Objecting to murder qua murder isn't political, since murder is defined as unjustified premeditated killing. The key word being _unjustified_: it's hardly political to oppose something that is unjustified by definition. The political aspect comes into play when people start to debate which killings are and aren't justified.

Your abortion example is a good one, so I will use it to clarify my point. When people say “abortion is murder!” they aren't just objecting to murder. They are asserting that abortion _is_ murder, actually: it's the political view that killing unborn foetuses is unjustified. The essential claim isn't “murder is bad”, but rather “abortion is bad”. So summarizing opposition to abortion as simply opposition to murder isn't accurate at all. It doesn't cut at the core of the objection.

The same situation exists with ICE. Modern societies grant the state a monopoly on violence, which the state delegates to officers who enforce the law of the land. When those officers use violence, it can be justified by virtue of them enforcing the monopoly on violence on behalf of the state, for the greater good. When a police officer shoots a gunman who attempts to kill civilians, few people would call that murder: after all, the killing is justified. Sometimes, law enforcement officers kill people when it's questionable whether it is justified. Labeling the killing as “murder” or “not murder” is then a political position: you aren't making a specific statement about murder (again, almost everyone agrees that murder is bad), but you're insisting that killing a person in such-or-such a situation is (not) justified.

So yes, insisting that the recent ICE killings of left wing activists constitute murder is a political statement: it's asserting that this ostensibly justified use of state violence was not justified in this case. Which is a point you can plausibly make, but you cannot insist it's not political, because determining which types of killings are justified and which are not is intrinsically a matter of publicy policy, i.e., political.

> Is it just politics you don't agree with that you don't want Andrew to express?

Ideally, I would not want Andrew to express any political views, at least not in his capacity of Zig project leader. I prefer open source projects that are maximally inclusive, which means not enforcing contributors to conform with particular political views.

Of course there is no law that says open source projects must be inclusive of political views, so you can create an open source project just for people who have the same political views as you do, but then I think the decent thing to do is at least be honest about it.

If Andrew thinks Zig is an American Democratic software project, he should clearly label it as such on ziglang.org. And then I also think Hacker News should ban him when he makes posts where he takes political stances, since Hacker News explicitly has a policy that opposes politics. If Andrew doesn't think Zig is just for American Democrats, he should refrain from making political posts on the Zig language blog. He can still go to his anti-ICE rally and post about it on his personal Bluesky account or whatever, but that at least makes it clear those are his personal political views, and they are not part of the Zig project.

Of course, I cannot enforce either of those things. They are just my personal preferences.