A member of the British Parliament, Jo Cox, has been assassinated by a man inflamed by the recent Brexit chaos — he shouted “Britain first!” when he was arrested. The media is reporting on the case now. I’ll bet you’ve heard this familiar refrain before.
The man being held in connection with the death of MP Jo Cox has been named as Thomas Mair, who was described as a “loner” with a history of mental health problems…
Loner. Mentally ill. Yeah, that’s it. Explains everything.
No, it doesn’t.
These are the words of convenience used to exempt a person from criticism of his particularly dangerous ideology. The media will not consider that a far right political stance might have led someone to violence, so they strategically deploy the “mentally ill” excuse.
But this reporter didn’t even seem to read their own article. A little further down the page, they report on an interview the murderer gave years ago.
In 2011, Mair spoke of how he had volunteered to work as a groundsman at the nearby Oakwell Hall County Park, which had helped ease his mental health problems.
He told a local newspaper: “I can honestly say it has done me more good than all the psychotherapy and medication in the world. “Many people who suffer from mental illness are socially isolated and disconnected from society, feelings of worthlessness are also common mainly caused by long-term unemployment.
“All these problems are alleviated by doing voluntary work. Getting out of the house and meeting new people is a good thing, but more important in my view is doing physically demanding and useful labour.
Does that sound crazy to you? He was feeling isolated and disconnected, thanks to a social attitude that resorts to blaming mental illness for all kinds of unrelated problems. And here’s a reporter doing the same thing!
Then, of course, you’ve got to interview the neighbors to find out what kind of juicy deranged things the killer had been doing.
Kathleen Cooke, 62, said: “I am really shocked. He walked past my house this morning and said hello like he always does. He was wearing a grey T shirt and his white baseball cap like he always does and he was carrying a small rucksack.
“He is just a quiet bloke who keeps himself to himself. “He is very helpful and he helps local people with their gardens. There is one neighbour who is a bit frail and he keeps her garden tidy. He has helped me cut my hedge a couple of times.
“He has lived here for 40 years and has never been in any trouble and has never caused any trouble. He sometimes used to shout at the local kids if they played too near his house but that is fairly normal.
A quiet bloke who helps elderly neighbors with their gardens? INSANE. They should have seen all the signals right there.
How about a different story. Here was a lonely fellow, isolated and vulnerable, and what probably happened instead is that he was poisoned by an evil ideology.
Despite being born in Kilmarnock, Scotland, a decade-old website posting identified Mair as a subscriber to S. A. Patriot, a South African magazine that was published by the pro-apartheid group, the White Rhino Club.
The club describes the magazine’s editorial stance as being against “multi-cultural societies” and “expansionist Islam”. A blog post attributed to the group, dated January 2006, described Mair as “one of the earliest subscribers and supporters of S. A. Patriot.”
Racism, and anti-immigrant and specifically anti-Muslim bigotry, fed by a hate organization — that’s what led Mair to murder, not “mental illness”.
You don’t get to label Mair as dangerously insane unless you’re also ready to label these attendees at a Trump rally as “mentally ill”.
The best way to decide if he is mentally ill is to wait until he has spoken to some psychiatrists. Although it is easy to understand how people get confused between acts that seem unfathomable and the perpetrator having to be mentally ill. Thankfully what Mair has done is beyond most peoples understanding.
Although I agree that the lazy notion that weird acts equal mental illness is not helpful when in reality psychiatrists are working to similar strict diagnostic criteria that all medical specialists use.
mclarenm23:
I don’t think what he has done is remotely beyond most people’s understanding. The problem is a whole lot of people not only approving of what he did, but they’d like to do the same.
I heard about this earlier.
Yeah, this isn’t “beyond understanding”, though it is beyond acceptable to most,
Unfortunately, the people to whom it’s not are the same ones a “Brexit” appeals to.
(Also, I now feel terrible for laughing so hard this morning about the “Brexit navel battle”. D:)
He was an alleged ‘loner’ with links to a pro-apartheid group:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/jo-cox-dead-thomas-mair-suspect-south-africa-apartheid-a7086426.html
Oh good, it’s all about him. MP is murdered – is side note in own story.
That last was more at the quoted article than this, btw. I just hate that they’ve got so much about him, and she gets her entire political career summed up in a couple of short paragraphs.
I do wonder to what extent this blaming of mental illness for ideologically-inspired violence IS an American malady, but one that has spread to at least some of our media here in the UK thanks to our continuing exposure to your gun violence debate.
It seems to me that we take altogether too many cues from across the pond in our framing of these issues. It would be somewhat peculiar if we didn’t, given that when we report on your mass shootings we also report on the debate and feelings in US society that they lead to. That the Torygraph in particular should borrow from the US right-wing playbook here doesn’t surprise me.
Mind you, I must stand up for much of the rest of the British media. The BBC coverage, which has been pretty much continuous since it happened, has mentioned the speculations on Mair’s mental health, but has focused overwhelmingly on his possible links to far-right groups and probable ideological motives. There is little doubt over here that the murder has political and ideological implications. Indeed, all campaigning on the EU membership referendum has been suspended in the immediate aftermath, by common agreement of all parties. That simply would not have happened if there wasn’t a general agreement that this murder is intimately wound up with the feelings raised by the debate. For contrasts, did the Orlando massacre cause Trump and the American right to cease making inflammatory statements about muslims for a few days?
