform themselves into shrieking Furies endlessly calling for the bloodiest revenge. Anyone who doesn’t follow the script is at best ignored and at worst pilloried.

So let’s stop picking on this poor Bowman woman. She’s not just the victim of her daughter’s killer, but of a media system that demands she destroy herself as well in order to sell papers and give readers the thrill of feeling righteously indignant.

I think you’re misinterpreting what was offensive about the original piece. Mocking someone who has lost a child in those circumstances is in very poor taste, and doing so in order to make an obscure political point is even worse. That’s it. The rest of your pice is obsurfcation and sophistry, no one is suggesting that because someone has suffered a tradegy their views are somehow more valid or beyond ctiticism.

barbaric, vindictive witch

You’ve got to be fucking kidding me? And this is on LC, where we’re running a series about the sexist shite coming out of the election campaign…..

I also take issue with the view that someone like Sally Bowman should stay away from political campaigning – that because her views have come about because of personal tragedy, that renders them too personally informed and thus inappropriate for the political stage.

Personally I completely disagree with Bowman’s position, but that doesn’t mean I think she should just stfu and not attempt to influence policy. After all, the personal is political, and it’s often personal experiences that drive people into political campaigning.

Look at Sara Payne for instance, and the work she’s done on reviewing the criminal justice system’s response to rape victims. She’s made a significant contribution, and she’s also helping to shape policy, but because she’s on the right side so to speak, no one’s accusing her of being a barbaric vindictive witch or suggesting she has no role to play in the debate around violence against women and girls.

By all means criticise Bowman’s views, by all means argue as to why she’s wrong to think it’s a good thing to collect everyone’s DNA, but ffs, let’s leave the cheap shit sexism and the attempts at character assassination to the tabloids.

Doesn’t all political activism ultimately come from our emotional response? I imagine there’s very few people who have campaigned for radical change who don’t find their views rooted in personal or vicarious experiences of suffering. I’m pretty sure the reason most of us oppose the death penalty is not for purely rational reasons but for reasons of morality and personal distate for execution. Why should those espousing reactionary change be held to a higher standard?

Now obviously public policy needs to be developed from that emotion using a rational framework, but whose to say that this ladies thought processes aren’t at least partly rational? If someone kills your child and you want to prevent it happening to other people then hanging/imprisoning permanently those who are convicted of murder is a perfectly rational policy to advocate. You may punish significant numbers of innocent people, you may undermine the moral authority of the state and you won’t prevent all murder, but if all you care about is stopping people who have killed from killing again then locking them up/killing them is a very effective solution.

I don’t agree with this woman’s position, and I think it needs to be refuted strongly. However I do believe she has a right to express it without being patronised by people who imagine they’re paragons of rationality when they’re just as tainted by their prejudices and instincts as the rest of us.

I’m all for rationality, but I don’t agree with sacrificing empathy to get it.

If you want to argue against Linda Bowman’s ideas about criminal justice, then do so from the perspective of criminal justice. Nobody has a right to argue ad hominem, and claiming that you’re being rational while doing so is privileged hypocrisy.

I stand by my belief that the only ones at fault in this mess are the politicians. They’re appropriating this woman’s grief to make their policies uncriticisable, and LibCon seems to have walked right into their trap like some kind of idiot.

Honestly, stop digging. Make your apology, and have a go at actually criticising the policies rather than criticising their origins.

To *understand that you shouldn’t advocate torturing or killing the person, despite the fact that you want to* is basic rational-thinking-being stuff.

Except of course in your ivory tower of cool, disdainful and misogynistic rationality, you came to the completely wrong-headed statement that ‘torture to death’ was a statement of policy intent, not feeling.

Sometimes, when everyone tells you you are wrong, you are actually right, and you need to stick to your guns. Other times, you just have to bite the bullet, go back and work out _what exactly is wrong with your head_ before you say any more.

“barbaric, vindictive witch”

For the avoidance of doubt, I’d have used “barbaric, vindictive caveman” for a male in the same position. I also tend to refer to women who act as actresses. Aware this isn’t completely gender neutral in form, but there isn’t any difference in the substance.

@28, are you saying LB doesn’t endorse the death penalty? Because, guess what, she does. I’m also impressed at your equation of ‘rationality’ and ‘misogynistic’ – what, cos women are from Venus and men are from Mars, so requiring rationality removes their contribution from the debate? Jesus.

