My blogging has been light lately as I have been on the road travelling a lot. This recent period has had me travelling like something of a crazy person with trips all over the Centre/East Coast of North America.
Part of this trip included some time in Ottawa, where it was some interesting times. The week before I arrived there was a series of dramatic arrests here against individuals suspected of plotting to carry out terrorist attacks against the city. These are individuals who, from most media accounts, were largely raised in Canada and subsequently became radicalized.
This is not the first series of arrests that have been carried out by Canadian police and intelligence services in recent years. The case of the Toronto 18 (although only 11 were eventually charged) – seems to be similar in the sense that it was a bunch of individuals that became radicalized and eventually tried to carry out terrorist acts in Toronto. Although their efforts were almost comically bad – and full of screw-ups along the way – the plot to blow up Toronto office buildings was not really anything to laugh about.
This is kind of old news now, but a couple of thoughts on this latest series of arrests – with the caveat of course that I am no terrorism expert.
I suppose the main thing that has caught my attention is that one of the suspects, Khurram Sher, has young children. Initially, I found this somewhat shocking – but upon reflection I realized that this is not unlike recent London bombers (in the 7/7 attacks and the attempts of 21/7 ) – some of whom were married and some with children. And some of the lead suspects in the Toronto 18 case also had children.
I’ve been asking terrorism researching friends why this might be. Apparently the appropriate question is why, in these cases does having children not provide an “insulating” factor against radicalization? If there is some kind of parenting instinct, why is it not enough to overcome or prevent some individuals from wanting to carry out violent acts?
Based on some brief conversations, I’m not sure there is a straightforward answer. One explanation is that violent radicals have often married young and, naturally, have had children as a result. So in this sense it may just be something that has happened along the way, or during the process of violent radicalization.
Perhaps more interestingly it was also suggested to me that there is some research to support the idea that the women in the lives of violent radicals – such as their wives – may play a role in encouraging them to act. Kind of like a bad version of Macbeth, I guess. But in that case the question about the insulating effect of children then applies to the women as well – why don’t children discourage them from encouraging violent radicalism? Why would they prefer that their husbands act than their children to have a father?
But upon some (very light) investigation into this – it seems as though many women who actually execute terrorist acts (as opposed to only encouraging) are mothers as well. This is particularly the case with the Black Widdows of Chechnya where women are often in their mid-20s and may have 2-3 children. A depressing thought.
Another interesting question to come off of this is if there is a difference between fathers in the Middle East in harsh circumstances (such as Palestine) and Western radicals? While I could imagine that being the son/daughter/wife of a “martyr” might convey (however perversely) a certain social status in the Occupied Territories, would this hold true for the Canadian Muslim community (who have been very quick to denounce the supposed plot on a national level)?
I would be very interested in suggestions for research in this area. I’m fairly certain that if I asked my parents I would get some kind of sarcastic comment about myself and my brother being enough to drive anyone crazy. However, I have to think that there is more social-scientific research out there that doesn’t involve parental sarcasm.
This video of one of the London bombers holding his infant daughter is pretty chilling. He is literally making a video for her – spelling out exactly what he was about to do and that she should pray for him in heaven. I don’t like to think of myself as overly sentimental – but you would think that having kids would discourage someone from actively harming themselves?
I don't mean to draw a crass equivalence, but couldn't we ask the same question about soldier-parents who sign up for a second tour of duty in a war zone? I think the scene near the end of the Hurt Locker explores this phenomenon a bit…
I take your point, but I am more concerned with people who commit violence within their own societies rather than other societies. (I also have not seen the Hurt Locker because it looks super depressing.) Although the loss of a parent is going to be traumatic in any case, a child of a domestic violent radical will probably face greater consequences – certainly greater stigmatization. Rightly or wrongly I'm making a distinction between someone who chooses to actively harm the society their in rather than someone who is deployed abroad. At least in a Western society – as I suggest in the post, I see that it may be different in a situation like Palestine.
I would assume from the perspective of the would-be shaheed, it would be worse for the child to see their parent as a hypocrite who talks about religious obligation and duty but does not have the fortitude to act. After all the chief accusation hurled at the West by Islamic militants relates to the West's hypocrisy toward their own laws and beliefs (see Faisal Devji's The Terrorist in Search of Humanity (2008).
Oh I agree – but then again, show me a child that DOESN'T think their parents are hypocrites at some point.
Fair enough…
Because some causes are so important they overwhelm family ties?
Because there would be even more violent radicals were it not for family ties?
Because they had religious beliefs that strongly encouraged them to be fruitful & multiply?
Thank you so much for the video clip! I had no idea that blending crass stereotypes (or displaying their naturally occurring mixture as an objet trouve) could be so effective in breaking them.
“it was also suggested to me that there is some research to support the idea that the women in the lives of violent radicals – such as their wives – may play a role in encouraging them to act. Kind of like a bad version of Macbeth, I guess.” – A bad version of Macbeth? You know it's a tragedy right? Is there a Disney version I don't know about where Macbeth morphs into Prince Charming and the witches teach Lady Macbeth how to bake the bestest birthday cake ever?