It was mentioned several times on the BBC news that the last time a serving MP was murdered it was the responsibility of the IRA in the 80s. That’s the context we grew up with for political murders in this country, and that’s the paradigm we have viewed it as. If it were not a politician, however, we may well have been keener to blame mental health. It was a long time ago, but I seem to vaguely recall that it was an easy grasp when Dunblane happened. We’re certainly no more enlightened as people than you are, and no less prone to self-serving bigotry.
@7 It’s the No True Scotsman gambit. It allows extremists to deflect blame and attention away from themselves, and gives them an opening against those who criticize this maneuver.
Thanks PZ.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has obtained documents showing the murderer was a financial supporter of the U.S. white supremacist group, the National Alliance.
My thoughts on the mental illness angle:
1. We don’t yet know the extent of the shooter’s mental state. He clearly has had mental illness in the past and sought treatment for it — which is true for about 20% of the population in any modern Western country so is hardly an explanation of his actions.
2. Even if his mental illness contributed to the shooting, that does not negate the effect of toxic cultural beliefs. If someone is unable to make rational decisions, there will still be cultural reasons behind any specific delusion. Think your brain is controlled by aliens? Nobody ever thought that before alien invasion science fiction stories were written, especially the paranoid sub-genre from the 1950s on. Think the CIA is out to get you? Nobody believed that before its founding in 1947. Believe that white supremacy is under threat, like this shooter? Well, while racism is old as time, the essential tenets of white supremacy didn’t exist before the 17th century. In short, even if the shooter turns out to be unwell to the point of legal mental incompetence, this particular constellation of horrific beliefs plus the motivating force to turn that into violent action is entirely a product of some of the more despicable aspects of our culture.
Robert Westbrook @ 10:
Oh gods, NA, one of the worst of the worst. Back in the day, the most powerful, too. Unfortunately, their books still sell in high numbers, especially The Turner Diaries.
@12 Caine:
I remember them well. That book, when mentioned by anyone I ever came across, became an instant crackpot signifier.
The events of today have just been heartbreaking. She seemed, by all accounts, a truly wonderful and selfless person. She had a bright future in politics and could have made a difference for many people if she’d been allowed to life out her life. Not to mention her husband and children will grow up with this wound that will never truly heal.
AFP reports the story quite differently than the anglo press:
http://www.lapresse.ca/international/europe/201606/16/01-4992737-meurtre-de-la-deputee-jo-cox-le-suspect-est-un-partisan-neo-nazi.php
Short translation: Cox was a white supremacist according to the SPLC, and yelled “Britain First” while murdering an MP who was active in diversity and helping Syrian refugees. His brother says he had mental health issues and wasn’t political.
The story just lets that contradiction stand, but the implication is pretty clear that you can largely ignore what the brother said.
Numerobis:
Jo Cox was the murdered MP. Thomas Mair was the murderer.
So the British press didn’t do such a bad job it seems.
Could it be that a shooter has a particularly dangerous ideology and is also a loner with a history on mental health problems. Not mutually exclusive these terms. It would seem the Orlando shoots is fits both. I wonder how many shooters are mentally disturbed. Probably a great many.
Caine@15: yikes, terrible proofreading on my part, not sure how that happened.
We should actually be across the narrative at this point:
– white people with right wing views who commit crimes are mentally ill, and it NEVER has anything to do with idealogy/gun laws
– brown people who commit crimes are terrorists and it’s all about Islam
Mike in Melbourne wrote:
And daring to mention that incongruity means for some reason. This is usually combined with accusations of SJWism, reactionary leftism, or everyone’s new favorite non-word “cuck”.
More on topic, however, hopefully this bit of domestic terrorism by Mair will have the opposite effect than what he was hoping for. The CBC story (via Reuters) seems to cover much of who Jo Cox was and what she worked for in her life.
A quote from her husband, Brendan:
hotspurphd #16
So, Doctor. What is your diagnosis?
“mentally disturbed” is it bit vague for a medical opinion.
here we go again trying to make destinktions (sp?) between mental illness
Delusion
Illusion
seems to me that many political idea and of course bigotry and racism would fit in lists of things that share these characteristics. so would creationists and the various forms of fundamentalist religious belief .
about the only attribute that is possibly in question is the term abnormal. There is not an objective standard I am aware of that would cover religious or political belief, It seems to be more of a statistical type of measure given normal is often just a stand-in for average in usage.
It has been normal to believe that African Negros were seen by the average citizen as not in any way equal to Europeans and it is still a extremely common belief. God created earth in 7 days?
Now we have a major political party candidate saying things that are almost completely divorced from realty and facts (I have no way of assessing if he really believes any of it) and we have his followers believing it.
it all gets a little blurry out here in the real world. It is acceptable to believe things that are demonstrably un-true, if you share your beliefs (delusions) with a large enough group of people you are not suffering from mental illness? even if that belief causes harm to you or others. if your group is big enough (or you win the war) good on yah.
if your group is smaller than it is most likely just a cult of some kind while still being just as un-true and counter to all evidence,
If it is only you or your delusions are not really connected to any others than you are clearly insane
if you hold beliefs that are based on evidence and reality that are not shared by a much larger parcentage of the population you may be safely branded as delusional or worse and dismissed at the very least if not condemned.
or so it looks to me. am I insane or does it not look that way to anyone else.
uncle frogy
Dude’s white and presumably christian, probably C of E. If he were a minority or Islamic person of any race, would we even be having this conversation? No. MMark would be here talking about how dangerous Muslims are and how uniquely evil Islam is because it leads people to do things like this. The papers would all be talking about the terrorist who killed an MP.