I can’t say I’m totally backing Liberal Conspiracy’s editorial line this weekend.

Re: 30

FYI rationality is a common meme in sexist, racist, homophobic or otherwise bigoted arguments, basically along the lines of a privileged person saying “you’re not doing yourselves any favours by being emotional, you should be distanced and rational if you want to get anywhere”. The effect is simply to force an argument to be framed in a way that privileged people are most comfortable dealing with.

While the rationality being argued for here isn’t ‘misogynistic’, simply using the tactic will win you no friends amongst those who’ve had it used against them historically.

I don’t think it is about rationality versus emotion. It is about policy versus politeness. It is just really crass (and a bit stupid too) to target someone personally for having a completely understandable perspective. Best to say you respect the position she is coming from, and disagree profoundly with the policy she supports.

I disagree massively with the database state. But there isn’t a straightforward argument against it. It involves a particular understanding of state institutions and public officials, and the likelihood of them becoming tyranical if they are given power and knowledge beyond everyone else. Intelligent and caring people DO disagree with this position. I think they are profoundly wrong, but they are not necessarily morally defective because of it.

Same applies to the death penalty, too. I think it is mistaken to support it, but there are good reasons for it. In some contexts, it can act as a great detterent against crime and it might even be more humane than letting someone rot in prison for 50 years. There is the possibility of reasoned disagreement about this too.

@34

In some contexts, [the death penalty] can act as a great detterent against crime

At risk of breaking out a fresh Can o’ Worms™, has there ever been any evidence to suggest this notion?

The whole Bowman thing looks undignified, which is sad because it taints the memory of her daughter.

When I was standing up to the BNP I had threats against myself and my family and lay awake nights worrying. The imagination can be quite lurid at such times. Fantasies about taking revenge on the authors of my discomfort were enough for me to realise that, in doing so, I would have let them win. Sadly this seems to be happening to Mrs Bowman.

Mrs Bowman’s anger is understandable but she is being encouraged to wallow in it by people who do not have her interests at heart. If she want the memory of Sally Ann to stand for anything she needs to move on. Those newspapers egging her on and the politicians gracelessly hopping on the bandwagon should be ashamed.

(Incidentally, in these cases I wonder about why people are happy to get all worked up about the death of a child when they are so indifferent when the same suffering and death happens due to wilfully bad driving.)

Sure mr pill: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Testimony/The-Death-Penalty-Deters-Crime-and-Saves-Lives

I’m not saying it decisive, just that the argument can be made and reasonable people can argue for it.

@37

Thanks Nick. I’ve also found this useful link with various academic papers on either side of the debate, again in a reasonable intelligent manner.
Obv there are other reasons to oppose the death penalty, more persuasive ones in my opinion too.

There are two serious concepts here: society’s requirement for justice and rehabilitation; and the impact of crime and sentencing on survivors and/or victims’ families.

The terms of justice and rehabilitation are determined by the offender’s presentation to a judge or magistrate — how and whether s/he can change, assuming that state social support will deliver that change. That little bit more than banging the offender up for three months for 20 hours a day. The process is about *who* the offender is and treatment of the offender.

Survivors and families are quite correctly supported by government agencies. They have no sentencing role because their grief and pain is irrelevant to the offender *who* concern. And the *what* is the trial.

Victim statements in court embarrass our justice. Victim statements do not often address *who* and more commonly focus on *what* and *feel*. A TV crew will be there to record solicitor’s words outside the court so the statements do not need to be on court record, unless court record is intended to be an extension of social history. Victim statements are unnecessary and counter productive.

Victim campaigns are almost always misjudged and ill-focused, based on a few *what* judgements. And all such campaigns convert the survivor/family into an army or cause.

Grief, pain and recovery are outside the judicial system. So we need to help the family for that, but we don’t need a state system to do it.

