The dominant news story over the past few days has been concerning the brutal murder of Ann Widdicombe, formerly a Conservative MP, government minister, later senior member of the Shadow Cabinet and more recently a member of Reform UK. Widdicombe, had also developed a persona outside of politics as a celebrity, making a name for herself on Strictly Come Dancing and I’m a Celebrity, Get me out of here. As someone willing to engage in self-deprecating humour she may even have become, to some extent, a national treasure, though her strong, marmite political views perhaps mitigated against that. In politics, Widdicombe did have a reputation as a conviction politician, willing to speak and stick to her mind. Her position on social and moral issues including abortion, assisted dying and human sexuality were shaped by her Catholic faith.
The initial assumption when the news broke on Friday morning was that she had died from age related ill health. It was a shock therefore to hear later in the afternoon that the police were investigating a potential murder case. Initially, local police insisted that there was no evidence to point to it being a politically motivated killing or terror related. We now know that over the weekend, that view changed. Personally, I don’t blame the police too much for the apparent change. They can only go on the evidence available to them at the time. Perhaps though they weren’t a little too far in seeming to close down options.
What I want to pick up on here though is some of the responses I’ve seen. First, there have been those who have needed to preface their statements of condolences to friends and family with the usual form of words “although I disagreed with her on practically everything ….” My rule of thumb is that if you are going to express condolences, then you should just express them. You don’t need to say anything else, you don’t need to qualify your comments. If you are left-wing or liberal then no-one presumed that when you paid tribute to David Ames that you had suddenly left all your political principles behind. No reasonable person expected a Brexiteer expressing shock, sadness and anger at Jo Cox’s murder was now a remain supporting liberal.
Another form of that kind of language is the words “no one, whatever their views should have to suffer violent murder.” I get the point but the statement should not need to be made (we will come back to that later) and even expressing it in that form risks giving the impression that perhaps there was some potential excuse or justification for wanting violence against Ann Widdicombe. This is particularly true when the tone becomes that in some way, she and her views were detestable.
It’s worth noting that in terms of the things that people seem to have held strongly against Ann Widdicombe, these include first the situation when she defended prison service policy of shacking pregnant women on the way to hospital. There have been a few anecdotal claims circulated as a spin off from that but these seem to be without base. Rather, what we have is an example of a junior minister at the time doing their job and defending the policy. Indeed, in contrast to her then boss and to the general direction of travel in recent years, Widdicombe seemed reluctant to throw civil servants under the bus.
The other things that draw ire and hate include her position on Brexit and immigration but even more so her approach to abortion and to gender/sexuality politics. It’s worth remembering that her position on the latter aligns with her Catholic faith and indeed the long held understanding within Evangelical Christianity too. It Is concerning therefore to read some particularly vitriolic comments to the affect that people hoped her death had been excruciatingly painful, that the world was a better place without her and that if they were not going to celebrate her death, they at a minimum would not be mourning either her passing or the nature of it.
It strikes me that this kind of attitude is deeply concerning because it indicates not just their attitude to one deceased politician but to many others who they would disagree with. It is concerning to see this kind of fault line opening up. It treats people as monsters, it demonises them on the basis of a difference of views.
The hardness and harshness of such positions seem to increase, the less people know the person and the less they know about them beyond specific views communicated. It has been fascinating to hear people who knew Widdicombe and not merely disagreed with her views in theory but, especially in relation to gender and sexuality were directly affected by the policies they disagreed upon. The common testimony seems that Widdicombe distinguished belief/policy from personal and had strong friendships with people who she disagreed with but whose lifestyles she would not have approved of.
Perhaps there is something we can learn from that. It is possible to maintain friendships whilst maintaining convictions. And if that is possible in the wider world then how much more so should it be in the church. At the same time, I think we have had an insight into the reality that it is often hard to distinguish personal from belief. I don’t think we can completely dismiss the struggle that people will have had in that regard. Think of it this way, how easy is it for us to separate out the kind of views associated with Richard Dawkins about Christians being deluded from the implications for us as people.
At the same time, moving from saying that you struggle with your emotions in response to a death to overtly desiring and revelling in the brutality of murder because of your views on someone surely crosses a line. With that regard, the insistence by some that they have a right to express such views on social media because this is about free speech raises another consideration. Yes, free speech does mean that there should be the right to say things that are offensive and distasteful. However, a legal right to say and do things is not the same as a moral responsibility. And when such language strays or potentially pushes the boundaries in terms of risking inciting further violence then that surely crosses a legal line too.
Whatever our views were on Ann Widdicombe, her politics and her religious beliefs it should be enough to express sadness and condolences at her death and the desire for justice in relation to the evil act of murder.
Faithroots 