The slaughter of six innocent men at Quebec City's Islamic Cultural Centre was a Canadian tragedy now forever engraved in this country's dark history of public violence. Yet whatever emotions of sobriety it may have inspired in the moment were quickly eclipsed by a scramble to politicize the crime for the benefit of a certain faction. Much as Marc Lépine's 1989 killing spree at the Polytechnique de Montréal has been largely reduced to an ideological talking-point for a certain kind of feminist, progressives from the Prime Minister on down have been keen to turn the Quebec City killings into a helpful tool to silence critics of multiculturalism.
When massacres occur in the social media age, the trickle of confused and contradictory details prompt predictable scoldings about the dangers of "jumping to conclusions" before all facts are known. This advice was quite explicitly not heeded on the evening of January 29.
Though there has been no greater killer of Muslims than Islamist radicals, initial reports of a mosque shooting immediately prompted leading voices in Canadian media and politics to conclude that a white-on-Muslim hate crime was the only conceivable explanation. Progressives have long assumed Islamophobia to be the true horror of our times, and journalistic standards are routinely shed in the search for anecdotal confirmation. Even as early reports described the killer as a man of "Moroccan descent" shouting "Allah Akbar," reporters were appending their stories with special features about how "people who practice Islam haven't always been made to feel so welcome in the province," and an oft-repeated anecdote about a pig's head left on the mosque's doorstep.
That the killer did, ultimately, prove to be a white guy matters little. That conclusion was reached long before there were facts to support it, and bodies were turned into political props before they had cooled.
Mere hours after the attack, Prime Minister Trudeau released a statement declaring "diversity is our strength," while Thomas Mulcair vowed to battle "those who peddle the politics of fear and division." Michael Chong, who is running for the leadership of the Conservative Party on a platform of unbridled hate for conservatives, tweeted that the attack was "no accident" but the "direct result of demagogues and wannabe demagogues playing to fears and prejudices" including "politicians talking division, not unity." (Gee, you think he had anyone in mind?)
Alexandre Bissonnette's massacre could not have come at a more convenient time for many on the left, given President Trump's much-loathed temporary travel ban on seven terror-sponsoring nations had been announced the previous morning. Eager to link one story to the other, reporters cherry-picked to turn Bissonnette into an alt-right stereotype. It was noted he'd "liked" Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen on Facebook, though few mentioned he'd liked Jack Layton as well. Sources were found claiming he'd posted "trollish" comments about refugees, but nothing hard was produced. The creator of a pro-refugee page Bissonnette had supposedly terrorized conceded to the Toronto Star that "he did not recall particular attacks that targeted the Muslim community."
I'm perfectly self-aware. If Sunday had been an Islamist massacre I'd be writing a very different column today. But I'd also be writing in response to a terrorist ideology that explicitly, loudly, and endlessly advocates the murder of unbelievers. Regardless of what you think of those carrying deep skepticism, even hatred, of Islam, there is simply no mainstream faction of our culture demanding the mass execution of Muslims. Whatever evil motivated Bissonnette was a product of his own twisted mind, and those who have expressed measured, rational skepticism of radical Islam have nothing to atone for.
My own suspicion is that in the weeks to come, Bissonnette's political opinions will prove to be incoherent paranoia. He'll likely resemble Jared Lee Loughner, the would-be assassin of Congresswoman Gabbie Giffords and a gibbering madman who was initially portrayed as an evil conservative because that was more politically useful.
There is nothing morally wrong with reacting to a massacre of Muslims by attending public rallies and giving speeches about how Islam poses no threat to anything and no one should question the country's refugee policy. That is a conclusion drawn from perceived evidence, in the same way those who witness an Islamist massacre may call for immigration restrictions or a more aggressive foreign policy. It is the public's job to decide which conclusion seems like an appropriate response to the challenges of our time and which is a shallow exercise in demagoguery.
Written by J.J. McCullough