John B/29+30: There is very much a difference between “caveman” and “witch”. The former (or the equivalent “cavewoman”) is not a helpful thing to call someone, but that’s all. “Witch”, on the other hand, has a lot of sexist background and context to it that you can’t just pretend doesn’t exist when it’s convenient. This isn’t the same as “actor” vs “actress” (which, conveniently for you, is one of the few where the female form of the job title doesn’t have lower status connotations)

As regards “equating” rationality and misogyny, as Gwyn/33 points out you’ve really missed the point there. Requiring that all issues be discussed in a tone of complete detachment popularly perceived as “rational rather than emotional” is a common excuse to ignore people. Look up “Tone Argument” on the internet.

There is no LC ‘editorial line’ as such – there are just a multitude of opinions.

I agree with Cath on the language but otherwise I agree with the general thrust of both articles.

People who have personally faced such loss should not be allowed anywhere near policy. And we should criticise politicians who try and use them for that basis.

The right does this all the time – which is why they always manage to out-manoeuvre the left on the issue of crime. And so to criticise politicians for ‘using’ victims (or their parents) is always important.

I just wouldn’t use the language to criticise the victims – they are being exploited by politicians because they are emotionally vulnerable. They don’t deserve the ire, but the politicians do.

@39 I agree with the thrust Sunny, as I said on the other post, I just think the two posts we’ve got up on Bowman are a little clumsy and don’t get to the real meat of it. I mean, Septicisle has covered this stuff at his blog in a more focussed, less flippant way.

I do think this subject could have been tackled in a better way. Combative posts are always fun, but I don’t think they help. You’re more of a tactician than me, but I’m not sure this helps advance the cause.

But I agree about the asymmetry of the right versus left. When the right say “you shouldn’t say that its disrespectful” its completely different to when the left say “you shouldn’t say that its disrespectful.” Freedom of speech, bloody fascists etc.

Sunny

People who have personally faced such loss should not be allowed anywhere near policy.

Why?

I accept the argument about them being exploited by politicians to score points or to garner sympathy for a particular position, but I think that’s a more short-term immediate thing. Long term I don’t see a problem with it, and I stand by my earlier point about the personal being political etc.

Seriously, if you remove from political influence all those who’ve had first hand personal experience of an issue, you’re essentially dismissing many many women who work in by women for women support services such as Rape Crisis, Women’s Aid and so on, many women who’ve become active and influential in politics because their experience has helped politicise them.

I also think it’s an incredibly patronising argument, to tell people their opinion has no validity simply because their own personal experience of the issue has helped inform their particular position, or that they’re not entitled to a voice in the debate because in your view they’re incapable of approaching the subject either subjectively or logically.

Bollox, obviously I meant objectively not subjectively in that last comment.

Hmmm… admittedly that’s a good point Cath about rape crisis centres. Perhaps I mean they should be allowed to help people facing similar situations but not be actively involved or be asked to front a campaign to change the law.

My point is two-fold: firstly that people who have had personal experiences may also lose a sense of proportion when it comes to formulating policy.

And secondly it is strategic: if we endorse these kinds of actions, then basically we leave the liberal-left always being open to accusations of being ‘soft on crime’ by people who essentially have public sympathy on their side.

I think the point is simply that Mrs Bowman is proposing changes to criminal justice that liberal people disgree with. Arguments about the death penalty have been covered in other threads and endlessly elsewhere and I don’t think there’s much new to be added.

Mrs Bowman and her associates are using public sympathy and revulsion to promote what I believe would be a retrograde step in criminal justice. We can sympathise with her plight but I very much disagree with the changes she proposes. I’m pretty pissed off with Brown for his tacit endorsement of her position. It was cynical and foolish.

I can understand revenge at the spur of the moment but the cold-blooded revenge Mrs Bowman argues for makes her no better than her daughter’s killer. Torturers and murderers are the same whatever their motivation.

“I can understand revenge at the spur of the moment but the cold-blooded revenge Mrs Bowman argues for makes her no better than her daughter’s killer.”

Just when I think we’re making progress somebody has to go and say something that has me banging my head on the wall again.

No, supporting the death penalty is not the same as being a murderer.

Get a grip.

I defended Septicisle in the other thread and I agree with the broad point made in both pieces, but I don’t think the “barbaric, vindictive witch” comment is defensible.
Yes, she’s pushing an unpleasant and reactionary agenda and the fact that she’s fronting a public campaign makes her fair game for criticism, and I agree that the way the media does fetishise crime victims is wrong, but it just seems gratuitously unpleasant and personal.
We should direct our scorn not at Linda Bowman but at the Sun for using her to further its own agenda and even more so at the government for co-opting her into its thoroughly dishonest and unprincipled attempt to portray those who object to its DNA database policy as “soft on crime”.

