The Message Terrorism Sends: The New Normal?

THE MESSAGE TERRORISM SENDS - IS THAT WE MUST GET USED TO THIS NEW NORMAL AS A TREND THAT HAS A FUTURE

9-11 SHOULD HAVE MADE US ALL MORE VIGILANT ABOUT THE DETERMINATION OF TERRORISTS TO INFLICT PAIN AND SUFFERING

     As a qualifier to what I'm writing about today, think of the fact, we know for sure, there were a number of Gravenhurst and Muskoka connected citizens in France, in and around the time of the terrorist attacks. Thus, in harm's way. We are worldly these days. Travelling is a much bigger deal than when I was growing up, and stay-cations were the norm. We're all world travellers by comparison, and what seemed hugely impossible at one time, is relatively normal in this new century. And even affordable.
     When I was in charge of editorial page opinions for our newspaper, back in the 1980's, we most definitely would have written about world events of the magnitude of the most recent terrorist in France. And we got quite international at times. And out of our comfort zone as well. Opining about what we really, and truthfully didn't understand. What impact does an editorial in a small weekly newspaper have on the world scene? Even on local consensus? What's the point of writing about something so distant and international in scope, almost beyond what we can muster as partial-scholars, when our readership has access to the dailies with overseas correspondents, stationed in the hot spots as eye witnesses? I used to ask myself this a lot in those years, and under my leadership, I admit trying to convince management to stay local as much as possible, and let the dailies and news networks handle these major events and their coverage. Why then would I even think of going back on my beliefs, anchored firmly thirty years ago, that a small town scribe like me, shouldn't be weighing-in on a tragic event more than an ocean away; such that I might try against all sensibilities, to demonstrate my scholarly understanding of global terrorism; allowing my deficiencies to show through with a definite glare of ignorance in every sentence? Well, because we are citizens on a shrinking globe, and because of rapid transportation these days, we aren't separated by more than a day's travel to these same hot spots. It used to take several days in pioneer times to get from Toronto to Muskoka. Today, think how quickly we could be sitting at the base of the Eiffel Tower making copious observations. It's a smaller world by the fact our society travels abroad more frequently. Do you know, it wasn't uncommon whatsoever, to come upon adult citizens, in my youth, growing up in Muskoka, who had never left the district in their lives, or been as far south as Toronto, or north to North Bay? Now it's the case, "so who hasn't been to France this month?" My son was there a year ago, and wishes to go back. It is then, somewhat more acceptable to offer an opinion, from a local perspective, because a lot has changed since my days as editor, feeling we should be careful stepping out of our balliwick, to try and correct the world at large; for what we perceived to be wrong with it! Soon it will be the case we will be able to strap on jet packs and cross the ocean at will, without need for a ticket.
     I can only answer this, by suggesting that my effort, with an embedded apology for doing so, is merely a daft exercise, to let off the steam of anger and frustration, at what terrorism is doing to our world. Nothing more, nothing less.
     One morning, when I was editor of The Herald-Gazette, in Bracebridge, I was asked by management to talk with an agitated reader, pacing back and forth in the lobby, who apparently had a bone to pick with the fellow who decides what stories to run in the paper. That was me! We didn't get a lot of beefy complaints during my tenure, but every now and again, one would come along that would be a dandy, and usually quite unexpected. Just as this one was, on what was otherwise a pretty quiet Friday in the office.
     I did have another staff member with me in our conference room, when the gentleman arrived upstairs, looking red in the face and clenching his fists. I played sports long enough to know when a fight was about to take place, and geez, this guy was over six feet tall and outweighed me by at least fifty pounds. He could have taken both of us, representing the editorial department, in about thirty seconds of arm to arm combat. So yes, we were very reverent to the possibility, this guy's rage was not going to be contained by the response we could give in return.  At that time we didn't have the benefit of 9-1-1 to call police, and it would not have been a quick response, to contact the front desk a floor below, by intercom, to call the cops on our behalf. I'm pretty sure that, if, in the middle of being screamed-at, he saw us calling for help, he would have thusly surrendered and then collapsed into a chair.
