Brutal acts should be defined as such

Why young men described as normal, even wonderful, people by those around them, are able to commit heinous acts of terrorism is beyond belief.

Classmates of the Canadians involved in the explosion at an Algerian gas plant and friends of Boston’s Dzhokhar Tsarnaev are stunned that they were capable of executing these coldblooded acts. People who know the British extremists who hacked an innocent victim to death in London last week will probably be equally shocked.

The fact that these were homegrown culprits is even more inexplicable. The adjective “homegrown” is an evocative one, revealing threads of hurt and a sense of betrayal. That people who were provided with political asylum (the Tsarnaevs) or a safe and democratic environment in which to thrive (the Canadian suspects) should display such disloyalty is inconceivable.

The usual explanation is that they have been “radicalized” by their contact with terrorist groups like al-Qaida to become soldiers in a divine mission.

It may be time to stop using the term radicalization to describe the process that transforms normal, regular human beings into automatons bent on killing and maiming innocent people. Radical can have positive connotations. It has a certain cachet.

Radicals could be a step ahead of other people who will eventually come around to their point of view. For instance, it was a radical idea at one time that slavery could be abolished. At the moment it is radical to believe that women will ever become priests.

What terrorists do is inhuman and the process they go through should more properly be described as dehumanization and brutalization.

Brutalization takes place at two levels: recruits are themselves brutalized in the grooming process. They are then unleashed to perform acts of brutality, sometimes in the name of religion. It is as if the moral compass and humanity of each individual is sucked out and replaced with an unthinking drive toward a savage goal.

Terrorists responsible for the Air India explosion were Indo-Canadians. They cared little that passengers on that flight had nothing to do with the treatment of Sikhs in India. Canadians were outraged, but it is unrealistic to hope that immigrants will be immune to political developments and upheavals in their home countries.

Canadians of Ukrainian descent took a keen interest in the Ukrainian election, even travelling there to act as observers during the campaign. They were delighted to watch the birth of democracy in the land of their ancestors and to help it along. The difference between their efforts and those of the Air India bombers is that Ukrainian-Canadians were involved in a positive exercise.

While the situation of Sikhs in India may well be dire, seeking a solution through violent acts against the innocent is inexcusable. If there is one thing we hope new Canadians will absorb is that when change is necessary, it must come via changing governments, peaceful protests and other non-violent means.

Because some perpetrators invoke religion as their motivation, the discourse around their acts is hedged with difficulties. Many in religious communities are afraid to condemn violent acts for fear of retribution; others become defensive because they’re unfairly tarred with the same brush. Referring to such individuals as inhuman criminals would strip them of the religious credibility so important to their cause. It would also embolden individuals in their community to denounce such actions as hijacking their religion.

There are already hopeful signs of change. Imams in some Ontario mosques are concerned about misinformation on Islamic teachings found on the Internet. Not only are they counselling members to obtain spiritual advice from reputable sources but they are also working with authorities to keep the community safe. Perhaps this move will trigger debate on one of the most troubling problems we face, the indoctrination of people.

Words are powerful weapons, in fact the only weapons we can deploy in a democratic society. How we define things and people dictates how we talk about them, think about them and treat them. Acts of brutality should be defined as such, thus stripping them of the religious mantle that is used to justify them. Doing so will cut the ground beneath hardcore fundamentalists who seek to exploit vulnerable and confused young people.

That is why it is important to deprive terrorist acts of any glamour, honour or bogus religious motivation by denouncing them as inhuman and brutal. When the condemnation is universal, violent acts will become less attractive to misguided young men seeking to play a meaningful role in the world.