Old Andrew – perhaps you should get a grip yourself? You’ve repeatedly attributed to people the view that “anger at people who disagree with them is fine and dandy as part of public debate, but anger at rapists and murdererers is illegitimate”.

It was transparent nonsense the first time you’ve said it, and has been repeatedly corrected since. Indeed it’s even contradicted in the title of this post, as well as several times in the body of it, e.g “if someone murdered someone I loved, then on a base level I’d want that person tortured to death. And if someone thought worse of me for having that desire, then they’d be an idiot.”

I can’t help thinking that your grasp of the line between rhetoric and rationality isn’t as firm as you think it is.

“Indeed it’s even contradicted in the title of this post, as well as several times in the body of it, e.g “if someone murdered someone I loved, then on a base level I’d want that person tortured to death.”

You are clearly operating with a completely different concept of “contradiction” to me.

Are you seriously claiming you cannot see any posts that suggest personal feelings of anger at murderers and rapists is not a legitimate influence on political views? Or just that none of these people are simultaneously showing personal feelings of anger about people who disagree with them?

Uh, there’s a difference between saying hatred of rapists and murderers is inadequate as basis for forming policy, and saying that it is illegitimate per se.

The latter is the opinion you’ve ascribed to several people here, e.g “people here actually do find anger at murderers and rapists reprehensible”.

And it’s a total crock.

“Uh, there’s a difference between saying hatred of rapists and murderers is inadequate as basis for forming policy, and saying that it is illegitimate per se.”

Oh for pity’s sake.

Nobody here has said it is adequate as a basis for forming policy, so anyone arguing for the former of your two options would be arguing against a strawman.

As for the latter option, context should have made it clear I meant “illegitimate as something that influences policy” as opposed to “illegitimate per se”. That said a number of people have expressed disapproval of that anger that goes beyond simply saying it shouldn’t influence policy, and into suggesting that it shows a moral deficiency. I’m glad to say that a number of those comments have been withdrawn so I don’t really want to quote them, but I don’t see how you can have missed them.

Nasty putrid shite. I haven’t felt this embarrassed for a website since the last time I read Brett Lock.

context should have made it clear I meant “illegitimate as something that influences policy” as opposed to “illegitimate per se”

A quick examination of the context in fact makes the opposite clear. See your comment 8 above for example.

52,

In that post I said:

“It does seem as if people’s anger at people who disagree with them is fine and dandy as part of public debate, but anger at rapists and murdererers is illegitimate.”

Is it really not clear to you that I meant:

“It does seem as if people’s anger at people who disagree with them is fine and dandy as part of public debate, but anger at rapists and murdererers is illegitimate as *part of public debate*.”?

I would have thought that was obvious. Even if it wasn’t, I’m a bit baffled as to how you managed to still miss this after I clarified it in post 50.

Are you just being pedantic for the sake of it?

I see, well thanks for the clarification. So let me have a go. When you said “people here actually do find anger at murderers and rapists reprehensible, but anger at people who don’t share the same political views perfectly understandable”, what you actually meant was “reprehensible when introduced into a discussion about policy” rather than “reprehensible per se”. Right?

‘Hmmm… admittedly that’s a good point Cath about rape crisis centres. Perhaps I mean they should be allowed to help people facing similar situations but not be actively involved or be asked to front a campaign to change the law.’

Why not? Not all parents of murdered children are vengeful, justifiably or not: Colin Parry, father of Tim Parry, murdered by the IRA for example. And you don’t have a problem with Mozem Begg fronting campaigns, do you?

The point should be that emotion is a legitimate *motivation* for campaigning but that it does not, in itself, lend *authority* to your arguments.

It’s similar the the campaigns against MMR vaccines where prefixing arguments with ‘As a mother…’ were felt by the press to lend greater authority than ‘As a doctor…’

54,

If you want to clarify the meaning of that phrase then I suggest you go onto the thread where I made it and read my explanation there. I was responding to a different point there to the one I responded to in post 8. The “illegitimate anger” point was a response to people on this thread objecting to the idea that the anger was influencing policy. The “reprehensible anger” point was a response to the personal attacks made on the other thread. I’m not happy to see you switching between the two contexts in a desperate effort to catch me out. If I have differed between my two comments in my descriptions of the opposing position it is only because the opposing position was different in each case.