Also note that the perpetrator in this case apparently had to make his own gun. Result: one death and one further injury. If he’d been able to go down to the nearest Walmart and pick up an assault rifle, how many people might he have killed?
From the reports I’ve seen Jo Cox was my kind of MP: she was elected a year ago and had got into politics to make a difference, not as a career politician or for the power. She had done extensive work for Syrian refugees and seemed well regarded by her constituents. She will be missed.
….and in case anyone is unaware: ‘Britain First’ is the name of a far right organisation that the killer may well be affiliated with, or at the very least had sympathy with. This is why the media speculation is that it’s not just the ‘Brexit’ that was the killer’s trigger, but that he had general far right views.
A guy with documented links to various far-right, explicitly racist organisations murders a left-wing, pro-immigration, pro-EU MP in the final week of an EU referendum campaign which has been mainly fought on fears about immigration, whilst shouting a jingoistic slogan which is also the name of our leading far-right, anti-immigration neo-Nazi group, who have long been calling on their supporters to take to the streets in “militant direct action”. Yeah, that’s totally not political…
Der Spiegel is reporting that the perpetrator had a history of supporting neo-Nazi groups. “Not political” my ass! This man is a political terrorist, pure and simple.
Well whadayyathink. People with mental illnesses are just like anybody else. Who would have thought.
Sorry for my sarcasm, but I’ve been working in the clients movement for years, and it troubles me how easily the media (as well as many other people) contribute to preconceived opinions about people with mental disabilities.
Cox seems like the kind of MP many if us appreciate and respect. Great Britain needs more of her kind.
The Guardian isn’t mincing any words in its editorial about the attack.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/16/the-guardian-view-on-jo-cox-an-attack-on-humanity-idealism-and-democracy
Excellent editorial, dianne.
Oh great. So we can shift the blame from “it was mental illness” to “he has been poisoned by the evil ideology of apartheid”. Explains everything. No it doesn’t.
I fail to see to how the Brexit debate can be linked to Apartheid, but that is searching for a cause for conflict, not for the reason murder was used as perceived resolution. Assassinations, wars, terrorism, murder by any name is not exactly a new idea to resolve conflict.
Truth of the matter is that it is not just an American Malady, but a crime we are all capable of, ingrained in almost every human culture around the world.
In the UK its all over the news, and most of it is focusing on his motivations and possible links to Britain First- it was trending on twitter as well. It is being reported as being politically motivated, not sure what point is trying to be made here.
It’s the first MP assassinated since 1922 not funded by the USA!
Just a few kilometers from where I work in Morley, Leeds. Appalled by it all.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36558386
Leading story on the bbc, its pretty much identical to how the stories are covered when it is an islamic attack- the relative saying its completely out of character and the reports of links to extremist groups (right wing in this case).
Cameron and Corbyn are to make a joint appearance in the constituency, to pay tribute to Cox. And the tories have announced that they won’t stand in the byelection, essentially guaranteeing that the seat won’t change parties.
@Moggie, that’s pretty much standard operating practise in such circumstances. Fortunately and thankfully, it’s not one that has had to be adhered to with any great regularity in this country. Though of course even once is once too many with the last being the IRA’s bombing of Ian Gow in 1990
Just for some background: This is what’s happening in the UK right now. This is the political climate in which this happened. An elected official being threatened with “direct action” and labelled “occupier” for being kind of swarthy and pretty muslim.
Peter Brand
Well, we’re not responsible for your personal failures, are we?
If you don’t see how the viciously racist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant, especially anti-refugee white supremacist campaign of Britain First and many other pro Brexit groups links up with Apartheid white supremacist ideology you’re either willfuly ignorant or just horribly underinformed.
You’re mad if you think you can pronounce on the true motive behind this murder, simply by saying “A, therefore B”. “He was a bigot and belonged to a hate organization; ergo is it not plain as day that his bigotry and hatred was the reason he committed murder?”
No, because the majority of bigoted, hateful people do not commit murder. The hatred and bigotry are perhaps a necessary component of the reasons he did this, but by themselves they are an insufficient explanation.
What you are doing is rushing to judgment and using this murder to try validating your own ideology. That’s exploitation of a gruesome event and the strong emotional reactions that people are having to it. I expected better of you.
So his bigotry and hatred was not the reason he committed murder?
Then what was?
Mental illness? Many people with mental illnesses do not commit murder.
His gender? Many people who identify as male do not commit murder.
His nationality? Many people from the UK do not commit murder.
You do not think that there is one reason, is there? His bigotry and hatred sure as fuck are his main motive.
At the very least, his bigotry and hatred have informed his choice of target.
When someone attacks a politician who opposes xenophobic policies while shouting xenophobic phrases, I think it is safe to assume that he is motivated by bigotry and xenophobia. What made him attack when the average xenophobe contents themselves with voting UKIP might be a question, but there is no real question about his motives for the attack.
