The Westminster Attack Was a Tragedy. How Should We Feel About It?
The attack in London was terrible. 4 victims and 40 people were injured. That cannot be understated, nor do I want to. But while it would…
The attack in London was terrible. 4 victims and 40 people were injured. That cannot be understated, nor do I want to. But while it would be easy to demand changes, what are the reasonable and respectful things to do?
Let’s start at security. How secure you are and how secure you feel are two entirely different things. Do you feel safer on a plane or a car? According to a mix of wikipedia and the Department for Transport, planes are about 10 times safer (per person mile) but that isn’t really what’s I’m getting at. Did you guess that planes were 10 times safer? No, because as a human, you (and I) are terrible at guessing risk. How secure you feel and how secure you are are not always easy to relate.
Look at this graph. Now once again, I’m not trying to sweep death under the carpet. I am truly sorrowful about people dying. But compared to the 1970s and 80s, we are clearly safer today. There more than 50 deaths due to terrorism in the UK every year from 1971 to 1992. Things have gotten so much better since then. Does it feel like that? Is that what the media reports?
Moreover, what would make you feel more secure? This attack was carried out using a car and a knife. Neither of those things can be reasonably regulated for people we don’t yet suspect of terrorism. If we do suspect them, we would have arrested them anyway. There is perhaps some case for more protection for Westminster, but I am not yet convinced: the attacker was shot very soon after he attacked the police officer (and it seems reasonable that they didn’t yet know about the incident on the bridge) and the ability for politicians to mix relatively freely with the public seems important to me.
I can understand anger and a feeling of insecurity, but what changes would we actually make that might have stopped this action without giving up our freedom/ democracy, the very things terrorists seek to destroy?
Next, should you feel fear? A number of commentators seem to have seized upon this event as evidence that evil can strike at the heart of our very democracy.
This is our country now. This is what we have become. To this, we have been reduced. https://t.co/bcxnllW4DR pic.twitter.com/yxu5fkWQbE
— Katie Hopkins (@KTHopkins) March 22, 2017
<edit> Since deleted </edit>
Firstly, I don’t think you should feel fear because that is what the terrorists want — the clue is in the name. This isn’t a rational argument as such, perhaps it would be reasonable to feel fear, but it is worth noting that the bad people wish us to feel a certain way, so I would like to start by not giving in.
Secondly, related to the above graph, I do not feel it is reasonable to feel fear. This was a tragic, terrible thing. But if anything the rarity of such events highlights how good our security services are. 10 victims of terrorism have died in the last 10 years. This is too many, but the odds of being injured in a terror attack are tremendously low. 1,700 people died as road casulties in 2015 alone. I know these attacks are evocative to the public and terrible for the victims and their families, but there is no reason for the average person, even the average Londoner to feel fear.
I’ve waited to say this, because I think it is fine to give more time to mourn those of your own country, but look at the number of terrorist attacks worldwide. In March 2017 at least 441 victims have died. That is in March alone. In 1/120 of the time 44x as many people were killed. If we are to feel scared, how are the people of Nigeria, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan to feel, who have all had at least two terrorist attacks in the last month?
Finally, on the point of fear, are there any who would gain from us being fearful? Has there been any benefit to the media of wall to wall coverage of this event, often when no new information had arisen? Will hyperbolic coverage sell newspapers and airtime better than reason and sorrow? I hardly need answer.
How should we react then? Stoicism? Perhaps that might be called for if more attacks like this take place, but currently I don’t think our current situation merits it. We should mourn a terrible tragedy, but this was no clever strategy or sophisticated weapon system. This attack marks no new road in terror crimes nor does the perpetrator look to have a new ideology. To use words like “defiance” and “stand strong” seems to me to give too much credit to a man who harmed some innocents and was swiftly dealt with.
The last 10 years, even including the Westminster Attack, have been very safe historically. Terror attacks will happen and they will be tragic, but they need not change our way of life, nor should they curtail our liberty. One day there may be a time for resolute struggle, for fear and for defiance, but this event, tragic though it was, was ultimately too ill-conceived and small scale to be met with anything other than our sorrow and contempt. The victims deserve our care, but the attacker is not worth our time.
Republished from an earlier blog.