     We figured the best way to deal with this chap, was to listen intently, and appear genuinely interested in what he had to say, and what he felt was a solution to his woes. Obviously, he wanted the press to take his side. When you try to relax it never looks like you've succeeded, so we were looking pensive throughout the meeting. The man was interested in killing a regional minister, who he thought was counseling his wife to leave him, on account of his alleged abusive behavior. The idea you see, was for us, the writer-kind, to do a story on the minister trying to break-up his marriage. He wasn't too happy when we showed some disinterest in his idea for a front-pager, for the next edition of the paper. To us it was a personal matter, and if the minister did advise his wife in this manner, then he was just doing what a friend and minister should have, in that same situation.
     The problem for us, was, first of all, making him feel comfortable telling us his side of the story. He did calm down, but he soon began making overtures about what he might do to the Minister, if he didn't cease and desist telling his wife to leave him. There were at least three occasions in an hour-long meeting, when I wanted to call the police immediately, because of what I felt were close enough to death threats, to warrant intervention. At one point I was a little worried he was focusing on us, when my reporter colleague kept asking personal questions, the gentleman felt were incriminating to his position. If he had decided to turn his rage on us, we would have been seriously hurt ourselves. Instead he seemed contented to slam his hand on the table, and clench his jaw, as if masterminding his next move. I like to think that we handled the situation well enough, to satisfy the angry husband, that we understood his precarious position, and the state of his crumbling marriage; and the meddling of the Minister in his personal affairs. At least I hoped I was right about feeling this way.
     Soon after he left, but not before shaking our hands on the way out the conference room door, I went to our company management and asked what protocol we should follow, to warn the police and the Minister still in the man's cross-hairs. I was given permission to phone the Minister, to advise him in confidence what had just happened, and that I felt there had been several death threats made in the course of our meeting. I followed through, and honestly, I was shocked when the Minister fobbed-it-off in the most casual manner, and informed me that he would handle the matter himself; meaning I shouldn't worry myself about contacting the police to investigate. I repeated it at least three times, that I had felt the man was serious about inflicting revenge, and on each attempt, the Minister pointed out, that I was out of my element, and should just go back to writing my newspaper stories for the coming issue. Basically, forgetting the meeting had ever taken place. I didn't admire his courage to be honest with you. I thought he was being foolhardy to take these threats lightly. I had seen this man's rage up close, and he could have followed through, and taken the Minister's life.
     Here's the thing that sticks with me to this day. He didn't follow through on his threats by the way. The Minister remained safe and sound, and the police were never alerted about the threats, and the angry husband became less angry over time. He wasn't arrested, although I can't say with confidence, his marriage survived the ordeal. My knee-jerk reaction, was to phone the police and let them handle this guy. Would I have caused a worse case scenario for the man and his wife, and potentially the minister, if I had made that phone call for assistance? The Minister obviously knew the man was more bluster than follow-through, and let the matter ride. He made the right decision. It reminds me how precarious it is, to deal with threats, without fictionalizing the outcome, based on the fear of leaving well enough alone. While this is a stretch to apply to the tragic events in France yesterday, it's still relevant, that we appreciate how to deal with threatening situations, without making things intolerable, and even more dangerous by over-reacting. It's sort of the ultimate balancing act between caution and fear, without actually climbing onto the high wire to see which sense wins the battle of emotions. You know, for weeks after my meeting with this angry fellow, I felt sure I was going to hear about police having to be called to the Minister's residence, or even the church, to deal with the outcome of this unspent rage. Of course, I felt pretty good about being wrong in this case. It did however, make me question my own understanding of human nature and crisis intervention. Like many of us would choose, I decided to mitigate these situations from arising, by not availing myself for matters of conflict intervention on this scale. It doesn't mean I wouldn't try to stop an act of violence occurring in my presence, but rather, I wouldn't knowingly put myself in a position of mediator, having no formal training to base such an intervention. But these situations arise in our community, province, country and world, many times each second of the day, and on many cases, it turns out that the mediators, and first responders, are actually untrained sympathetic citizens, being humane under dangerous circumstances.  