@rietpluim #40
I’m not going to commit the same fallacy as you are and presume to know what the reasons were. That finding must be the result of a criminal investigation, not the ranting of a mob going with the first reason that pops into their minds because of their ideologies.
Perhaps then it’s unfair from now on to be skeptical of the claims of psychics to read the minds of other people, as you’ve clearly been in communication with the thoughts of the murderer.
So, you would condemn someone to prison or death while leaving what “might be a question” open? As I said, the bigotry and hatred are perhaps components, but they are not themselves sufficient to explain why the murdered crossed the line into deadly action. What “might be a question” is the essential determinant of why he went so far as he did while others do not. You can’t downplay that.
I meant to type “why the murderer crossed this line”.
What about your idiotology? Are you biased?
Just like we should be skeptical of YOUR claims sneering the obvious. What an evidence based thinker you aren’t.
@44: Um…what? I’d condemn him to prison, if convicted, for shooting another human being to death. I would not condemn any UKIP voter to same for voting UKIP, though I think that if Britain has a Verfasssungsschutz they should look into Britain First and possibly UKIP and determine whether they are legal or not. Based on Gileill’s link, they should like a hate group.
bresson, #43
Are you disregarding completely the reports that he shouted “Britain first”?
But only because the murderer shouted “Britain First” we must not assume that all members of Britain First are to blame for the deed. Blaming the actions of an individual on the whole group would be unfair, wouldn’t it?
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/britain-first-angry-entire-group-being-tarnished-by-one-man-fail-to-see-the-irony–bylAyAGqI4Z
@Nerd #46
I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at here, other than an ad hominem attack. Am I biased? Toward not presuming to know what motivated a person to commit murder. The bigotry and hatred are the context of the crime, but not the sufficient motivation to take action. Otherwise, every bigot and xenophobe would do the same thing.
Your claim to be an evidence-based thinker reminds me of sort of statements that racists make to “prove” their superiority to “obviously” inferior races. After all, they say, just look at them.
@Saad #48
Not at all. However, he’s not the only person who has shouted that. Being for the Brexit for motives of hatred is not sufficient to cause someone to cross the line to being a murderer.
@philo #49
Yes, it would. They must be allowed to express their views, no matter how repugnant they might be to others. If you claim that this group shares responsibility, you are saying that their speech should have been restricted. You are also committing the fallacy of guilt by association: the groups association with the murderer.
is where I grew up – too f$^king close to home.
@philo #49
Following on from my previous comment: Think of the media who interrogate members of muslim communities about why they did not prevent terrorist acts by people who happened to live in those communities. It’s again presuming the guilt of those communities because of their association with (and I mean, the media associating the communities with) the killers simply because a) the killer lived in the community and 2) the killer was muslim.
It’s the same case with this murderer and the “Britain first” groups.
@bresson # 52
Ok. Are we going to apply the same reasoning to Muslims, then? Following your argument, they are not to blame if a few terrorists commit an atrocity in the name of Islam, right?
bresson, #51
Why aren’t you looking at the whole situation?
Someone murders a politician who supported Britain remaining in the EU and then shouts “Britain First”.
It is very reasonable to take a guess at his motives.
@Saad #56
Reasonable to take a guess? Absolutely reasonable.
Reasonable to presume? Not at all reasonable.
Reasonable to presume and go off spouting how bigotry, hatred, and xenophobia are all sufficient to explain the crossing of the line to murder? Definitely not at all reasonable.
@philo #55
As I say in #54, you cannot tar an entire group because of the actions of one or some of their members.
That is presuming the group to be guilty because of their association with those members before those members committed crimes.
Now, it might turn out that a group encouraged a member to commit a crime. However, that would be found out after an investigation.
@bresson #58
I must say I’m not sure anymore what point you are trying to make.
Should the suspect be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a fair trial? Absolutely yes.
Is every single member of ‘Britain First’ (or any other islamophobic hate-group) guilty of inciting murder? Certainly not, and I’m not aware that anyone ever made this claim.
However, the suspect had connections to extreme-right hate groups, he apparently shouted one of their slogans during the attack and his choice of target (a liberal, female MP with a track record of showing empathy for refugees) fits the pattern. Following this evidence, it is reasonable to assume that bigotry played a part in the attack, and hence it is inevitable to look towards those who spouted this bigotry.
If you incite enough hatred from a position of authority, then sooner or later some ‘lone wolf’ will pick up a gun and put your words into action. Some people go so far to call this ‘stochastic terrorism’ (http://stochasticterrorism.blogspot.co.uk/). Propaganda can be a powerful and dangerous tool – think of Nazi-Germany in the 1930s. I take it that you would not argue that Joseph Goebbels was blameless in the antisemitic pogroms?
On the balance of available evidence, it certainly seems possible, indeed likely, that the ever increasingly febrile atmosphere and extreme rhetoric surrounding the so called Brexit movement has contributed directly to the murder of Jo Cox, a sitting MP. Even if no absolute paper trail amounting to an adamantine link between this act of violence and the increasingly extreme nationalistic rhetoric being thrown up by the EU debate can be drawn sufficient to satisfy the more hyperskeptical amongst us, hard questions still need to be asked about how the campaign has been prosecuted by all involved, but especially by the Brexit camp which has littered its referendum materials with racist and xenophobic dog whistles from day one.
