The response of politicians to the latest outbreak of terrorist attacks shows that in the face of these outrages language and leadership have run out of puff.
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan called the attack “cowardly” . So did Donald Trump, adding “We are with you. God Bless”. Murdoch’s Daily Telegraph also slapped “cowards” on its front page screamer. It was the best they could do.
It’s a strange, old-fashioned word that conjures white feathers and the trenches of the first world war, and it is highly probable that terrorists intent on their mission of slaughter aren’t the slightest bit put off by being called “cowards”.
Theresa May, the prime minister, declared “enough is enough” as though Canute-like she has willed terrorism to stop because there’s too much of it. Our own PM said “we will continue to lead our lives [in the face of terrorism] the way we always have”, while in another breath he reminded us that Australians face “a growing threat from Islamist terrorism”.
There is an expectation that political leaders will conjure the right bundle of words that simultaneously are calming, embracing and assertive – “we will hunt ‘em down and bring them to justice”. The right language at these moments is terribly important.
Politicians in various strange ways seek to galvanise their people. After the 9/11 attack in the US, President George W Bush urged people to go shopping and visit Disney World. Apparently, the message was to show terrorists that the nation is not spooked and to encourage people not to hide in their lounge rooms to such an extent that the economy suffers.
Stand firm ... carry on ... our way of life will not be defeated ... we are resolved ... our heart goes out to you. It hardly seems enough in the face of such demonic upheaval.
Where’s William Blake when you need him with his bows of burning gold and his arrows of desire, or possibly a touch of Churchill: “...we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender...”
Instead, we get Tony Abbott with his alternative facts: “Islamophobia hasn’t killed anyone – [but] Islamist terrorism has now killed tens of thousands of people. That’s why it’s absolutely critical that there be the strongest possible response at every level.”
He must have forgotten about Islamophobic attacks in Europe, Britain, the US and even Australia, admittedly without the same scale of death and injury. One of the worst was in Canada last January, with six dead and 19 injured when a mass shooting occurred at an Islamic cultural centre in Quebec. It was not classified as a terrorist attack, rather a hate crime.
There’s also Pauline Hanson’s contribution, a poor woman’s Marine Le Pen, with her call to halt immigration from Muslim countries “before Australia reaches 5% like England”. In fact, the number of permanent migrants to Australia from majority Muslim countries is still a small fraction of the numbers from India, China and the UK.
In the US, the overreach was just as excitable. In the wake of the London atrocity, TV pundit Katie Hopkins suggested on Fox News internment camps be set up in Britain to detain terror suspects – a proposal that was even too much for Fox.
While we are told to carry on regardless, that our precious freedoms cannot be compromised, we know that there’s only one direction in which our freedoms are heading. Already we have compulsory metadata retention, expanded powers for Asio and the Australian federal police, control orders, preventative detention orders, jail time for journalists who report on special security operations. The inevitable consequence of concentrating greater unreviewable powers in security agencies is to make us less democratic.
Uncertainty persists for citizens who know full well that the capacity of these agencies to protect them against a cunning, lone assassin is limited at best. The state hasn’t yet come up with a way to take down the analogue terrorist.
Western governments knew that the invasion of Iraq, on the basis of falsely asserted information, would increase the terrorist threat. This emerged from Britain’s Chilcot inquiry and declassified information from the joint intelligence committee, which advised in February 2003 that if Iraq was invaded then, “Attacks against western interests elsewhere are also likely, especially in the US and UK for maximum impact. The worldwide threat from other Islamist groups and individuals will increase significantly”.
That increase is a consequence of the actions of George W Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard.
On Friday, British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is echoing precisely those warnings about the “connections between wars our government has supported or fought in other countries and terrorism at home”.
And Saudi Arabia, a major sponsor and funder of violent extremism in the Middle East, has reportedly entered a US$100bn arms deal with our great and powerful friend, the US. It doesn’t get more perverted than being in bed with the Wahhabis while at the same time beating the drum about the evils of terrorism.
Little wonder the rhetoric from politicians is hollow.
