The recent mass shootings, and the wall-to-wall coverage thereof in the media, have instilled in many Americans the sense that we are, again, at war. Still unresolved, though, is whom is the war with and what is it based on; we all want a robust defense, after all, but where do you throw up the barricades? There is a difference between a state of protection to safeguard a population and one to keep others out. When government cultivates a culture of ‘public trust’ it can lead to a culture of mistrust of the other, rather than state cohesion and peace. Defending against a common enemy is one thing, so call it that. Not a ‘state of protection.’…. It is hard not to ‘other’ a whole community that is seen as the source of terrorism worldwide. In fact, this makes it quite easy for politicians to build a solid fortress around the Muslim community in the name of safety and trust.
Fear can be a logical and understandable emotion in response to something as horrific as the mass shooting in San Bernardino or the Paris attacks. The question becomes how to process that fear- do we acknowledge it and try to live as best we can…or do we allow it to rule our lives and dictates how we live and react to those around us?
It’s easy for those of us on the outside, who weren’t involved in any way, to decide what the best way for victims and society as a whole to react. For those of us who may have been hundreds or thousands of miles away, a mass shooting, while no doubt horrific and tragic, can have the feeling of an academic exercise. That distance can be helpful if we’re to calmly and rationally determine how to move forward. With every news network imaginable providing constant, up-to-the-second reports and updates from San Bernadino, though, that distance shrinks substantially.
As that distance shrinks, and the enormity of 14 dead Americans from a terrorist attack becomes apparent, the default to fear is understandable…but not sustainable. The problem is that while we concern ourselves with not letting the terrorists win on one hand, we fall into their trap on the other by demonizing the Other, the group we hold guilty by association. The truth is that a terrorist attack is no more representative of Islam than Robert Lewis Dear’s attack on a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs is characteristic of Christianity. Fear is a terrific motivator, but not one that leads to a positive state of affairs.
French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve announced Wednesday that authorities had carried out more than 2,200 raids since a state of emergency was declared following the Nov. 13 attacks that killed 130 people. Under the state of emergency, French police can raid any home without judicial oversight. In addition, police have held 263 people for questioning - nearly all have been detained. An additional 330 people are under house arrest, and three mosques have been shut down. The vast majority of those targeted in the raids have been Muslim.
Yasser Louati: Because all this, you know, retaliation from the government is spiraling out of control. Of course, to implement that they said we are going to target the Muslim minority, and all Muslims don’t worry. It’s just a tiny fraction of radicals amongst you without defining of what being a radical means. Now, once the Muslim minority bears the brunt of the retaliations, we had the COP21 coming, and now they have raided, for example, a farm selling organic food. They raided a place where you had, you know, ecologists militants, and now people are being scared of how far can the government take all these measures?
You can’t protect and defend freedom by denying freedom to those who represent (whether through religion or ethicity) a group many blame for an attack. Muslims are no more a threat to the Homeland than Christians. In fact, we face a FAR bigger threat domestically from Conservative White CHRISTIAN males than from wild-eyed swarthy radical Islamofascists. It’s easier to blame Muslims because we refuse to seize the opportunity to understand them, they’re a minority, and they (as a group) don’t look like us.
The French response is understandable to a point; they’ve suffered far more from terrorism of the radical Islamic variety than we have. The threat they face from, and the toll exacted by, groups like ISIS/ISIL has been as real and immediate as it is horrific. Given the most recent attack in Paris, the French government is under tremendous pressure to protect the country and ensure nothing like that happens again. This raises the question: freedom and liberty? Or security?
When large-scale security sweeps gather up large numbers, though, one must ask what the long-term impact of such wholesale curtailing of freedom will be. No society becomes more free by curtailing the freedom of their citizens. Does France wish to become a security state, where preservation and safety are the Prime Directive and freedom and liberty take a back seat. Do we want that here in America?
At some point, those of us in the West need to ask ourselves how much of our freedom we’re willing to sacrifice to preserve us from fear. How much of our civil liberties are we willing to forfeit in order to feel safe? And once those civil liberties disappear, will they ever return?
I don’t know the answer to those questions, but from where I sit, Benjamin Franklin was right: Those who would sacrifice freedom and liberty for security deserve neither freedom nor liberty. We can’t be the best version of America by becoming hostages to our fear.
We deserve better…though it appears we’re willing to settle for far less.