Even if this (almost certainly political) murder cannot be laid at the door of Farage and his cronies, the fact remains that when you align yourself with ultra nationalist groups that call for ‘direct action’, and when you appear on national media on a regular basis promoting a narrative of some imagined ‘foreign invasion’ of immigrant groups supposedly innately given to violent and sexual criminality and hell bent on destroying the established British way of life, then the possibility exists that someone out there might take you at your word and act accordingly. Even if Jo Cox did not die as a result of the bigoted and exclusionary rhetoric of UKIP et al, the real possibility certainly remains that others will, and that issue needs to be addressed.
bresson, #57
You’re right. Maybe he didn’t like the color of her shoes.
Bigotry and hatred are regularly sufficient to explain murder. What planet do you live on?
You say “crossing the line to murder” as if bigotry and hatred aren’t common causes of violence.
@phlo #59
@Gregory Greenwood #60
This is reason to make societal changes such as restricting access to firearms, better economic equality, and more, but not for taking away the right to express opinions no matter how repugnant they are to you. Banning the right of a group to express its opinions does nothing to solve problems that contribute to violence. Think of the argument that Muslim terrorists are following an ideology of terror versus the reality of their lives due in large part to social and economic policies of powerful interests, such as the U.S. Suppressing the speech of jihadist imams would less effective, I believe, than changing the policies that lead to desperate people committing hateful crimes.
Again, by societal changes, but not the limiting (and therefore taking away of) freedom of expression.
@Saad #62
You say that as if they are sufficient to cause murder, but haven’t explained why they don’t in most cases. There are far more people who hate others than there are people who both hate others and kill others or the people who support those others.
@bresson #63
You’re building a strawman. I did not claim that ‘Britain First’ have EXACTLY THE SAME power as the Nazis; that is of course nonsense. However, anyone can be an authority figure, if you decide to accept them as such: parents, school teachers, your judo instructor, your local priest etc. And unfortunately a lot of people seem to listen to the likes of ‘Britain First’; to these people, they certainly have authority.
Joseph Goebbels only expressed political opinions; as far as I know, he never laid a hand on anyone. So are you arguing that he is free of guilt?
As for the ‘must not be allowed to do those things’: in some countries (Germany, for one) there are indeed laws against inciting hatred against ethnic groups, and with good reason.
As for the rest: We can never be 100% certain of a person’s motive. This is a trivial observation. However, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and hangs out with other ducks, then assuming it to be a duck is an entirely reasonable hypothesis. Hyper-skepticism might be common on Vulcan, but it’s normally frowned upon on Earth.
bresson, #65
You are really bad at thinking. Perhaps an example will help:
The vast majority of people who say “Allahu akbar” are not religious terrorists. But when a Muslim blows himself up yelling “Allahu akbar” the religious extremism almost certainly is in play.
The above is what happened. Bigotry, hatred and xenophobia almost certainly were the reasons.
bresson
I thought I understood what you were trying to get at but I am not so sure now.
With the reasoning you have so far described I do not see how any other way to take it then as all action taken by an individual is the responsibility of the individual alone because he alone “crossed the line into action” regardless of all the propaganda encouraging such action.
you used the comparison of all Muslims not being responsible for the terrorist’s action. That is a little wide of the mark I think because it seems much closer to say that ISIS or any of the other similar groups bare some responsibility for the action of people who claim adherence and allegiance to the same beliefs and groups and do take action even without any material support from them.
By your argument it sounds like you think that the UK should vote for Brexit and do not want to be tarred with the same brush because you have reasons.
Or is it you are reacting to a perceived “I was just following orders” defense of the assailant?
uncle frogy
Bresson @ 64;
and;
You claim that I have advocated for the removal of the rights of free speech from UKIP or other members of the Brexit camp. Would you care to quote the passage where I made any such demand or claim?
I have said questions need to be asked, and the issue of the risk presented by willfully inflammatory rhetoric addressed – neither or which amounts to a call for repression or the denial of free speech. The issues surrounding the death of Jo Cox shouldn’t just be ignored, and nor should we stick our heads in the sand because its implications are discomforting to you. There is a debate that needs to be had on this topic, but the existence of that debate cannot be shut down by an appeal to free speech. Indeed, it is more than a bit ironic that you are trying to silence a debate on this issue by such an appeal – seeking to use what you claim without evidence is a threat to the free speech of the Brexitiers to restrict the free speech of those who take issue with their campaign tactics.
It is an old shell game, one we have seen here many times before with regard to many other issues. You will need to try harder than that.
@Saad #67
I’ve not said that bigotry, hatred, xenophopia were not “in play”. I’ve said that they are not sufficient to explain why a murderer went further than other people who share the same beliefs.
@phlo #66
When it’s a matter of ascribing motives for crimes, “hyper-skepticism,” as you call it, is the safest attitude to have if we are not to unnecessarily blame and punish other people who might share the same beliefs as the criminals.
@Gregory Greenwood #69
I’m debating an issue with other people, not trying to silence a debate on that issue. You might feel threatened by hearing arguments that oppose your own, but your apprehension is not the same as an attempt to suppress your opinion.