Shatterface

The point should be that emotion is a legitimate *motivation* for campaigning but that it does not, in itself, lend *authority* to your arguments.

Exactly.

@31/38 Hmm. IMX crazy irrational shouting is generally confined to the unthinking right-wing, certainly when it comes to social issues – the cases for gay rights, racial equality and feminism are made rationally, based on evidence and basic principles; the cases against generally consist of ignorant morons expressing their fears that queers will bum them, Pakis will blow them up, and women ought to get their dinner on the table. For me, liberal values stem from Hume and Mill, and rationality and liberalism go absolutely hand-in-hand.

@38 “Cavewoman” is only used as an outmoded way to refer to our troglodytic female ancestors, whereas “caveman” is regularly used to refer pejoratively to a man (implying he’s dim, thuggish, etc). Also, the *whole point of that paragraph* was that it consisted of ridiculous stereotyped insults of DC, GB and LB – it would have been better to avoid gender-based language, which is why I’ve corrected it, but suggesting it’s offensive is WELL, YES.

@55/57 I’ll accept that. Which I guess brings the government back into the frame as top villains – it’s reasonable for LB to seek to publicise her horrific views, but it’s appalling of GB to assume that her experience provides her with the kind of authority that she should be appearing at government press conferences.

But, going back to my whole motivation for writing the piece – the fact that LB has decided to seek to publicise her views gives me the right to criticise her in the same terms that I’d criticise any other politician or political campaigner. If you think it’s reasonable for me to say that Stephen Green is a massive, bigoted arsehole, then I don’t think any of the comments either here or on the other post have presented any case why it’s not reasonable of me to say that LB is a twisted, vindictive caveperson.

Obviously, if you don’t think I should insult politicians and campaigners at all, then I shouldn’t insult LB – but that isn’t the viewpoint I was attacking.

This is a train wreck – tone-deaf, own-foot-shooting, mindless political-tribalist shite. I can’t think of an occasion when, despite being in basic agreement with the writer’s political perspective, I’ve found a post more objectionable. The best words I can find to describe it are “barbaric and vindictive”.

John,

As I said above, I think that the agenda which LB is pushing is unpleasant and reactionary and as she is airing her views in public she is entitled to be challenged on them. And I find it hard to disagree with your assessment of Stephen Green who really does come across as a deeply unpleasant individual.
But even if LB’s horrific experience does not give authority to her views on the criminal justice system it is surely fair to suppose that it has affected her judgement on the subject and if she comes across as twisted and vindictive it may be because she has been through an experience which might make the best of us twisted and vindictive towards those responsible and not, as your remark seems to suggest and as we might reasonably assume with someone like Green, because she is an inherently flawed individual.

@ 45 OldAndrew,

I think you’ve been banging your head against the wall too much.

“No, supporting the death penalty is not the same as being a murderer”

Is believing its right for someone to cold-bloodedly kill another person on your behalf really morally different from murder?

“Is believing its right for someone to cold-bloodedly kill another person on your behalf really morally different from murder?”

Yes.

I’m not trying to catch you out old Andrew, I’m pointing out that your contribution to this debate has consisted of i) warnings against the evils of demonising one’s political opponents, and ii) repeatedly rephrasing the allegation that people here hold rape and murder as lesser crimes than political dissent. And I’m suggesting that perhaps there’s a conflict there.

Is believing its right for someone to cold-bloodedly kill another person on your behalf really morally different from murder?

Are you serious?

Consider

1 – “I want to kill this young girl because doing so sates my desire to see another human being suffer”

and

2 – “I want to kill this man because he murdered and raped my daughter”

Are you suggesting the motivation in each case is morally equivalent?

“Are you suggesting the motivation in each case is morally equivalent?”

I’d say that the outcome is equally morally repugnant, yes. The motivation is different but the reason we don’t do either the same. Except in the limited cases of Just War or immediate self defence, killing people is wrong.

“I’m not trying to catch you out old Andrew”

You blatantly are.