     I have been a life-long student of history. I am ravenous when it comes to consuming the news of the day. I pay attention to politics, and its extravagant rhetoric, used to bedazzle us, into believing the stories they spin are genuine. I watched, admittedly to excess, all the coverage during the 9-11 disaster in New York, and like many others, vowed to carry-on with life as normal; to show terrorists their acts of violence, would never diminish our stalwart passions for home, country and a safe global village. We vowed to be vigilant about situations in our communities, whether city or rural village, and report suspicious activities and out of place packages, left in places they shouldn't be, in order to protect ourselves from being victimized by the radical element of our society. And we understood that our governing bodies, were equally entrenched in the intracicies and dangers in this new reality of terrorist zeal, interested in mass execution and causing extensive injury to innocents. I could go on and on, and on some more, about all the security measures that were supposed to be imposed, for our protection, as guaranteed by our governments. There seems to have been a wave of complacency however, and I think most of us knew it was happening, slowly changing, and watering-down the current of our government's commitment, regarding national security and inevitably our own. The acts of terrorism in Paris yesterday, serve to remind us we are not as safe as we often believe, heading out to catch a flight, or join seventy thousand other souls, to watch a football game, or attend a major concert in a huge venue. We know there is always a possibility there is a nutter, or radical somewhere in that mass of humanity, or on the aircraft or rail car; but the appearance of security guards makes us content, our welfare is being respected. The bad people won't get us!
     As terrorists, whatever their ilk and grievance with the free world, their ability to access large venues, and transportation services with relative ease, in some countries, means we should be re-evaluating just how determined they are to make their point known; and how many civilian casualties makes for a successful mission in their warped minds. Terrorists have found vulnerabilities in our habits of modern living, and exploited our weaknesses in security to prevent these acts. How much security is needed for a crowd of eighty thousand sitting ducks, in a massive stadium. How many security agents, for example, are demanded by the governing authority, when licencing major venues, operated by free enterprise? If they are required to have fire safety precautions with the highest regard for emergencies, and evacuations, to escape a potential disaster, what are they imposed upon, for general security in case of situations of terrorism? I don't know. But I certainly ponder this, when I watch televised football games where there is an entire community housed within the stadium, that appears particularly vulnerable, in the event of these terrorism outbursts. Which are of course becoming more frequent, and showing up in many countries, some that haven't had to deal with rampant terrorism up close and personal. Watching events unfold on television, is always dramatic, but obviously void of the intimacy, of being within a gunshot or explosion's range.
     It is wrong to fear living a free life, because of this oppressive feeling, we might be murdered if we go out to a hockey game, or attend a community celebration; fly on a plane, ride the rails, or take a vacation at a tropical resort. At the same time, we do expect that these venues and locations will exercise due diligence, in the way they undertake their security responsibilities. We have to trust them in this regard, or we would succumb to fear, and opt not to participate the way we always have, in good faith. I don't know what shortfalls of security occurred, that allowed the most recent carnage in Paris, but suffice to say, there was a breach somewhere, or it wouldn't have happened; or would have been a very much reduced incident. What gave these terrorists the advantage, gaining them access to many thousands of citizens, celebrating their freedom to enjoy their social recreations? It's one thing for a terrorist to wander through a street market, and set off an explosive strapped to their belt, but quite another to gain access to major venues that are supposed to be protected from these usually fatal intrusions. Do we have to hire a security agent for each citizen in attendance to stop terrorism as it occurred in Paris? How many should be employed to protect us, and how in the hell could we ever afford this protective coverage? That's the impossibility of the situation, and the terrorists have called us on our shortfalls. Some of it admittedly, is the cost of doing business. Security doesn't come cheaply.
     Do we stop going to large venues to see our favorite performers? Refuse to go to sports stadiums for fear something bad might happen? Do we have more stay-cations, and avoid forms of transportation that terrorists choose to target for maximum carnage? Most of us realize how foolish this would be, to surrender to the radical element. Whether it is terrorism or the handiwork of bad people, homegrown, who want to exit with a bang, it's more the point, we all have to be more aware of the possibilities, of major acts of violence, and ask event promoters about security measures in place, for our protection. If we're not satisfied with the answers received, then it does become a more sensible net result, to shift focus to other opportunities and events, taking security more seriously, in terms of investment to keep patrons safe. I don't stay awake at nights worrying about this kind of eventuality, but I never attend a single event, that I'm not aware of consequence, and have mapped out an exit strategy just in case. I know it would be more appealing, to see a larger security staff at these venues, and honestly, I think most of us would be prepared to pay more for the privilege of attending, if the money was being used to protect us, and not just to pad the pockets of promoters and investors.
