Malc in the Burgh: Lockerbie

Thursday, 3 September 2009

In praise of Malcolm Chisholm MSP

I think Jeff has beaten me to the punch on this post, but I've written it now so I'm posting it too!

As a ~~politico~~ ~~geek~~ sado-masochist I spent yesterday morning watching the full Scottish Parliamentary debate on the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.

I expected the worst - petty political point-scoring on an issue that pretty much divides Scotland. And in some contributions I got what I expected. The party leaders - even and especially the First Minister - were at it. Richard Baker looked like a child at a grown-up party, knowing he was out of his depth. Sandra White couldn't resist sticking the needle in. Christine Grahame misjudged her audience in her attempts to persue the issue of whether al-Megrahi was even guilty. And Elaine Murray emphasised that my previous post on the matter was right on the money. The sheer emotion and anger with which she spoke evidence enough that emotion must be removed from the equation if a sober and rational decision on a delicate issue such as this can be taken.

But then, as ever on occasions such as this, there are those who stand out, who recognise the gravity of the situation and step up to the challenge. For me, several of the contributions yesterday merit mention on this score. Green leader Patrick Harvie was eloquent, reasoned and sincere. Lib Dem Justice Spokesman Robert Brown was measured and assured, Michael McMahon and David McLetchie focused. The two doctors, Ian McKee and Richard Simpson, were informative on their specialist areas. All provided reasonable points, defending their party line on the decision.

And then there was Malcolm Chisholm. He stood up and spoke from his conscience. He agreed with the decision and suggested (with polling figures to hand) that around 35% of his Labour colleagues (though not necessarily those in the parliament) did too. He told the chamber that he accepted the need for compassion in this case, accepted that the decision was not taken lightly and that, in his mind, it was the right one. And then he turned on his party, telling the chamber that he would vote with the government in the evening and that he thought the vote should be free from party whipping. In the event, he was the only MSP who broke ranks as the (heavily amended) government motion was carried by 73 (Lab/ LD/ Con) votes to 50 (SNP/ Green/ Chisholm) with one abstention (Margo).

I should point out that I have a lot of time for Malcolm Chisholm (and not just because of his rather excellent first name). In 2006, when he resigned as Communities Minister (in Jack McConnell's Scottish Executive) over the issue of Trident replacement, I wrote to him commending him for having the courage of his convictions and voting with his conscience rather than his party. He wrote back, thanking me for what was one of the few emails he'd received in support and suggesting that he hoped others would start listening to "experts" like me (I was a Masters student in Terrorism and International Relations at the time). So the man has a history of doing what he thinks right - even if that is at odds with his party. And yesterday was no different.

But I had a wee thought about his future as an MSP. Of course, I don't think he's in any danger of being deselected by Labour - don't be ridiculous. But a wee suggestion. By the time of the next Scottish Parliament election in May 2011, Malcolm Chisholm will be 62. Now, that is not old for an MSP. But he is defending a majority of just 2,500 in Edinburgh North & Leith. Which, as we know from the European election, is an incredibly tight seat, with five parties separated by only 1,000 votes (and indeed, in that election, Labour knocked down to second). According to his website, he also holds surgeries every Satuday (more than most MSPs). That's a busy schedule for an MSP over 60.

No, I'm wondering whether Malcolm Chisholm might decide that three terms as an MSP for Edinburgh North & Leith might just be enough for him. I mean, might yesterday's defiance of the party line have signalled his intention - that he no longer sees himself needing to conform to the party line? It's just a thought - and it seems to fit. Though I'd suggest that, given the constituency may well provide some excitement on election night, and that he is a weel kent face around the constituency, Labour may be loathe to allow him to retire. In saying that, there'd be no shortage of Labour candidates putting their name forward for the seat I'd wager - Lesley Hinds, Gordon Munro, Ewan Aitken, perhaps even the blogosphere's Kezia Dugdale. So, I guess, watch this space.

In the meantime, praise be to Malcolm Chisholm, the only MSP brave enough to break party lines yesterday. Parliament (and Scotland) needs free thinkers like him.

Emotive responses are not helpful

I've had an incredibly busy week which has meant I've been unable to comment upon the compassionate release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi until now. Which is maybe just as well, given the abusive comments some in the blogosphere have taken in their posts on the subject.

