The Christchurch terrorist attack

MICHELE GROSSMAN • March 24, 2019

(Originally published in slightly modified form as Post #1 on the Horizon 2020 GREASE blog, www.grease.eui.eu/blog/)

1. WHAT SIGNIFICANCE DO THE NEW ZEALAND MOSQUE SHOOTINGS HAVE FOR DEBATES CONCERNING RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY, VIOLENT RADICALISATION AND MIGRATION IN YOUR REGION? 

The only surprise for many Australians is that the horrific Christchurch terrorist attack occurred in New Zealand (a country that ranked in 2018 at 114/138 (‘very low’) on the Global Terrorism Index) rather than in Australia itself.

No one, least of all in Australia’s Muslim communities, is surprised that an event like this has finally occurred, because all the signs that it was coming were there: measurable rises in Islamophobia and religion-based hate crimes, increasingly reckless political dog-whistling aimed at Muslims and at Islam and aired through both conventional and social media, and the increased mobilisation and mainstreaming of far-right commentary and protest that only a decade ago could barely be heard rustling in the bushes on the nation’s backblocks.

Australian Muslims have experienced increasing precarity in their social and cultural sense of national belonging, and their ability to withstand repeated public political onslaughts against both their faith and, in many cases, their refugee status, has frequently been tested to the limit.

Australians are no strangers to involvement in terrorist activities. In recent times, about 110 Australians have been involved as foreign fighters in relation to Islamic State, Al Qaeda and associated Islamist terror groups. They have also featured in a number of recent executed or disrupted domestic terrorist plots since about 2009.

In one sense, Christchurch does not disrupt this, because it is an Australian citizen, Brenton Tarrant, who is responsible for the Christchurch massacre – he is no different to other ‘foreign fighters’ mobilising in response to a self-declared war in countries not their own. But in another sense, Christchurch changes everything. In particular, it alters permanently the complacent assumption made by many politicians and ordinary people that terrorism can be equated exclusively with Islamist motivations and aspirations.

Tarrant’s avowed fealty to white supremacist ideology; his reliance on poisonous yet historically familiar narratives of invasion, pollution, ethno-statism and existential conflict in relation to non-European peoples, and his canny and sophisticated use of social media –just like Islamic State – to amplify the messaging and impact of his violent action reveal that it is toxic narratives of existential threat and avowed victimhood, wherever they may fall on the political spectrum, that underlie all appeals to and justifications for violent extremism.

The dangers posed by this, and made manifest in the slaughter in Christchurch, mean we can no longer tolerate the category error of limiting this to assumptions about Islamism, and Australia, like other countries, will need to recalibrate, strengthen and broaden its social cohesion and counter-terrorism policy and strategy settings accordingly.

One more point I think it’s crucial to make:

For those inclined to frame this as an instance of ‘reciprocal radicalisation’ (i.e., a RWE response to Islamist terrorism), this is a grave oversimplification. The white supremacist arguments and rationales advanced by Tarrant in his manifesto are old narratives - stretching back historically into at least the 19th century - that significantly predate modern Islamist terrorism by decades if not centuries. They are far more race-based then religion-based, though at times in such narratives religion and race are conflated.

2.  WHAT RISKS OR OPPORTUNITIES DO YOU SEE FOR ADDRESSING ISSUES RAISED BY THE NZ MOSQUE SHOOTINGS?

Western societies across many regions, including Australia as well as Europe and North America, have created increasingly permissive environments for deep social divisions and hostilities to be chronically inflamed rather than tempered or ameliorated. The events in Christchurch offer the chance to re-examine this permissiveness in relation to responsible political leadership, media sensationalism and bias, and a stronger balance between freedom and regulation of social media and the internet. We routinely limit the abuses and harms caused by modes of speech and behaviour in many other domains of social and political life, and there is no reason why digital environments should be exempt from such efforts.

In Australia, it is also an opportunity to re-connect with and nurture the fundamental decency of many ‘everyday’ citizens, who right across the nation have shown enormous compassion and support to their Muslim neighbours, friends, colleagues and total strangers in the aftermath of the Christchurch terrorism event. This outpouring of condolence and comfort defies on many levels the demonisation of Islam and immigrants that is such frequent fodder for media and political commentary.

3. WHAT ACTION CAN BE TAKEN BY STAKEHOLDERS AT ANY LEVEL TO PREVENT THIS INCIDENT FROM BEING DUPLICATED OR EXPLOITED FOR NEFARIOUS PURPOSES?

Lone actor attacks of this kind are notoriously difficult to anticipate or detect. Police and government measures, for example through surveillance or ‘watch lists’ of persons of interest, cannot be relied on in isolation and will never be able to detect the full potential array of specific emerging threats or copycat actions that Christchurch and events like it may fuel. It is false hope to assume that governments can be held wholly responsible for the emergence of terror linked to a range of flashpoints in our midst.

Most important is that people in local communities are willing to come forward, to each other and to authorities, about concerns they may have in relation to someone near to them, and to avoid being mere ‘bystanders’ who think this is someone else’s problem.

Equally important is to actively live the values of social and civic embrace for everyone in our communities and to avoid the sterile exclusivism of toxic identity politics. Finally, government stakeholders can do more to consider legislation that limits or eliminates access to the means to perpetrate violent action and the kinds of social influence that enable it, whether through measures like gun control or stronger media and social messaging and regulation of social media platforms.