My self-perception was shaken yesterday

I think of myself as an open minded, logical, empathic, progressive thinker. I try to be free of all the negative “isms.” I am not a racist, sexist, bigot, or homophobe. Still, I am occasionally confronted with something that abruptly reveals some personal bias. Yesterday was such an occasion.

I was listening to CBC Radio. With apologies, I cannot remember the show or the host. It was a long day. The segment was on the changing climate for Jews in Europe since the Charlie Hebdoe massacre.  Several Jewish interviewees were commenting upon their need to be ready to leave Europe on short notice for the safety of themselves and their families. These interviewees perceive a growing anti-Semitism in Europe and even in Britain where the Jewish population of 270,000 has long felt more secure than European Jews. One of the interviewees said something which stopped me cold. I paraphrase:

I wonder what the reaction would have been if, instead of journalists at Charlie Hebdoe, the victims had been Jews at a kosher market. Would millions have marched then? Or, would it have been seen as another attack on the Jews. A crime, yes, but not of the severity as the attack on Charlie Hebdoe.

A powerful thought.

Just as we embrace freedom of expression in liberal western democracies, so do we embrace freedom of conscience and religion. Yet, I am willing to bet that millions of marchers would not have turned out in solidarity if Parisian Jews had been killed to avenge the Prophet Muhammad instead of journalists. Speaking personally, I would have been very moved, as indeed I was when Jewish schools were attacked in Montauban and Toulouse in March 2012, but I would not have been as moved as I was with the Charlie Hebdoe attack. Why is this?

This is not anti-Semitism. This is a flaw of human nature. Tragically, attacks on Jews are nothing new. We have seen this countless times over the course of our lives. I think the interviewee quoted above is correct. We would not have reacted with such vigor to Jewish only victims. Why? Because we have been conditioned. But, the murder of twelve people – some, cartoonists – felt like an attack on us. On me. The Charlie Hebdoe massacre represents something new. A new threat. And, humans react powerfully to things that are new, particularly perceived threats. I know this of myself but frequently ignore it.

Consider the reaction of the western world to the 9-11 attack on the World Trade Centre. On September 11, 2001, 2,977 victims and the 19 hijackers died. The world changed that day. A very new and capable threat was revealed. Contrast this with Rwanda. From April to July 1994, members of the Hutu ethnic majority in the east-central African nation of Rwanda murdered as many as 800,000 people, mostly of the Tutsi minority. Murder and genocide on a scale that dwarfs 9-11. The world did not change, though. This was regional and not threatening to the individuals that make up liberal western democracies.

Consider the Parliament Hill attack of October 22, 2014. It could be viewed simply as the murderous act of one man. There were nine murders in Ottawa in 2013, none with the emotional resonance of Michael Zehaf-Bibeau’s murder of Corporal Nathan Cirillo. No media in Saskatchewan phoned me for my thoughts on any of these other murders. The October 22 attack represents something new. It was not attributed to gang violence or inner city alcohol and drug abuse; it was attributed to terrorism and radicalized youth here on our own doorstep. Suddenly we each perceived a new threat. Indeed, some have felt that this threat is palpable and that innocent Canadians are no longer safe.

Radical Islamic terrorism is continuing to shock us. Beheadings, the murder of journalists, and the execution of hostages is new and terrifying.Whether intentional or not, these terrorist understand that to be terrifying they must constantly present a new threat.