Grieve and grievances

Dominic Grieve, the new Shadow Home Secretary, is a decent chap. He’s also extremely sharp and, as a public prosecutor in a previous life, has prosecuted an impressive range of individuals and organisations.

But his claim in 2005 that he thought the 7/7 London bombings were “totally explicable” – comments brought to light by The Spectator in the past few days – should be of concern to all of us. “Explicable”, of course, isn’t the same as “justifiable”, but it’s not a kick in the shirt off it either. Motivation can always be explained. Myra Hindley, Harold Shipman, Peter Sutcliffe – their actions were, arguably, “explicable” if one takes account of the various psychological assessments that have tried to plumb the depths of these particular individuals’ minds.

But look at what Grieve also said in his 2005 comments. The 7/7 bombings were “totally explicable” because (and these are indirect comments): “of the deep sense of anger over the Iraq war, a wider despair about the Islamic world and what Muslims saw as a ‘decadent’ western society.”

I don’t deny that among British muslims there is anger at what has happened in Iraq, the ongoing situation in Israel and the denial of basic human rights by muslim regimes in the Middle East. But such anger can hardly be used as justification of murder.

And yes, there is resentment by some muslims at what they see as the west’s decadence. In fact, it seems that this, more than foreign policy, is the motivation for feelings of violence towards British citizens. It provided the motivation of the terrorists of 9/11. But such anger at moral standards are religiously inspired and, while important to the holders of those views themselves, they can never – should never – be addressed by government.

It is this point that most concerns me about Grieve’s views. By acknowledging anger at “decadent western society”, he seems to be suggesting that such grievances can be addressed. For the minority of British muslims who believe Islamism is the answer, acknowledging such grievances is never going to be enough. And addressing them in any way is out of the question, since that would represent an unacceptable compromise of liberality and tolerance.

PS (at 10.30pm). Just had a suggestion from a contributor responding to this post over at LabourHome that I’m accusing Dominic of seeking to justify terrorism. For the avoidance of doubt (and apologies if I didn’t make this clear enough) that’s not what I’m doing, and neither would I ever make such a suggestion. The point of this post is to warn against seeking to appease extremists.



Filed under Conservative Party, Media, Politics, Society

2 responses to “Grieve and grievances

  1. Andrew F

    Hm, good post, and I agree with the substantive point you’re making. However, I don’t see how Grieve’s quote speaks to anything other than factual motive (as you describe in the second paragraph):

    “Dominic Grieve, the shadow attorney general, said few politicians yet appreciated the sense of anger and alienation felt by many Muslims in Britain. He said the London suicide bombings were “totally explicable” because of the deep sense of anger over the Iraq war, a wider despair about the Islamic world and what Muslims saw as a “decadent” western society.”

    All of that’s true, and all of that should be understood by the politicians who have to deal with Islamic fundamentalism as part of their job. Where does he imply that we should seek to correct our decadence? Surely you recognise the importance of understanding your enemy’s objectives, even if you would never appease them.

    Say that we’re playing chess, and you are trying to attack my Queen. I would doubtlessly have no intention of letting you take it; nevertheless, knowing that it is your medium-term aim to do so gives me an advantage in the short-term. That just seems like basic strategy.

    With regards to the other motive Grieve finds for 7/7, the Iraq war, I think it’s a little hypocritical for us to dismiss its consideration as immoral appeasement. The war was part of our foreign policy. In what sense is foreign policy not about appeasement?! We regularly modify our moral standards in order to keep the peace. It’s not like we’re about to send troops into China and demand they sort out their human rights situation. Why? Because we would get nuked off the face of the earth. Therefore, we’re appeasing a tyrranous regime. How awful.

    I don’t see how it’s any different to consider the young muslims we’re likely to radicalise before we go crusading after phantom-missiles in the Middle East.

  2. Robert

    Then why not have a free vote, whoops forgot nothing free under New labour. sorry forgot.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s