Manchester stands tall and sends a message to terrorists

The deadly attack on a concert in Manchester is at once appalling and tragically familiar. We have all seen this movie before — from the first amateur videos of the incident, to the naming of the bomber, to the sad gallery of victims’ faces on news sites and front pages.

Manchester followed what has become an all-too-common pattern for such attacks. In Paris, Nice and Orlando, too, terrorists targeted people who were simply out for a good time — at a concert, in a nightclub, strolling by the sea.

At Manchester Arena, the bomber added a special twist by unleashing death at a concert by Ariana Grande, whose fans are largely teenage girls. Twenty-two died, including a girl of only 8.

British Prime Minister Theresa May was right to say the attack stood out “for its appalling, sickening cowardice, deliberately targeting innocent, defenseless children and young people.”

In fact, it’s a tactic that has been employed by extremists from Pakistan to Nigeria, all the better to strike fear in their parents and all society — the very purpose of terrorism.

By now we should know that governments cannot stop a determined terrorist, especially one who acts alone, inspired only by an ideology he can pick up over the internet. But it’s telling that Manchester follows the pattern of recent attacks for which Daesh and other extremist groups have claimed credit. They don’t even try to strike at significant military or government targets; that would be too hard now that security measures are much tighter. Instead, they hit civilians at a concert or simply walking on the street.

The attacks are dramatic, bloody and horrifying. But they pose no existential threat to society. They demonstrate the ability of the terrorists to sow fear, but they also make clear the limits of their power. Ultimately, despite all the security measures adopted over the past decade and a half, governments cannot guarantee there will be no more attacks. They can take the fight to extremist organizations and track those most likely to answer their call. But they cannot control where terrorists will choose to strike.

What we can control is our reaction to terror attacks. May’s government took an appropriately measured approach, beefing up security around the country and raising the official “threat level” only when police obtained hard evidence that the Manchester bomber might have been working with associates and another attack could be on its way.

With an election set for June 8, some politicians may well be tempted to take advantage of public anger by whipping up fear and calling for stronger security measures. But Britain already has tough laws aimed at countering terrorism. Any additional steps should be based on evidence, not outrage, however understandable it may be after such terrible bloodshed.

We can also control how we react as citizens to a situation where terror can strike at random. In the wake of Manchester, for example, the Air Canada Centre in Toronto announced it will put on additional security. This may be a prudent step, but it should not deter anyone from attending a public event. The risk of an attack at any particular time and place is miniscule, and there is no reason to be intimidated.

In that we can learn from the example of Manchester itself, a tough city in a resilient country that has faced down terrorism for many decades while respecting its legacy of civil liberties. Far from being cowed, thousands gathered publicly in solidarity the day after the attack. That’s a message we all need to hear.