It’s 10 years since nail-bomber David Copeland brought terror to London. During a 13-day bombing campaign he targeted the black community in Brixton, the Asian community in Brick Lane and gay people in Soho. His bombs killed three, including a pregnant woman, and injured over 100.
Copeland’s case is interesting to consider in the face of the threat of 21st century Islamic terror and our response to it.
There was no anguished handwringing about the “root causes” of Copeland’s terrorism or suggestions we engage with the far right. No middle-class lefties marched through London waving ‘We’re All David Copeland Now’ banners. Nobody said it was “all our fault” that he bombed us, no serious people tried to make him a martyr. We caught him, tried him, jailed him and let him rot into obscurity.
That’s the way to deal with all terrorism. Where did we lose that clarity?
Ah Yes, but what you have to remember is that Copeland acted alone and once caught was powerless to intimidate.
The terrorists today (we are not even allowed to call them that)have millions of followers in every corner of the globe only too ready to intimidate and hold the world to ransom if their “martyrs” are jailed.
Very true. I still believe that the basic template of how we responded to Copeland is far closer to how we should respond to all terrorism, though.
I agree with you completely, Chas. Copeland was handled like any other criminal was, and, in so doing, his “terrorism” was belittled. By raising the terrorists of today to their treasured pedestals, we undermine our own values and allow them to set the political/social agenda.
20th century response to terrorism: terrorists have bombed people – they’re the bad guys.
21st century response to terrorism: terrorists have bombed people – we’re the bad guys.
I’m not sure who you mean by the “we” that lost “that clarity” but the US and the UK and others invaded two countries on account of the terrorist atrocities of 9/11. I’m not aware that any country was invaded on account of Copeland’s atrocities. Of course, if “we” were Israel “we” would have demolished his family’s house and possibly killed a far larger number of civilians in his neighbourhood than he killed but “we” didn’t do that. Are you suggesting that “we” should have? Of course, if Copeland was a Palestinian “we” would have already killed quite a lot of his compatriots and exiled many more before he did what he did.
When there have been terrorist attacks in the UK by islamists the perpetrators have been pursued, brought to book and in most cases, if they weren’t suicide bombers, put away. So who exactly has lost their clarity here? What are you talking about?
9/11 led to two wars both of which are still in progress since 2001 and 2003 respectively. Other terrorist offences have been punished with the full force of the law in both the US and UK just as the Copeland case was except that the Copeland case wasn’t used as an excuse for house demolitions, aerial bombardment and foreign wars as was 9/11 and other examples of islamist violence. Again I ask, what are you talking about?
Copeland committed racist and homophobic terrorist atrocities and yet only he was prosecuted, not his village, town, tribe, nation, religion, gender or sexuality group. Not quite the case with islamists whose communities are demonised by government and in the media without any context offered for their actions as if they are in the blood.
I don’t think you are asking for western governments to go more lightly on islamists but then who can know what you are saying unless they are followers of your blog? If you’re relying on people knowing where you stand on these things, you need to consider the passing trade who might take your words at face value when that might not be what you intend at all.
The left is saying that terrorist offences should be treated as criminal offences and that they should be prosecuted just as Copeland was. It’s the western establishment, supporters of the so-called war on terror and a ragbag of zionists who argue that islamists should receive special treatment, no one else.
Regarding understanding the motivation for violence, the courts do seek and get reports on these things and I’m sure Copeland was no exception.
So again again (or is it again again and again) I ask what are you calling for here that isn’t being done by the powers that be already?
At face value, it could be that you are asking that “we” treat the communities from which other terrorists come in the same way as “we” treated Copeland’s community or communities depending which layer or layers of identity “we” decide to emphasise but the problem is, that as a preacher to the converted, you lacked clarity.
So what is it you want vis a vis terrorism from other quarters? My guess is that you want a blanket statement that no matter how many people are killed unjustly to maintain western global hegemony and zionist regional hegemony in the middle east, no one should suggest that this is a major or legitimate source of grievance.
But then you’re a professional writer, would you have really made such a hash of a call for greater repression and censorship without question in such a clumsy way as you seem to have?
Where did you lose that clarity? Or did you never have it?