Airstrip One

Assassination: Politics by other means?

The assassination of Anna Lindh was a stupid act. It came before the vote on the Euro and almost certainly cut the anti-Euro margin in the Swedish referendum. It was also unjustified as the Swedes were given a chance to vote on the Euro.

Is assassination everywhere and always wrong? On the one hand we would all have breathed a sigh of relief, even anti-interventionists like me, if Saddam had been topped meaning that there would have been no war – and if an unrepentant Bin Laden gets fried is that really so bad for the world? However generally killing people is a Bad Thing, so as with most things there is a line to be drawn.

I would say that violence should be justified only if the political means cannot be reached by means of a vote. In Sweden there is a chance to influence the politics of the Euro. Is it the same in Britain?

For the moment. With the Euro we have a chance to vote for its introduction. However the integrationist agenda is being pushed by other means, notably through the proposed constitution (which may even take away our Euro opt out). Of course we may be allowed to vote, but Blair is saying no for the moment, and it will be introduced before an election.

Assassination of pro-constitution politicians is not justified, nor is it politically wise, as long as there is a chance for a vote on this. If there is no vote…