7 things to stop saying about the Sydney siege

With such a tragedy hitting Sydney never has the expression opinions are like assholes –- everyone has one been more apt. Some of that talk has been racism and xenophobia (but not in my social media feeds, yay living in a bubble!) which should of course be condemned. But I’ve seen other, subtler problematic stuff said, across the political spectrum. Here are 7 things I think we should all stop saying:

1. This was definitely terrorism/definitely not terrorism

This was a crime committed by a single person who is now dead. Certainly the siege had the effect of terrorising many of us. But classifying something as terrorism requires having a look at the perpetrator’s intention which we can’t ask him. His behaviour was a bit erratic and could have a range of interpretations, which is why you could make the case for either. Ultimately though, what does it change? This shifts the debate to what something should be classified as, and once someone cracks out the dictionary any hope of a useful discussion dies.

2. This/terrorism/Islamic terrorism/whatever is an affront to the “civilised world”

The use of “civilised” or “barbaric” in these conversations is always racist and largely used to justify atrocities. Anyone who uses these without realising it (or denying that there’s a problem) should be dragged to at least a couple of semesters of history study. Or at the very least, watch Crash Course World History seasons one and two. Just don’t.

3. This attack is a wake-up call

A wake-up to what? This is usually accompanied by rhetoric about getting more tough on terrorism, as if Australia’s inviting overseas terrorists to come visit and not spending time investigating domestic terrorism. It doesn’t appear that this particular attack would have been easily preventable with just “more” policing unless it’s to the point of absurdity. Is the suggestion to have metal detectors and security guards at the entrance of every major public space? Even Israel (on much higher terrorism alert than Sydney) restricts that to large areas like shopping centres.

This could potentially be a wake-up call for certain policy changes about guns, bail etc, but that’s not generally how it’s used.

4. This has nothing to do with Islam/terrorism etc because he was a lone loon/mentally ill/a “crazy”

Perpetuating the myth that associates mental illness with violence in the mind of the public is bad. Shitting on people with mental illnesses in an attempt to call for calm is bad. Armchair diagnosis of people you’ve never met with your non-existent degree in psychology/psychiatry is bad. Stigmatising people with a mental illness and further endangering them in an attempt to call for calm is bad. Don’t.

5. You’re more likely to win the lottery/be bitten by Luis Suarez than die of a terrorist attack

If your aim is to show that humans aren’t perfectly mathematical calculating machines when assessing risk, well done. Slow clap. While calls not to overreact in terms of policy are important, the absolute risk of dying in a violent attack need to be put into context. We need to acknowledge that these attacks take an emotional in a way that more “common” ways of dying do not. Putting exclusive emphasis on absolute risk has the effect of shaming people for being scared, implying that they had the “wrong” reaction to the siege.

6. He was not a true Muslim

While this may be well-intentioned in terms of trying to keep people from jumping to incorrect and xenophobic conclusions, if this claim is being made by a non-Muslim it should raise a red flag. Firstly, where’s your degree in Islamic studies and Islamic theology, did you leave it at home? Secondly, who are you to adjudicate whether someone’s identity is legitimate? This attitude causes more problems than it solves. Finally, so what if he was? By spending time on identity, you’re implying that it matters, that if he was a “true” Muslim that would justify some racist crap. It wouldn’t.

7. Islam is violent/Islam is peaceful/violence is a perversion of Islamic teachings

Even if these statements are made by Muslims, I think they’re problematic because it’s a lot more complicated than that. After all, Islam is not a monolith and the whole point of highlighting that there’s more than 1 billion Muslims is to remind people about diversity. Any argument that one interpretation of Islam is “the correct” one can’t really be made to the general public because we don’t have the knowledge to adjudicate that. It can only be made to people who hold other interpretations of Islam.

But it’s particularly offensive when these simplistic and reductive memes are spouted by non-Muslims who know maybe seven things about Islam. It’s incredibly patronising to think that you can understand the details in their appropriate context regurgitated off some soundbytes – let alone make judgements about “Islam”. It’s not going to help much if in the name of keeping things calm you’re setting yourself up as the judge of what “true Islam” is.

More From This Category

sexual ethics promiscuity

sexual ethics promiscuity

Navigating Sexual Ethics: A Conversation on Promiscuity In modern times, conversations about sexuality have become more open and nuanced, offering a broad spectrum of views and values. Among the many topics that emerge in discussions of sexual ethics, promiscuity is...

read more
Dalai Lama defines religious violence out of existence

Dalai Lama defines religious violence out of existence

This week, the Dalai Lama engaged in more mealy-mouthed bullshit that went viral because it’s telling many people what they want to hear. In condemning religious violence (yay DL?) he said that anyone partaking in violent activities is not a genuine practitioner of...

read more

0 Comments

0 Comments