We need to discuss the motivations of David Amess’s alleged killer

The threat posed by radical Islam is often brushed away, writes David Quinn

Conservative politician, David Amess, who was stabbed to death last week in what appears to have been a terrorist attack, was one of the most prominent Catholic MPs in the House of Commons where he served for 38 years. He died aged 69.

He was staunchly pro-life and pro-family, sometimes voting against his party’s official policy in favour of his conscience and his deeply grounded Catholic faith.

Following his murder, politicians of all political persuasions rushed to pay tribute, and not in the usual, pro-forma way. The tributes were heartfelt. He was a very popular, warm individual who always had a kind word to say to everyone and liked to help new MPs find their feet, whether they were in his own party or opposing parties.

David Amess also championed unusual causes, such as fighting endometriosis, a condition that can cause infertility in women”

David Amess helped to arrange the visit of Pope Benedict to Britain in 2010 and a reciprocal visit by British Government officials to the Vatican soon after.

Commenting on this, Cardinal Vincent Nichols said: “He was instrumental in the historic visit of Pope Benedict to Parliament in 2010 and in the return visit by HMG representatives to Rome in the following year.

“He fostered this mutually respectful relationship through meetings with Cardinal Parolin, the Pope’s Secretary of State, and with other Catholic leaders.”

David Amess also championed unusual causes, such as fighting endometriosis, a condition that can cause infertility in women.

He was an excellent servant of his constituents.

He never served in Government but was one of those politicians who showed how effective you can be from the backbenches if you put your mind to it. The House of Commons was lucky to have him. Indeed, here in Ireland, we could do with a few more politicians in his mould, because, with only a handful of exceptions, they are sorely lacking at present.

When David Amess was killed, the initial reaction was to blame social media and the general coarsening of public debate.

Certainly, social media can be intensely polarising. The people with the biggest followings on the various platforms are often at the extreme ends of their political or religious spectrums.

They offer extremist interpretations of current events and denounce rather than argue.

Victim

On Twitter, we see frequent mob attacks on whoever is today’s chosen victim. Four years ago, pro-life advocate, Katie Ascough, was driven from her position as head of the students’ union at UCD following the most vitriolic, often expletive laden and personalised attacks which her university did nothing to discourage.

In that kind of atmosphere of unbridled hate, we can’t be surprised if things sometimes slip over into violence, although fortunately it did not in Katie’s case.

On the other hand, at the University of Suffolk, lecturer Kathleen Stock, a feminist who is critical of aspects of transgender ideology (for instance, allowing men who declare as women to be sent to women’s prisons), has been told by police not to come to her university campus because they can’t guarantee her safety from pro-trans militants.

David Amess is, in fact, the second MP to be murdered in recent times. Just before the Brexit vote in 2016, Labour MP, Jo Cox, was killed. Her killer supported Brexit and had links to far-right groups.

There has been a notable difference in the way in which the killing of Jo Cox and the killing of David Amess has been covered, however.

In 2016, there was far less discussion about the polarising effects of social media and far more about the threat to society posted by the far-right and how it can radicalise isolated, alienated individuals.

In the case of David Amess, there has been far less discussion about the motivations of his alleged killer, Ami Habir Ami.

Ami was known to the authorities as someone drawn to Islamist extremism. Friends claim he was radicalised by watching the videos of the notorious Islamist preacher, Anjem Choudary, who supports terrorist organisations like Islamic State.

Only days before the killing of David Amess, Espen Andersen Brathen, a Dane who had converted to Islam, attacked and killed five people with a bow and arrow in the Norwegian town of Kongsberg.

But again, there was little discussion afterwards about the dangers of radical Islam.

Public debates

This sets up an imbalance in public debates. On the one hand, the danger to society posed by the far-right is well publicised, but the threat posed by radical Islam is often brushed away. When a killer is Islamist, his identity is often mentioned several paragraphs into a report as a matter of only passing importance.

Why the difference in treatment? Part of it is understandable. Care must be taken not to demonise all Muslims because of the relatively few extremists in their midst. Without the proper sensitivity in discussing the issue, society can become further polarised.

On the other hand, little care was taken when Jo Cox was killed to ensure that the 17 million Britons who voted in favour of leaving the EU were not tarred with the extremist brush.

So, there is also clear political bias in how these things are covered.

This is the only real way we minimise the risks of similar attacks happening again in the future”

David Amess was targeted by a man suspected of radical Islamist loyalties. There is a suggestion he may even have been targeted because of his devout Catholic faith.

When extremists strike in this murderous way at the heart of society, we must be prepared to discuss openly, honestly and with due caution, the motivations of the killer, and not hide it away because of certain ideological biases. This is the only real way we minimise the risks of similar attacks happening again in the future.