Comments on: Anna Lindh

By: a different chris

a different chris — Tue, 16 Sep 2003 00:11:56 +0000

Whoa, slow down everybody! For once on a blog you’re ALL making sense, so just be happy for smart company. The “political” factor is important, but for a deranged person it has to do with notoriety, not politics per se. So yes they are more likely to be in danger but no it doesn’t mean that it was political in the sense everybody’s using it here. If this guy is a John Hinckley (sp?) type, a famous athelete would have also been a possible target. But if the pictures posted on the Web are accurate, he would have gotten his ass kicked by somebody like Annika Sorenstam.

By: zizka

zizka — Sat, 13 Sep 2003 18:43:56 +0000

Keith, you come up with the damndest arguments! Yeah, everyone is a member of some small minority group (or infinitely many, really), but there are reasons why we always suspect political motives when political leaders are murdered, especially when there is no other apparent motive. The class of well-known Swedish political leaders may be the same size as the class of redheaded, lefthanded paraplegics, but people would be quite justified in suspecting political motives in this case, but not suspecting a conspiracy against r.h.l.h. paraplegics if one of them is murdered. The reasons for this are not to be found in a statistics text.

By: mitch

mitch — Sat, 13 Sep 2003 11:51:00 +0000

My theory is that it was a revenge attack, for the EU’s declaration of Hamas as a terrorist group just a few days before.

By: bry

bry — Sat, 13 Sep 2003 11:28:38 +0000

given the descriptions of the murder it sounds quite a bit more likely to be political in nature as opposed to a random act.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Sat, 13 Sep 2003 01:11:37 +0000

Well, I’m not sure either. It is a small point, certainly. But this is what you said: “People are attacked and killed for non-political reasons every now and then, even in Sweden, and not having government leaders protected by bodyguards inevitably means that such will happen to one of them from time to time.” Perhaps I’m thick, but I don’t see what you mean. If you mean given many centuries or perhaps millennia, eventually one of Sweden’s few murder victims will end up being a government minister, on the same principle that if you allow a chimpanzee infinite time it will eventually write ‘Hamlet’, then perhaps you’re right. But that’s not what I took you to be saying. I took you to be saying that “such will happen to one of them from time to time.” From time to time sounds to me more like every few years or perhaps decades than like thousands of years. Or to put it another way, random, non-politically motivated murders of Swedish government leaders are not a common occurrence, not something that just happens “from time to time”. That’s all. A small factual point. Unless you just meant something quite different from what you said, in which case, never mind. (I did actually have a point even though it’s a small one – that violence is not common in Sweden, so it’s odd to assume that government ministers [who are a much smaller class than doctors, by the way: we’re talking about, what, ten or twenty people total?] are going to be killed at random now and then.)

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Sat, 13 Sep 2003 00:37:17 +0000

“…so why whould we assume it will inevitably happen to government ministers apart from the fact that they are goveernment ministers?” Because the probability is non-zero? Every victim of random, violent crime is a member of some minority group. Physicists make up a very small portion of Swede society, so does that mean that if a Swedish physicist is murdered as Lindh was then it must be because he/she was a physicist? Why, I’m wondering, am I arguing with you about this? It’s a simple matter of fact, not opinion.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Fri, 12 Sep 2003 22:31:42 +0000

My point. “not having government leaders protected by bodyguards inevitably means that such will happen to one of them from time to time.” No it doesn’t and no it won’t, in a country where random murders are extremely rare and cabinet ministers or government leaders are, obviously, a tiny fraction of the population. My point is that the odds of any one Swede getting murdered is, statistically, tiny, so why whould we assume it will inevitably happen to government ministers apart from the fact that they are goveernment ministers?

By: eric

eric — Fri, 12 Sep 2003 20:43:17 +0000

Pretty needless death, really. It sounds like a single security guard would have prevented it. Whack jobs attack famous people. Governments should plan for that.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Fri, 12 Sep 2003 20:43:11 +0000

“Like non-existent, I would think.” Well, not quite. Close to non-existant. But it will happen. I don’t understand your point.

By: scott h.

scott h. — Fri, 12 Sep 2003 19:29:16 +0000

This report says she was chased by her assailant through the store. It also describes her as a rising star and the only politician with the charisma to save the “yes” to the euro campaign. Sounds like she was fairly well known and deliberately targeted. Hopefully they catch the guy.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Fri, 12 Sep 2003 17:31:46 +0000

“People are attacked and killed for non-political reasons every now and then, even in Sweden, and not having government leaders protected by bodyguards inevitably means that such will happen to one of them from time to time.” Hmm. Not necessarily. Not in countries where a high murder rate is not taken for granted. Statistically, in countries where people don’t just wander around casually murdering people at random intervals, the likelihood of a cabinet minister’s being stabbed to death in a department store just because it was one of those things is pretty damn small. Like non-existent, I would think.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Fri, 12 Sep 2003 16:54:53 +0000

I don’t quite understand how this event can be seen by anyone as a real criticism of Sweden’s open society. People are attacked and killed for non-political reasons every now and then, even in Sweden, and not having government leaders protected by bodyguards inevitably means that such will happen to one of them from time to time. Palme’s assasination was probably political in some sense, and so more appropriately was cause for reevaluation. Not Lindh’s.

By: Ted Barlow

Ted Barlow — Fri, 12 Sep 2003 15:35:32 +0000

I remember an anecdote from one of Bill Bryson’s books. He was travelling in Denmark when someone told him that the queen quite often went for walks without a bodyguard. Bryson asked, “Who protects her?” “Why, we all do,” said his host, which he thought was sweet.