THE MARATHON BOMBER

Well, can you believe it? Rolling Stone magazine is in trouble – if having everyone talking about you and making your latest issue a collector’s item can be called “trouble” – over a cover that features a picture of the Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. It’s a common picture lifted from his Facebook page. It’s one we’ve all seen, that has “graced” the covers and pages of countless newspapers, magazines and tabloids. But, in the minds of some, the cover of Rolling Stone is different. It’s a place for the beautiful people, people celebrated for being celebrities, famous for being famous.

This controversy is a recent example of the inarticulate groupthink evident in so much social media today. A few folks see something they find troubling and fingers and thumbs spring into action. It’s a crisis, an abuse, an outrage! And what was just barely interesting , through the miracle of compound interest, has become a social phenomenon. Then the classic media report on the “outrage”. Victims are interviewed, Facebook likes are tallied, politicians wade in, and news-stands refuse to carry the offending item. Democracy in action. 

But it’s all fuzzy thinking, like the kerfuffle that arose after death of Pierre Trudeau when someone called him a “Great” Prime Minister. People who think of “great” as synonymous with “good” rushed to point out his many faults, but in a larger context “great” is merely big, as in the Great Depression, the Great War, a great tragedy. Though most of the notables featured on the cover of Rolling Stone are being celebrated, some, like those in the post office, are simply being identified. Most, like Bob Dylan and Madonna, are famous, but others, like Charles Manson (June 1970), are infamous. There’s a larger context to consider.

Well, I suppose it’s too much to expect that everyone will be able to navigate the subtleties of sober second thought, but the Mayor of Boston, the Governor of Massachusetts, a former Massachusetts senator, and the management of large retail chains should be able to handle it. Community leaders should be expected to lead in thoughtful directions, but such leadership is not rewarded in politics or business. What’s rewarded is piling on. It’s all about constituent’s votes and customers’ money.

But this is about more than a magazine cover. It’s why we have had so little serious discussion of the root causes of things like the Boston Marathon bombing. Those who ask serious questions like, who are these people, and where do they come from, are slapped down. The narrative must be preserved: these are monsters; their crazed, reptilian minds hate our way of life; they are “religious extremists” unlike us and our children.

But when we do ask the questions we generally discover that things are more understandable than we may have thought. What we do and what’s done to us are often connected. As Jesus put it, “...all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” (Matt 26:52)

There are, of course, innocent victims, like the eight year old child who simply came to watch his daddy run. All the more reason to ask the searching questions. If you’re interested check out Dirty Wars by Jeremy Scahill (the book and/or video). There are reasons why these things are happening and some of them are us.

THE PMO SHOULD BE A VOICE OF REASSURANCE.

A disaster, natural or human caused (this one may be both if the climate change folks have it right), can bring out the best in people. We’ve all watched with amazement and vicarious pride as the human spirit has soared above the surging flood waters in Southern Alberta. People have opened their homes to strangers, donated millions of dollars to disaster relief efforts, and joined “roving bands of volunteers” (Laureen Harper’s words) assisting in the clean-up. But, the truth is, a tragedy stirs up whatever’s there, and some of it can be ugly.

In High River, a town of about 13,000 residents, 40 minutes south of Calgary, tensions are running high as they enter their second week of evacuation. During this period RCMP officers have been going through the town checking on residences. They’ve been looking for victims and ensuring homes are safe and secure, but also gathering up unsecured firearms. People are grateful for the efforts of the RCMP, and many are relieved to know their guns are in a safe place, but some have been upset about the “seizing” of their property. – Unfortunately “seize” is the word the RCMP used initially in reference to their actions. It may be the correct legal term but “removal for safe keeping” might have caused less anxiety.

While I understand the action of the police in this situation, I also appreciate the residents concerns. The battle over the Long Gun Registry has caused many gun owners to feel at odds with the police, and police forces everywhere, including Canada, have a history of exceeding their mandates in “emergency” situations. The G-20 a few years back produced many instances of abuse of police authority. And there is evidence that, in the October Crisis of 1970, police abused their powers detaining, without cause, prominent artists and intellectuals associated with the sovereignty movement.

Police forces have lots of things they’d like to do that the law prevents them from doing. When the opportunity arises, it must be hard to resist doing them. This is why we have laws that even the police must obey, and it’s why people are nervous about the cops in situations like this.

All this being said, however, it seems to me that the Prime Minister’s Office could have been more conciliatory in responding to complaints from constituents in High River. In issuing the statement, “We expect that any firearms taken will be returned to their owners as soon as possible.” they said all they really needed to say. But then they added, “We believe the RCMP should focus on more important tasks such as protecting lives and private property,” Surely the securing of unsecured firearms is just that, an attempt protect lives and private property.

If the RCMP have exceeded their mandate by searching homes unreasonably, seizing property inappropriately, or harassing law abiding gun owners, there will be plenty of time to sort that out. In the mean time the PMO should be encouraging distraught citizens to have confidence in law enforcement agencies, and to appreciate for the difficult work they are called to do.

The PMO is showing signs of hyper-partisanship and paranoia in recent weeks. As Liberal MP, Marc Garneau, commented  few days ago, “They seem to be in considerable need of adult supervision.”

It’s been a tough couple of months for the Prime Minister’s Office, but I do hope they can pull things together over the summer. We sure don’t need two more years of this sort of nonsense.