@unclefrogy #68
For people whom ISIS do not materially support or coerce, no, ISIS bears no responsibility. You are claiming a causal connection between speech and action that does not exist. “What I ought to do” does not necessarily follow from “Things are like this.” There are many different actions that I can take in response to something; I might even choose to do nothing. What I choose to do is up to me, not directly caused by anything that is said to me.
bresson, #70
It most likely is sufficient.
Just like people who lynched black people were doing it because of bigotry and hatred despite the fact that the vast majority of racist white people never lynched anybody.
This is simple stuff. You’re being an apologist.
bresson @ 70;
Oh look, no quote. Thanks for making my argument for me. Better luck next time.
@bresson #70
So what about Joseph Goebbels? Is he guilty of anything, or did he just exercise his freedom of speech? Is there enough evidence against the Nazis’ incitement of hatred to overcome your skepticism? Or are we still unsure of the motives of the SS?
Who the fuck cares what an apologist for bigotry says? That is standard apologetics 101 for supporters of bigoted organizations; his trigger doesn’t matter, nor should he be blamed for their bigoted rhetoric, oh so dog whistled, that caused the stress which aided the triggering of his decision to kill.
Yes, it does matter. And the bigotry needs to be called out for what it is. Unacceptable in a civilized society. That doesn’t mean censorship, just ridicule and laughing at their paranoia. Which is what it is. Uncontrolled fear of the black/brown people.
@Saad #71
So, bigotry and hatred were sufficient to cause some people to lynch but not sufficient for others?
This is not simple stuff. People are more complex than you are taking them for.
@Gregory Greenwood #72
I don’t see how I’ve done that. You said I was trying to suppress debate, but I said that your being apprehensive of opposing opinions is not the same as my suppressing of your opinions, which I am definitely not doing. I’m not shouting at people to shut the hell up. I’m promoting a line of argument that says it is better not to presume we can know the motives of murderers, especially since what we learn about them in the media is only a caricature of who they are. Moreover, we can’t presume the guilt of groups who were associated with people who murdered after the association was established.
@phlo #73
This line of questioning is completely irrelevant to the points that I’ve been making. See the last two lines of my comment at #75.
@Nerd #74
It’s arguments, not people, that should be confronted. Sure, it’s more comforting to dismiss categories of people, but that is echoing the bigotry that you are condemning.
at what point does free speech cross over into incitement?
Incitement requires no conspiracy
uncle frogy
Yes, I am bigoted toward bigots and their apologists. Don’t like being on the receiving end, don’t be on the giving end, or apologize for them.
Yep, it is. Your concern trolling is just that, concern/tone trolling.
You haven’t convinced me there is a problem calling out bigotry. What is YOUR real problem?
I’m kind of curious if today is the very first time bresson has heard of Britain First?
Skepticism is important. It is very important. But I’m not going to give KKK members the benefit of the doubt because maybe they’re not promoting racial hatred, and I’m not going to give Britain First members the benefit of the doubt either. Some questions are fairly well settled, and expressing skepticism on them suggests ignorance or deceptiveness. Water is wet, wind is blowy, and Britain First is a racist hate cult.
Also, odd side note – we don’t have the death penalty in the UK… well maybe for treason – I’m not 100% sure on that one, we might still have it for that – so he wouldn’t be sent to his death anyway. And I’m pretty sure his being jailed or not is more likely to be determined by his being found guilty or not guilty – not so much by whether we can find out what his motives were.
Oh, last thing –
False equivalence.
Islam is a religion. Like all religions, I think it is a bad idea and a force for ill in the world, but the reasons for being a Muslim are many and varied. Muslims are tied together by belief in Allah.
Britain First is an organisation set up specifically to oppose foreigners and immigrants – particularly those of a non-white persuasion. It is Bigot Club, and the first rule of Bigot Club is “Muslamics is the enemy!” The reasons for joining Britain First are not particularly varied. It’s basically a choice between a) you’re racist, b) you’re a bigot or c) you’re a racist bigot. Britain Firsters are tied together by hatred of the other.
The defining feature of one is their belief in a god; the defining feature of the other is hatred. You cannot say that it is as unfair to hold Muslims who do not hold to radical ideologies responsible for the actions of other Muslims who do hold to radical ideologies as it is to hold the members of a radical ideology responsible for the actions of the other members of the exact same ideology.
A proper equivalence would be to Al Qaeda, and I damn well hold members of that group responsible for the actions of their fellows.
@bresson #76
On the contrary! This is at the very heart of the matter – do you agree that incitement of racial or ethnic hatred is not covered by freedom of speech?
Or, on an even more fundamental level: Do you have a basic understanding of how human beings interact, or are you some sort of hyper-skeptic Vulcan free-speech fanatic who does not understand that words can do real damage to real people?
I guess the fact that you keep dodging the question is answer enough.
@unclefrogy #77
I don’t presume to know that a priori in all cases, and I don’t think anyone should. As far as I know, it’s a deeply contentious legal area.
@Nerd #78
I haven’t been trying to convince anyone that there is a problem calling out bigotry. As I wrote in comment #75: “I’m promoting a line of argument that says it is better not to presume we can know the motives of murderers, especially since what we learn about them in the media is only a caricature of who they are. Moreover, we can’t presume the guilt of groups who were associated with people who murdered after the association was established.”
@bresson #75
Actually, it is very simple, if only one accepts the fact that people are not machines and hence different people behave differently in the same scenario.
