By Michael Brendan Dougherty
Wednesday, June 07, 2017
Imagine if Saturday’s three London Bridge killers had
been British Nationalist party thugs, ramming their car through a Pakistani
neighborhood. Would a single decent person have heard the news and immediately
said, “Well, this number of dead people is statistically insignificant compared
to those that die in car accidents. These punks can’t threaten our society!”
Would anyone have asked, “Why are we talking about the killer’s politics? There
are thousands of gun murders in America every year and those killers don’t have
their politics talked about.” Would they have felt like singing John Lennon’s
“Imagine” the next morning to conjure up a vision of a day when people of all
political creeds can get along?
We all know the answer.
And yet, even before the victims on London Bridge had
stopped bleeding, this was the reaction among society’s best, brightest and
most morally self-assured members on social media. The pattern is by now
familiar. Even as an Islamic terrorist killer’s proclamations about Allah’s
will are still ringing in victims’ ears, these individuals are already
declaring that the true danger from the attack is an Islamophobic backlash, and
that you’re more likely to die by drowning in your own swimming pool than from
a terrorist attack.
Do they know how callous that sounds? Do they not realize
that sensible human beings react differently to a car accident than to a murder
plot? Or that states and car manufacturers are constantly working to decrease
the lethality of driving, while terrorists are constantly trying to improve the
lethality of their enterprise?
Terrorist acts have now become “the kind of thing that
inevitably flares up and causes some damage before the experts put it out,”
according to one media wit. Or consider Vox’s
Will Wilkinson, who wrote that “If it is truly the case that the risk of death
by Islamic terrorism can be reduced to approximately zero through official
anti-terror zeal, that suggests the threat is manageable — indeed, that it is
being managed.”
In his article, Wilkinson noted Germany’s population of
4.8 million Muslims, and wrote that even if 25 percent of them supported Sharia
law, that would translate to only 1.45 percent of the total German population.
“What can that tiny sliver of the population possibly do to undermine the
institutions of one of Europe’s strongest states, and a national culture deeply
committed to liberal ideals?” he asked.
Of course, there are many awful things that a dedicated
minority can inflict on a society short of the entire nation-state’s being
destroyed and the majority population abandoning its civilizational code. For
one, they can change the kind of things police have to worry about. Just a few
days before Wilkinson proclaimed German institutions impregnable, those same
institutions were scrambling for speakers of Afghan to help them in their
investigation of a murder in a Bavarian supermarket, in which an Afghan asylum
seeker stabbed another Afghan woman to death in front of her two children because
she had converted to Christianity. I’m sure some statistician can explain that
this woman was more likely to die from the heat death of the universe, but
there it is.
Widespread sympathy for Islamic extremism can change the
composition of a country’s population. Look to France, where in 2014 more than
one in six Muslims said they supported Islamic State. Only a few of the dozen
or so Islamic terror incidents over the last five years have targeted French
Jews. But lots of other crimes and bias incidents have, including harassment of
synagogues. As a result, French Jews are
emigrating in record numbers. Remember, crime in France now includes
incidents such as the one in which Sarah
Halami, a Jewish woman, was beaten and thrown off her balcony to her death
by a man reciting Koranic verses. Like the Bavarian supermarket killer, this
murderer was promptly thrown into a looney bin. “Without the Jews, France is no
longer France. It’s the oldest community. They have been French citizens since
the French revolution,” said Manuel Valls, a former French prime minister.
When British Parliamentarian Jo Cox was murdered by a
gibbering right-winger last year, media commentators such as Adam Bienkov
specifically blamed the tenor and tone of the Brexit campaign. They called out
then–UKIP leader Nigel Farage for inflammatory posters. The murder was
emblematic of something sinister that needed to be named and confronted. But
when three men start slaying people while shouting about Allah, or a man blows
up a nail bomb around pre-teen girls, or other men slit the throat of a priest
at Mass, or shoot up a convert, we resort to statistical analogies about freak
accidents and lightning strikes and reflexive warnings about the dangers of
Islamophobia.
The reason the subject changes so quickly from the people
dying in the street to the potential victims of backlash is obvious. Islamist
terror is politically inconvenient for advocates of mass migration from the
Islamic world. To talk about it honestly might lead people to notice that the
Czech Republic, which doesn’t have mass migration from the Islamic world, also
doesn’t have Islamist terror attacks. And because of that, Czechs also
typically don’t engage in these self-criticism sessions over Islamophobia.
But there is a deeper reason why so many in the media
reach for car accidents and lightning bolts and other disasters that have no
moral content. They know that deep down they really don’t share a society with
the Islamic extremists. Their fellow citizenship exists only on paper, not as a
social reality, and it gives them no authority to speak into that subculture,
nor any hope of using their public platforms to reason with its members. They
have admitted by this evasion the very fact that they wish no one to
acknowledge: that these fellow citizens are alien to us.
No comments:
Post a Comment