At times I have criticised people for acting as if other people’s emotions shouldn’t affect political debate while their emotions should.

At times I have criticised people for demonising the understandable emotions of somebody whose daughter was murdered.

You seemed to deliberately muddle up these two different points, in order to avoid discussion of the strawman that you had attributed to me (i.e. that when I was making the first type of comment I was criticising a strawman position that anger at a murder was”illegitimate per se”). You seem to be deliberately trying to confuse matters, first creating a strawman involving a strawman, then trying to defend it by selective quotations from the other thread.

Speaking of strawmen, this is the most ridiculous one you’ve accused me of yet:

“repeatedly rephrasing the allegation that people here hold rape and murder as lesser crimes than political dissent.”

I’m not even going to dignify this particular nonsense with an explanation. I’ll simply ask you to apologise. Although I fear I am simply going to get some desperate attempt to justify this ridiculous claim with an out-of-context quotation.

“Except in the limited cases of Just War or immediate self defence, killing people is wrong.”

How have you gone from “wrong” to “morally equivalent”?

I’m also wondering about the obvious question as to why self-defence has to be immediate, or why you believe in “Just War” but not Just Killings.

“I’m also wondering about the obvious question as to why self-defence has to be immediate, or why you believe in “Just War” but not Just Killings.”

Just War is an age old concept. Aquinas I think? It’s very similar to hte self defence thing. It’s only justified to kill someone when you’re protecting something more valuable than their life. And when there’s no other method available of doing so.

So when someone’s trying to cut your throat (whether literally or in a societal manner leading to the Just War argument) it’s legitimate to cut theirs to prevent this, if there is no other method of doing so.

But if you disarm them without cutting their throat then it is not just for you to then proceed to cut their throat. For you have just prevented your own throat being cut by other means. Thus the self defence must be immediate.

As I say, there’s nothing very new about this, it was all thrashed out by medieval theologians.

Not that medieval theology necessarily makes something correct of course, I’m just trying to point out that this line of thinking isn’t exactly new.

It’s not a matter of catching you out or “creating a strawman involving a strawman”, whatever that means, simply of reading what you wrote: “people here actually do find anger at murderers and rapists reprehensible, but anger at people who don’t share the same political views perfectly understandable”.

i.e people here are more outraged by right-wingery than they are by rape or murder.

I guess it’s conceivable that you’re simply very bad at expressing yourself. So much so that what starts as a perfectly sensible critcism in your mind appears on the page in a mangled form indistinguishable from a crass insult. Then when you set yourself to tackling a spearate point, that somehow ends up resembling exactly the same insult as before.

Either way, if there’s any apologising to be done here, I’d say it should be by you.

Is believing its right for someone to cold-bloodedly kill another person on your behalf really morally different from murder?

If you think that killing someone is wrong no matter what the circumstances (e.g. self-defence or the defence of others) than of course you will see no moral difference between murder and the death penalty. If you think that killing someone is justifiable in particular circumstances then I’m sure you can see a moral difference whether you support the death penalty or not.

68,

I wasn’t querying the concept of the Just War, just the idea that you can limit the rationale for killing because justice demands killing to the situation of going to war. None of the theologians who came up with the concept of a Just War would have been argued for the abolition of capital punishment.

“None of the theologians who came up with the concept of a Just War would have been argued for the abolition of capital punishment.”

True, but it is the argument the Catholic Church currently uses against capital punishment.

69,

If you truly don’t understand what I am saying, then, instead of just accusing me of all sorts and trying to find quotations to back it up (very badly in that particular post), why not just ask me for clarification?

I find it a little hard to believe that the problem is a lack of clarity on my part, when you are switching between threads, quoting out of context, coming up with the most ludicrous paraphrases and ignoring anything I say to clarify my point.

Do you think it is not transparent that you are desperate to argue against a strawman (any strawman) rather than any of the points I’ve actually made?

Tim,

Just because the reason many of us oppose murder for sadistic pleasure and state-sponsored killing for crimes is that both offend our morals, it does not follow that they are morally equivalent. There is no moral equivalency in either motivation of outcome, notwithstanding that both are wrong. Or perhaps more accurately, the moral equivalency doesn’t extend beyond the point that both are, in my view, wrong. Once we get past ‘wrong’, the two are no longer remotely similar.