If you infect a sufficiently large group of people with Measles, then some of them will die, even though most will survive. Can we reliably predict who will live and who will die? No – there are risk factors, but there is always an element of unpredictability. Does this imply that Measles are harmless and it’s ok to infect people with them? No.
@phlo #80
False. People can take the same word or words in many different ways. How they take it is up to them. One person might wilt at a racial slur, another might respond with defiance, while another might remain silent. There is no causal correlation between words spoken, yelled, screamed, or otherwise uttered and the reactions of the people who hear them.
The idea that words can do damage leads to the idea that certain speech should be banned. That is an idea that people in power eagerly coopt to preserve their power with a veneer of sympathy. Don’t fear the content; fear the censor. It is also an idea that people disliking the idea of personal autonomy favor. Moreover, it’s condescending to people who are cast as the victims of such words, as if there is nothing they can do but cower when hearing them. Finally, banning such words seems like an easy way to address deeper problems that have led to their expression, but banning will ultimately be ineffective at ending such expression or at fixing those deeper problems. It sure feels good to rage against a cartoonish villain, though.
It doesn’t follow that because people react to words in different ways that words cannot be a causal factor. See: @82’s measles example.
@bresson #83
So you ARE a hyper-skeptical Vulcan free-speech fanatic who lacks a basic understanding of how humans interact and who throws terms like “personal autonomy” around the way monkeys fling their own feces. I think we are done here.
@43 bresson
I’m curious as to what possible result of any criminal investigation you’d consider unassailable in regards to motive. Do crime units have psychics in their employ? Or do they simply make inferences based on the available facts just as we do?
The gold-standard hyperskeptic approach can be wielded just as effectively to pick nits in any formal investigation. Hmm… this killer clearly had a strong profit incentive to kill his wife as indicated by this letter… but not every married man in debt kills his wife, and not every poor person kills to try to escape poverty. We must be cautious not to unnecessarily blame and punish those of a broader group. Therefore, the only safe conclusion that can be drawn is that his motive is an unknowable mystery of the universe and anyone who claims otherwise is an ideologue of one stripe or another simply looking to validate their anti-poor/anti-married men in debt preconceptions.
@Vivec #84
His argument relies on a false analogy of speech with pathogens. I don’t accept that. Pathogens act directly on the things that they are evolved to attack. It’s possible to prevent illness by vaccination against pathogens or other preventative measures. However, though you might ban certain speech, you’ll by no means cure the problems that led to its expression in the first place. Moreover, how a pathogen affects a person is not within the power of that person to decide. How speech affects a person is within that person’s power to decide.
@phlo #85
And there you go painting a caricature of me so that you can feel justified in blowing me off.
@mesh #86
My point is that nobody should presume to know the motive, that learning what it is requires investigation. It wasn’t that investigations are infallible. It’s the mob mentality of rushing to judgment versus the right of the accused to a trial to determine motive via investigation.
OK, and what’s the magic point where we can absolutely declare that we finally reached a totally impartial conclusion grounded solely in all the facts without having rushed to any mob-mentality judgment?
@mesh #89
Again, investigations are not infallible. Court rulings can be controversial and flawed. Evidence can be withheld. Witnesses can lie. Jurors can be biased. However, there is far more chance for justice to be done than there would be if mobs, presuming they know motive, were allowed to judge, convict, and sentence.
But we’re not talking about conviction, we’re talking about what’s in the killer’s heart of hearts. Note that the courts don’t even use this insane hyperskeptic approach. There’s no special tools or secret techniques, no elaborate truth-revealing process, they draw a conclusion for motive based on the available evidence same as “the mob” and fight to support it in court. The police and courts aren’t arbiters of truth that inform us which specific ideologies and policies are responsible for what crimes.
Bresson @ 88:
I don’t see mob mentality at work here. There are rather easy conclusions to reach, such as Mair supporting NA in the U.S. (see #10), and purchasing a number of their books. Anyone even a bit familiar with NA wouldn’t have much difficulty in understanding a good part of Mair’s mindset. It’s an embarrassment to me that U.S. white nationalist bigotry and hate made such an impression on Mair; it’s an embarrassment that those books he bought are allowed to be published and sold at all.
It’s not likely, even after a thorough investigation, that everything will be known about the whys and wherefores of Mair’s actions, no one else can live inside his head to know all that, but that isn’t necessary to parse out basic motivation, either.
What’s of more interest to me is why you are so utterly invested in disavowing any of the more obvious indicators in this case. What is this actually about, as far as you’re concerned?
Certainly, there seems to be even ties to NAZIs in Mair’s past/present.
Evidence beats your hyperskepticism eleven days out of ten. Time to shut the fuck up. You are an embarrassment to your cause.
Uhg. Is bresson really trying to rehabilitate the image of bigots and racists? Okay, then rehabilitate this:
Jayda doesn’t leave much room for interpretation there.
He won, though, didn’t he? What could have been a dsiscussion about fascist violence in Britain, and how the Brexit campaign may have exacerbated such attitudes, became all about one troll.
@mesh #91
The evidence they are able to obtain is likely to be far more thorough and detailed than what the mob is able to obtain.
I never said they were. I’ve said they are not infallible.
@Caine #92
Freedom of expression should not depend on what embarrasses people in the majority opinions. Imagine if you with your current opinions should be in a country where your opinions embarrass all “right-thinking” people there.
