We learned today that Conservative MP, Sir David Amess, died of his injuries after being
repeatedly stabbed at a constituency surgery. He was a firm supporter of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, a devoted family man, a good friend of Israel and a campaigner against cruelty to animals. Sir David was a classic back bench MP. Happy to leave the greasy pole to others and concentrate on doing his best for the people he represented, the causes he supported, and the country he loved. He will be sadly missed.
I apologise for what I am going to write now, it is unseemly, so swiftly after his murder to talk about the political angles, nevertheless, I feel it is necessary. Our opponents do not shrink from capitalising on tragedy, we need to study and be aware of what they do, even if we do not copy it. I have already seen comments online of the “He shouldn’t have been killed, but…” type and he has been repeatedly described as “far right”, when in fact his views were nothing more than solid centre right stuff up until the Overton Window was dragged violently to the left.
Although the circumstances are horribly similar to the murder of Labour MP, Jo Cox, in 2016, the press reaction so far is not. You might be forgiven for thinking the knife that stabbed Sir David was working alone. News is trickling out that there was a 25 year old man holding that knife, and that he was either a Somali national, or British born of Somali heritage. The police are treating the incident a potentially a terrorist act, but conclusions are very definitely not being jumped to. Indeed, the press’s usually mercurial feet are firmly leaden in this case.
It is good not to jump to conclusions, but the reticence of the press seems pretty unbalanced in these cases. The fact that Jo Cox’s murderer’s shouted “right wing slogans” was reported right from the start, before any corroboration could be established. They even edited what he actually did shout from “This is for Britain. Britain will always come first!” to just “Britain First!” to make it look like he was somehow involved with the tiny right wing group of the same name.
There is a pattern here. In cases where the offender can be painted as in any way motived by patriotism or right wing politics those motivations are put under a microscope and put centre stage. On the other hand, when an attacker is motivated by the Religion of Peace this is downplayed or outright ignored. Reports of the stabbing of three gay men in Reading last year said the attacker shouted something “unintelligible”. It was not until later that the fact he was shouting “Allah hu Akbar!” was disclosed, his Libyan origins were likewise not disclosed until they were thoroughly established (and the initial interest had died down). His unstable mental state was played up, his Islamism played down. The standards are distinctly double.
We have very little to go on so far in this case, and it may well prove to be that religion and/or politics played no part in this tragedy, but I doubt it. I’m a simple sort who, when he sees a flash of lighting, expects thunder and prepares for rain.
The very high level of similarity of the physical circumstances of deaths of Jo Cox and David Amess will give us a good chance to weigh up these double standards applied to the motivations with some accuracy.
Similarly the death of a sitting MP necessitates a by-election, as MPs are in one party or another, but they are elected as individuals. The parties don’t get to jus nominate a successor. When Jo Cox was murdered the Conservatives and Lib Dems did not stand candidates out of deference to the circumstances of her death, which was a departure from previous practice. I am waiting with baited breath to see if the Conservatives will receive the same consideration.