On the meaning of white terrorism

Let’s try again, shall we?

Friday’s column at the Dot seems to have struck a chord. Sadly it didn’t strike this new fan dumb.

Bless.

The article’s original title – mine – asked ‘If Elliot Rodger had been a jihadist, would we saying the same things?’ My reference to him in the text (actually Molly Crabapple’s) as a white terrorist is the one time I explicitly name him a terrorist. And ‘white terrorist’, more than just a terrorist who’s white, implies an ideologue who kills in public to intimidate but is too middle-American to be acknowledged as political.

One serious concern does deserve clarification. I’ve supported Rodger’s labelling as a terrorist because I think he was as much one as Mohammad Sidique Khan, ringleader of the 7/7 bombers, or any such figure. The t-word brought to life the War on Terror’s bogeymen, enabling civil liberties crackdowns and overseas deployments. Using it uncritically risks bolstering authoritarians, and I know that – my hope is that we do so here with a sense of irony, to expose the inconsistency of ‘anti-terror’ rhetoric.

When I say Elliot Rodger was a terrorist, I’m not just critiquing failures to place him in context: I’m arguing the word, at least as used in recent years, was never meant to include (gun)men like him, despite their being much like their more comfortably alien counterparts. I’m not trying to commandeer paranoid fears of terror threats for progressives – I’m trying to destabilise them.

Gitsupportthisblog

GiTwhyinowhaveadonatebutton

GiTfollowthisblogonfacebook

A shaggy dog (s)tory: MP responds to right-of-protest letter with ‘dangerous dogs’ concern

Some weeks ago I signal-boosted Jonathan Lindsell’s excellent, incisive commentary on media rape culture.

He’s written on a range of other topics at Haywire Thought, Liberal Conspiracy and other places – including, the day before that, the further erosion of Britons’ right to protest in a post which ought to have made more waves than it did.

After writing it, Jonathan in his own words ‘calmed down and wrote a measured, balanced, meticulously-researched open letter‘ to his Member of Parliament, Conservative Jeremy Wright – also Minister for Prisons and a lawyer by training – which set out at length the horrifying details of the forthcoming Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill.

On being sent this letter, Wright sent back the following.

Dear Mr Lindsell,

Thank you for contacting me about the recent consultation on maximum prison Sentences for Dog Attacks Causing Injury or Death.

Dog attacks can be terrifying and I believe that we should have appropriate penalties to punish those who allow their dog to injure people while out of control. Ministers recently announced changes to the Dangerous Dogs Act as partof the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. Those measures including extending the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to private property and providing protection from prosecution for householders whose dogs attack intruders in the home.

I believe that the measures that the Government is introducing are a proportionate, measured response that will improve the way in which irresponsible dog ownership is addressed and help to prevent further attacks. In particular, the provisions in the Bill already deal with exactly the type of problems that would be dealt with by dog control notices.

I am pleased that the Government undertook a conseultation before the next Parliamentary stage of the Bill, on a change to the maximum sentence for allowing an aggravated dog attack, namely where a person or an assistance dog is injured or killed by a dog. The Government will consider all responses and issue a response taking in to account the points raised. I do not wish to prejudge the outcome of the consultation as I believe this process is the best avenue to allow interested parties to raise their concerns regarding the specific policy.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.

Yours sincerely, Jeremy Wright MP

To quote Jonathan’s post about this:

My criticisms of the ASBCP bill [prizes for anyone who can make a catchy acronym] were:

  • the bill made it near-impossible to get compensation for miscarriage of justice
  • the bill’s IPNAs [super-ASBOs] gave police too much power with too much subjective discretion
  • the bill’s  PSPOs [dispersal orders] threatened legal protest and freedom of assembly
  • the bill contributed to a general lurch towards heavy-handed state supervision

My criticisms did not include:

  • unicorn horn shape and size safety regulations’ cross-compliance with EU Directive 1998/238A.
  • the war in Syria.
  • oliphaunts rampaging around Harad.
  • dogs.

I had taken quite a lot of time to verify these criticisms, I didn’t just complain to make a good blog. My blogs don’t get the hits or income to justify that. I had read the minutes of committee meetings and the wording of the draft bill itself, which is bloody tedious. I had talked to lawyers and read human rights groups’ scrutiny of the bill. I linked to all of these, which is part of the reason I sent a companion email (and I explained as much in the letter). All of my criticisms were at least valid enough to deserve an actual response.

Yes, quite: it’s rather uninspiring, if also unsurprising, that writing to one’s MP might garner a reply like this. (At least it got a reply at all.) What kind of world are we living in where parliamentarians neglect even properly to read constituents’ concerns – the kind perhaps in which a good many, dare I say it, aren’t interested in representing us?

Read Jonathan’s blog post for more. The whole thing’s barking.