“True, but it is the argument the Catholic Church currently uses against capital punishment.”

No it isn’t. Quite the opposite. Although generally against the death penalty the Catholic Church doesn’t exclude it as a possibility for reasons largely the same as the reasoning in the doctrine of a Just War. So if anything, the acceptance of the idea of a Just War makes the Catholic Church less, rather than more, hostile to the death penalty than it otherwise would have been.

Brownie, OldAndrew

I don’t think capital punishment and child murder are morally equivalent. I think they are both wrong. Its not complicated.

The pros and cons of capital punishment have, as I said, been endlessly covered. In addition to what I believe about the morality of murder by state or individual, shouldn’t we all be concerned when the state gives itself the right to kill its citizens?

The point I took from the original posting was unhappiness about the trend towards a database state and the tacit endorsement of extremely illiberal ideas regarding retribution (as opposed to justice) by Gordon Brown. I can’t help but agree with such concerns.

“I don’t think capital punishment and child murder are morally equivalent.”

Glad to hear it. So what were you getting at when you said:

“Is believing its right for someone to cold-bloodedly kill another person on your behalf really morally different from murder?”

or when you said:

“I can understand revenge at the spur of the moment but the cold-blooded revenge Mrs Bowman argues for makes her no better than her daughter’s killer”?

“Is believing its right for someone to cold-bloodedly kill another person on your behalf really morally different from murder?”

Its a question. You see, I think killing someone is morally wrong. I wondered what others thought.

“I can understand revenge at the spur of the moment but the cold-blooded revenge Mrs Bowman argues for makes her no better than her daughter’s killer”

Consider this: What would Sally Ann think if she witnessed her mother’s revenge on her behalf?

Its a question. You see, I think killing someone is morally wrong. I wondered what others thought.

Is it morally wrong if you are defending yourself and/or others from imminent serious harm or death?

It might be best to ditch the word ‘just’, as in a ‘just war’ or ‘just killing’ and look at ‘necessary’, as in ‘necessary war’ or ‘necessary killing’. WWII was a ‘necessary war’ for survival; shooting someone might be necessary in self-defence or to protect someone else from immediate harm..

There is not, however, such a thing as a ‘necessary execution’ of somebody already in custody, whether you think that execution would be ‘just’ or not.

There is not, however, such a thing as a ‘necessary execution’ of somebody already in custody, whether you think that execution would be ‘just’ or not.

It depends on what ‘necessary’ means though, doesn’t it? (said Bill Clinton)

Supporters of the death penalty might argue that it is necessary to execute a particular criminal in order to (1) deter others from committing similar crimes and (2) ensure that criminal is permanently deprived of the ability to commit further crimes.

It’s funny how John B doesn’t always see torture and violent abuse as ‘barbaric’ or ‘vindictive’. For example, the comments he’s still remembered for concerning a girl who was raped and then burned with acid to remove the rapists’ DNA:-

“the ordeal that the girl in Tottenham went through was unimaginably horrible. however [meaning 'but'], if it doesn’t transpire that she was being ‘punished’ for nicking the gang’s money or similar, rather than an innocent who was seized to gratify their perverted lusts, I’ll happily eat a hat store”

The implication there being that there would have been something about the alleged theft that, um, mitigated the gang-rapists’ actions, that made what they did somewhat justifiable as punishment, that she would have deserved it if she had been stealing from them or doing something to upset them*? You will also notice that his tone when describing their acts is nowhere near as vehement as the tone he takes with LB, he does NOT use terms like ‘barbaric and vindictive’ nor does he give the impression that that would be his opinion of them. Not when he’s trying to downplay their actions.

* His first instinct in this instance being to refer to LB as a ‘witch’. It doesn’t paint a pretty picture, does it John?

Even giving you the benefit of the doubt that the girl might have upset them or stolen from them….on the one hand, expressing the desire to torture and kill someone out of retribution (for murdering their daughter) is reprehensible, on the other hand, the act of raping and scarring someone out of retribution (for petty theft) is not. What do those gang-rapists have that LB doesn’t, John, that leads you to decide their acts aren’t as worthy of criticism?

