When the Christian pacifist Norman Kember was rescued from his abductors in Iraq by the SAS, I commented, of his reaction: "Servicemen took personal risks to free the pacifist captives; tardiness in expressing thanks has the mark of the dogmatist. That is a politer term than bigot, but in this case the difference is a matter only of degree."
I note that a tearful Professor Kember justified himself in an address to a Christian festival this month, as reported by the heartwarming Inspire magazine ("stories to lift your spirits").
At the time Norman was criticised for what some public and press saw as a reluctance to thank his rescuers. Today, he said: “It was one of the strange things in life, we went in peace and came out with the SAS. I’m very grateful to them for releasing me.”“I still disagree and still feel strongly that armed violence is not the way to solve international conflicts and I said that at the same time as I thanked them.”
There were also those that described Norman as irresponsible for travelling outside the safety zone, which they said put his life and the lives of his rescuers at risk. He contended: “My son-in-law is a volunteer lifeboat man, who goes out to rescue stupid yachtsmen that do silly things.
“People may say I did something silly there but I was rescued by people who, by being in the forces, chose to put their lives at risk so I don’t think that’s a valid argument.”
Unsurprisingly, he's missed the force of the criticism. Yes, British servicemen in Iraq voluntarily put their lives at risk; but the risks they run are not those of lifeboatmen or firemen. Soldiers risk their lives by volunteering for combat. Professor Kember believes they are wrong to do this. That is why Professor Kember is not only graceless but also hypocritical.