     It isn't a new reality, but it is definitely a poignant, tragic reminder, that we aren't as safe as we think we are, no matter where we live, work or play. A segment of the population will never worry themselves about the risk of being victimized by a suicide bomber, or a crazed shooter, razing a crowd of fun-seekers. Maybe we should be more like these brave hearts, and calm our fears of being used for the gains of radical agenda. But what about our sons and daughters who we send off to these large events, and on their world tours, to explore this wonderful globe? Are we as relaxed, when the lives being put on the line, are not our own? My son and his friend were touring Paris just over a year ago. As a fan of rock music, it's entirely possible, they might have attended the concert, where a hundred patrons were gunned down. Of course it makes you think. It makes you wonder about the future, and just how many of our norms, are going to be shattered, by those who want a new world order, and are prepared to inflict carnage to get their way. As much as I want to believe that terrorism can be defeated, I'm an historian and realist, and there is no end to what can be undertaken with such misguided ambition. There are too many opportunities, in the whole realm of living life to the fullest, that can be accessed by those unhappy with the world order as they see it; making us feel suddenly oppressed, that we have been shortchanged. Are we going to be able to live life to the fullest in the future? Or will we have to change our perspective, and our desires, in order to have safer lives?
     Terrorists have just added a new reality, onto the old one, about how we must engage our daily functioning, and carry on with our lives with all our diverse interests. Gradually, I think we will all come to terms with these intrusions, and find remedies to these growing situations of peril; there were those who thought the First and Second World Wars would never end, or that a peace could return to European countries that had been devastated in all ways, by raging conflict, and economic disadvantage. Yet, the resolve of human spirit, brought back what was thought gone forever. I feel the same today, that the good of humankind will prevail powerful enough, to deal with these imposed calamities. We will however, and this really goes without saying, need to adjust our priorities, and improve upon our vigilance, to make it a safer world for coming generations. Giving terrorists less opportunity to impose their acts of revenge.
     Might it ever be the case, that instead of blowing one another up, and killing civilians for the sake of temporary media focus, that there will, one day, be a world a new crisis-forum established to facilitate debate and negotiations, where murderous revenge of terrorists, to validate their cause, is replaced by constructive intervention, and more aggressive peace management. But then there's the historic problem of chronic poverty in this world, and from this disadvantage, rebellion has always had its fertile ground. End world poverty? I wouldn't be the first armchair critic, or the last, to claim that the way to curtail terrorism, is to resolve the source ailment, and poverty and its suffering, have inspired uprisings since the beginning of civilization. Seems a good time to re-visit the bigger plan, of making this world a better place to live for all of humankind, by reducing economic barriers and limitations to prosperity. Impossible? So was the railway before folks began playing around with the offshoot worth of a steaming kettle of water.
     From a rural clime, in one of the safest countries on earth, where terrorism is not as prevalent as in some countries, it's easy to get high and mighty, thinking we have all the answers to resolve the conflicts of this same global village. Obviously, being in a war torn country, like Syria, fosters a different opinion, about how it might all end, and if peace is in any way attainable without even more massive loss of life. But then we look at the exodus, and the lives lost trying to escape war. It's true, I'm wearing the fabric thin on the arms of my living broom chair, and tapping at this keyboard is only a minor release of angst, trying to come up with something insightful and reassuring, possessing a little country wisdom and philosophy. No matter how important this keyboard and blog makes me feel, writing about antiques, collectables, the good friends I've known, and the state of local politics, I feel pretty small weighing-in on such a huge and disastrous situation, as preoccupies the citizenry of France this hour; wondering if and when the next strike will come, with even greater consequence. So as far as offering an opinion, I have to footnote, that this is only the nervous opinion, of one of the world's worried citizens; and today, there are many of us trying to imagine what it is like, to be dealing with such a tragic aftermath at ground zero. Sensing however, that history will repeat in France, and the citizenry will soon be back in their normal engagements, or as much as is possible under the circumstances; we doubters and armchair critics, should be uplifted by the fact you can't destroy the will of a people, to reclaim their rights to freedom from those who wish to destroy it. Terrorists be damned!
    This is just one armchair critic's point of view. I feel better after writing it, but it's all just wasted energy really, when it comes right down to the exercise of trying to correct, all that is wrong with our society, that inspires terrorism in the first place. We all know that governance is the ultimate "decider" on these issues. Those who have died in this latest terrorist attack, in memorial, must serve to remind us, we need to do better protecting our world; all of us, in our own ways, to make it harder for terrorists to impose their will because of a deluded sense of justice.
     Taking a strong, determined emotional step forward, is the best way to get on with the rest of our lives.