After all, it’s fairly curious that you look at someone who’s lost a child – whose child was murdered – and see someone you would like to attack. Unlike the gang-rapists whom you are compelled to defend and speak up for, to argue that something their victim did lessens the wrong they did?

Its not that might makes right, is it John? Bashing a lone, vulnerable individual, while not similarly criticising a violent gang, gives the impression that your opinions are based more on animal mentality than anything else.

“Is it morally wrong if you are defending yourself and/or others from imminent serious harm or death?”

It might be morally defensible if there was no alternative. Its too easy to glibly rationalise when it might be right or wrong to kill. In reality its not so simple.

I thought I’d killed someone once, in the heat of the moment. It still upsets me though it was long ago. I suffered nightmares at the time. Does this suggest a universal morality? I can’t say, but it strongly influenced me. I’ve discussed this with an ex-colleague who had killed someone at close quarters as a soldier in Korea and he had similar feelings decades later.

For OldAndrew:

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/hsc0120l.jpg

The Kusabi,

The implication there being that there would have been something about the alleged theft that, um, mitigated the gang-rapists’ actions, that made what they did somewhat justifiable as punishment, that she would have deserved it if she had been stealing from them or doing something to upset them*?

Um no, that’s what you’ve (bizarrely) inferred. Perhaps you could try criticising John for what he wrote rather than what you’ve imagined.

Ah, it’s The Wasabi, who pops up out of the woodwork every six months or so to tell lies about me on the Internet. Welcome, friend.

The comments about the gang were made, not to mitigate their evil, but as a response to an original post which was along the lines of “girls can’t walk through the streets these days without gangstas gang-raping them and then throwing acid on them to remove the DNA” – my point was that being a victim of serious violent crime is still very unlikely (not *never happens*, but *unlikely*) if you don’t hang out with serious violent criminals.

If Gordon Brown had taken the thugs in question and praised them for their admirable approach to community justice, then I think it’s fair to say I’d have been very very angry indeed.

But unlike (apparently) many right-wing idiots, I don’t normally feel the need to point out that gang rape and savage assault are bad and that the people who do them are bad *every fucking time they’re mentioned*, because outside of a prison’s special offenders wing, that’s a generally understood background context to the discussion…

“If Gordon Brown had taken the thugs in question and praised them for their admirable approach to community justice, then I think it’s fair to say I’d have been very very angry indeed.”

Nobody can believe that. We’ve seen what really gets your wick and that wouldn’t be it. You’d never in a month of sundays ay anything of the sort, ah, but I suppose you’ve got this bollocks about ‘unlike right-wing loons I don’t feel the need’ to hide behind haven’t you?

“my point was that being a victim of serious violent crime is still very unlikely (not *never happens*, but *unlikely*) if you don’t hang out with serious violent criminals.”

Your point being that she might have deserved it for having offended the gang in some way. Your point being that there might have been some way she ‘brought it on herself’.

You’ll never convince anyone you meant anything different – because you didn’t – and you’ll never live it down.

After all, if all you wanted to do was make a point about ‘right-wing moral panic’, that’s all you had to do. Going on to say that the rape victim might have stolen from the rapists and that might have had something to do with it, would be completely unnecessary. Why did you feel the need to make THAT statement, hmm, john?

The Kusabi,

Your point being that she might have deserved it for having offended the gang in some way. Your point being that there might have been some way she ‘brought it on herself’.

Um no, there’s a difference between saying “she deserved it” and “the gang thought she deserved it”.

There might well be, however anyone who thinks the possibility that she might have stolen from them or done anything to ‘bring it on herself’* makes a blind bit of difference (and if John didn’t think so, he wouldn’t have said anything like what he did) (A) is sympathetic to both statements (B) thinks that savage ‘punishment’ dished out as retaliation is perfectly OK as long as it’s the ‘strong’ and not the ‘weak’ doing the dishing out.

*Let’s not forget that it was in fact a plain and simple rape, and the gang using acid on her was for no other reason than to remove their DNA, so John’s in the position of having MADE THINGS UP about what might have happened because to him, that would make it less bad. That’s the kind of slime you’re sticking up for, ukliberty.

Kusabi,

I claim that “a person associating with serious criminals increases his risk of being harmed”.

Do you think that means I approve of him being harmed?

If so, it seems to me you need remedial lessons in English comprehension.