Let me start by saying that, having had a few days to think about it, I think Kenny MacAskill has made the right decision. I say that not as a loyal Nat (you'll know, if you are a regular reader that that is not the case) nor as someone with an emotional connection with the case but as someone who has taken a long look at the facts, the process and the decision and has come to a rational decision based upon my interpretation of that. You may disagree with the decision - and judging by some of the comments over the weekend, you'll be pretty vocal with it - and that's fine. But I just want you to know where I'm coming from with it.

In terms of the decision itself, I think the Justice Secretary explained how he came to it and the process itself today as reasonably as he could. His tone was respectful and dignified throughout, and he explained how he came to decision himself, that it was his decision alone and that he stood by it - and would accept the consequences of that decision. In that, I think, no one could fault the man.

The process, it seems, was fine. Looking at Scots law, a more learned friend of mine informed me that the concept of compassionate release includes only 3 sentences in the statutory provisions. According to said friend, there's no real right or wrong here in terms of the law - once the medical reports have confirmed al-Megrahi's condition as terminal, it is then up to the Justice Secretary to exercise his discretion - with due regard for past precedent. And that - given the case of a predecessor as Justice Minister (Jim Wallace) releasing a convicted child killer - appears to be what has happened.

In my mind, the decision was the right one. My view is that compassion should play a larger role in the justice system - and indeed, society - than it does. Those against argue that al-Megrahi showed no compassion for his victims, thus why should he expect compassion from us. I'm of the view that two wrongs don't make a right, and that we are better than that. He (al-Megrahi) is a convicted terrorist and using him as a yardstick for morality is not just wrong, its plain stupid. It's the same reason governments should not execute people - it lowers society to the level of criminality of the offender and that serves no one.

The global response to this has, for me, been ridiculous. US President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen and Director of the FBI Robert Mueller have all not just firmly stated their opposition to the move but outright condemned the decision. The FBI Director's criticism, in particular, suggests the decision is "detrimental to the cause of justice" and "makes a mockery of the rule of law." I'm sorry, but from an American - particularly one in charge of the FBI - that is ludicrously hypocritical. And then we had former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton on Newsnight last night telling us that the US "should never have allowed him to be tried in Scotland. He should have been in an American court and he should have been executed by now."

Ah yes, America - the world leader in moral authority, executioners of the mentally ill and juveniles. America that tortures terrorist suspects. America that, when the UN could not agree on a Security Council resolution in Iraq, said "screw this" and decided that they were doing it anyway - ignoring everyone else's view in the process. It seems that America can consult - and then ignore others' views, yet when someone else decides that America's view is not the right one, they throw the toys out of the pram. Boycott Scotland? Really?

UPDATE: An American friend of mine had this to add to the debate:

"Bolton's right though, we could have had a coviction by lunch and a funeral by dinner. He never would have had the chance to get cancer here, so ask yourself, who are real humanitarians?"

So Americans are compassionate because they would have killed him without a second thought. We're the bad folk who let him get cancer. Just a bizarre argument really.

Look, don't get me wrong. I love America. I'd love to live there (for a while at least). I even think their foreign policy is more right than most others on these shores (I'm a "Realist" in foreign policy circles). But I just think, at times, they need to let go of their world view that they are superior to everyone and everything else in the world. So this is not an attack on America, or on American ideals and values. It's pointing out the glaring holes in the argument that somehow America is morally superior to Scotland because we released a dying man and they would have made sure that he was already dead by now.

Of course this is an emotive issue, and one which will raise heated debate around the world, not least among the families of the victims themselves. I cannot begin to imagine the suffering felt when the scenes of al-Megrahi's return to Libya were played, though it must pale into insignificance when compared with the loss they suffered when Pan Am Flight 103 fell from the sky over Lockerbie in 1988.

However, true justice cannot be served by allowing emotions to cloud decision-making. That Kenny MacAskill consulted widely, with relatives of those lost in the tragedy, with experts both medical and criminal and with government figures in America suggests that he would have known how difficult the decision that he was to take would be. But in making the decision, he had to do so without allowing these emotional responses to get in the way of justice. Thus, when he decided to release al-Megrahi, the decision was sound in law and in justice.

A man who committed a terrible atrocity and in so doing took 270 lives on a winter's night in 1988, suffering from a terminal illness, sought and was granted, compassionate release from a Scottish prison. Those are the facts. And I think it was the right thing to do.