I’ve never disavowed them. I’ve consistently said that they themselves are not sufficient to push someone to cross the line to murder. If they were, then anyone who delved into such bigotry and hatred would commit murder.
@Nerd #93
He is alleged to have associated with those groups for years and read those groups for years. Yet, during all of that time, he did not commit murder. If words had the causal power that people on this thread seem to attribute to them, why was there this time delay? What was it that pushed him to commit this heinous crime? You might respond, “Well, the Britain First movement.” He’d been associated with worse groups for far longer, yet had committed no crime. I’m not saying that his bigotry and hatred where not components of his motivation. I’m saying and I’ve said consistently that they are not sufficient to propel him to action like this.
@ck #94
It would be impossible to represent my arguments more grotesquely. What Fransen says is reprehensible, yet of itself cannot be directly responsible for the actions of anyone who hears it. This is not “hyperskepticism,” as is being put forward by people on this thread. This has to do with the lack of causal correlation between “is” and “ought”. I read those words by Fransen and I’m repulsed. They do not cause me to go out and lynch someone. You react with the same repulsion. Others react by speaking out politically against Fransen, while others ignore it and go about their business. Even racists themselves will have differing reactions.
So… business as usual*, basically?
*Ok, that might be overstating it – business as depressingly common, though.
I think the problem bresson is having is that they seem to believe this to be the very first time we have encountered the concept of “ideas.” Yes. Hearing a statement in favour of violence is not sufficient in and of itself to force someone, robot-like, to engage in violence. Congratulations on working that out. Hands up, everyone else, if you needed to be informed of that?
I don’t presume a motive I conclude a motive based on evidence to date. That is SCIENTIFIC. But then, your who bullshitting is short of third party evidence, which makes it totally dismissable. And your word, as a hyperskeptic, is treated to hyperskepticism, as it should be. Either cite real evidence, or shut the fuck up…
Bresson:
Okay. So the fuck what? That does not have jack shit to do with Mair’s motive, which is obviously bigotry based. Those who are bigoted and hatred filled, every day, put out incitement to violence. It’s in their rhetoric, it’s in their beliefs. It’s true that the majority of hate filled bigots are chickenshits who don’t want to put their life on the line, but they are ever hopeful someone else will be stupid enough to do so, and that happens quite often. Acts such as Mair’s function as a form of satisfaction for bigots, and as a rallying point. They also have the effect of emboldening other bigoted idiots.
The fact that every cowardly, hate filled, bully of a bigot doesn’t commit murder sure as fuck does not excuse it in any way whatsoever.
Now, you won’t shut the fuck up, even though you aren’t saying anything. Everyone is past fucking tired of you. I think it might be time to let PZ know you won’t shut the fuck up.
Full goddamn circle…
…bringing us right back to the question of that magic point where it’s no longer rushed judgment. You can lawyer with literally any piece of evidence found and declare that everyone reserve judgment until something else is found. What’s the stopping point, bresson? When can we get off the goddamn merry-go-round and witness our magical ascension from a pitchwork-wielding mob?
…bringing us right back to my implied question of why? Why then should we care what the police and courts have to say since it isn’t their goddamn job to divine some broader source behind a criminal’s thoughts and since they have no higher ability to do so? There’s no thorough breakdown of their complete thought process forthcoming and no piece of evidence which can survive your “skepticism” and outlast your wholly arbitrary statute of limitations for drawing any conclusions from it.
Is there any way to win your game, bresson, beyond awaiting the press conference where they reveal their ironclad smoking gun that neatly ties everything into place proving that the killer action’s were 100% unquestionably motivated solely by mental illness? Or are we just doomed to mob mentality forever on a never-ending treadmill of turning a blind eye to all the evidence we have in eager anticipation of some mysterious final judgment laid down on the matter?
@95
he did get the focus on to himself specifically but his argument did not deflect responsibility for the incitement away from the racist radical right all that well.
the reasoning of nine year olds does not even work with nine year olds
uncle frogy
Bye, Bresson. You seem to be totally refractory to even considering any other opinion than your own, and the kind of obsessive need to reply to every single thing with yet another insistence that you’re right is a sign that you’re not a good one to converse here.
Oh look, I guess we can draw some fairly safe contains as to motive now:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/jo-cox-death-thomas-mair-tells-court-his-name-is-death-to-traitors-freedom-for-britain-a7088851.html
*conclusions. Sorry.
Well we can’t draw any conclusions from that! Maybe that’s just what his name means in Latin!?
There’s no evidence that this means what it obviously means about his motives, without looking at the context, but that’s not allowed because hyper skepticism.
bresson is no longer here to answer, but I will note that they are obviously completely ignorant about UK law:
The UK abolished the death penalty for murder in 1965 other than in northern Ireland, where it was abolished in 1973. The penalty remained on the statute book for treason until 1998, but had not been imposed for that since shortly after World War 2. As for bresson’s freeze peach absolutism, the UK has had laws against incitement to racial hatred for some decades. And the garbage @83:
is both highly offensive to the victims of verbal bullying and hate speech, and mindnumbingly stupid. FFS “no causal correlation” between words and the reactions to them? Why, then, do people bother to speak or write?
I diagnose a severe case of glibertarianism.