It is perverse to insist on squeezing the event into existing categories
Sometimes the old labels are simply not adequate to a new situation. Heated arguments about how they apply can seem almost perversely beside the point. The horrific Woolwich killing of the unsuspecting soldier Lee Rigby this week is a good example. Was it a terrorist crime? The honest answer is: yes in some ways,no in others. Was it an ordinary knife crime? The answer is the same. Was it,perhaps,more like a hate crime? Same answer again. Did it require the UK state to go into crisis mode? Once more there are arguments both ways. Are politicians part of the problem or the solution? There are serious points to be made for and against. And the media? Likewise8230;
It is ridiculous and even perverse to insist on squeezing this event into already existing categories. This is not in any way to say that Woolwich teaches no wider lessons,because it certainly does. One of these lessons is that such a crime can easily be self-started at home,not plotted by some established network in a bomb-making school in Pakistan. That does not mean such crimes are about to become common. But it does mean that they are relatively easy to plan8230; Second,the Woolwich crime makes a fresh and dangerous new tear in the fabric of community. Most people,Muslim or not,have not the slightest intention of killing random victims of any kind anywhere. But the ease of obtaining a car or a knife,and the ordinariness of the killers appearance,is bound to create some unease8230; That is why the political response was important and,in principle,good. Camerons message of calm,solidarity and inclusiveness was the right one.
From a leader in The Guardian,London