October 14, 2004
BUCK UP
Bigley's fate (The Spectator, October 16th, 2004)
The soccer international between England and Wales last Saturday managed to display in an instant two of the most unsavoury aspects of life in modern Britain. A request by the authorities for a minute’’s silence in memory of Mr Ken Bigley, the news of whose murder by terrorists in Iraq had broken the previous day, was largely and ostentatiously ignored. Yet the fact that such a tribute was demanded in the first place emphasised the mawkish sentimentality of a society that has become hooked on grief and likes to wallow in a sense of vicarious victimhood. There had been a two-minute silence for Mr Bigley that same morning in Liverpool, according him the same respect offered annually to the million-and-a-half British servicemen who have died for their country since 1914.No one can make light of the appalling fate suffered by the hostage. His imprisonment, his witnessing of the shocking murders of his two fellow hostages and his own hideous decapitation by the psychopathic criminals who kidnapped him provide an object lesson in human depravity and barbarity. But we have lost our sense of proportion about such things. There have, as a correspondent to the Daily Telegraph pointed out this week, been no such outbreaks of national mourning whenever one of our brave soldiers is killed serving his country in Iraq.
Now, part of the disproportionate convulsion of grief for Mr Bigley is prompted by the assertion that the Prime Minister has the hostage’s ‘‘blood on his hands’’. That is nonsense. None of us can say with perfect confidence how we would behave in such circumstances, and facing such psychological pressures, but in so far as Mr Bigley chose to blame Tony Blair or the British government, he was wrong. Only those who killed him have blood on their hands. The truth is that Ken Bigley sought to make a living by undertaking work in one of the most dangerous areas on the planet. He went there against the express advice of the Foreign Office. He chose to live with a pair of Americans and seemed unconcerned about his personal security. His motives and misjudgments do not lessen the horror and injustice of his death; but they should, without lessening our sympathy for him and his family, temper the outpouring of sentimentality in which many have engaged for him. It is a form of behaviour that was kick-started in this country after the death of an even more ambiguous figure, the late Diana, Princess of Wales. As a manifestation of our apparently depleted intelligence and sense of rationality, it bodes extremely badly for this country.
Mr Bigley might not have read the last entries in Captain Scott’s journals, but they have a resonance for him: ‘‘We took risks. We knew that we took them. Things have turned out against us. Therefore, we have no cause for complaint.’’ Captain Scott’s mentality used to be the norm for chancers and adventurers. Now, after generations of peace and welfarism, and in a society where the blame and compensation cultures go hand in hand, our modern-day buccaneers seem determined to go about their activities not merely unprepared for the likely consequences, but indignant about them. It is time we recognised that, in such a situation, it is not a breach of natural justice that the Lone Ranger does not come galloping over the horizon; it is exactly how life is. In our maturity as a civilisation, we should accept that we can cut out the cancer of ignorant sentimentality without diminishing, as in this case, our utter disgust at a foul and barbaric act of murder.
Conservatives tend to be a little blind to how thoroughly progressive thinking has co-opted pop psychology and won over the support of many apolitical folks on emotional grounds alone. Thank goodness the overwhelming military might is with those fighting the terrorists. It is right and fitting to give full honour and ceremony to those who make the supreme sacrifice, but one does worry about the fibre of people who can’t suffer one stranger’s death without becoming confused about who is to blame, summoning grief counselors and littering public squares with flowers and teddy bears.
Posted by Peter Burnet at October 14, 2004 6:07 PMIsn't it that how thoroughly pop psychology has co-opted progressive thinking? In the past, progressives were pretty bloody minded.
Posted by: David Cohen at October 14, 2004 6:23 PMCan you say "Horst Wessel"?
Instead of a rallying point, it becomes a weeping point.
It's right up there with "candle light vigils"
Bruno
Posted by: BB at October 14, 2004 6:28 PMDon't worry about it, this phenomena is self-correcting. These idiots are free to indulge in public sentimentality and moral equivalence because they feel safe to do so. They feel utterly immune to the threat of Islamic barbarism, once that threat becomes real to them they'll clamour for the terrorists to be annialated without mercy. They are selfish, weak-minded, cowardly and venal, in other words, human.
Posted by: Amos at October 14, 2004 10:05 PMGood article. Makes the point more coherently than Steyn's pulled piece.
Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at October 15, 2004 4:37 AMHow thoroughly the Marxist canard as to who exactly is a "progressive" has contaminated our discourse. Leftists are anti-progress. Their ideas are reactions agaist all the progress mankind has achieved through the ages.
Posted by: Lou Gots at October 15, 2004 3:34 PM"He chose to live with a pair of Americans ... His motives and misjudgments do not lessen the horror and injustice of his death"
What was he thinking??? Living with Americans!!!
Posted by: Tom at October 16, 2004 9:40 AMSorry, that was me. I'm no longer channelling Tom Daschle.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at October 16, 2004 9:41 AM