At 1:35 into VICE news’ report on the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack in Paris, a synagogue staff member explains why a Jew could well be safer in Israel than France. “Here we are not allowed to defend ourselves,” he opines. “We don’t have the right to have weapons, we can’t do anything.” I guess he doesn’t know much about Israeli gun control; despite recently relaxed rules in response to a terror attack, the Jewish state makes it extremely difficult for the average citizen to exercise their natural right to armed self-defense. Still, point taken. But there’s a wider issue here . . .
The VICE report mainly focuses on French “Islamophobic” attacks after the Hebdo incident. For those of us who ascribe to the “armed society is a polite society” school of thought, the rise of ethnic or religious or class conflict is an entirely predictable outgrowth of disarmament. When the cost of conflict is low, the chances of it occurring are high. That’s just how it is.
The young woman bemoaning Muslims’ exclusion from French society [at great length] fails to understand that there is no government “cure” for ethnic, religious or sexual orientation intolerance. No government policy or edict can eliminate it. By the same token, the presence of 10k French troops on Paris streets and other areas of potential conflict will do nothing to ease tension, and much to exacerbate it.
The only way to ensure personal security is to “let” people defend themselves by force of arms. Once they are secure in their persons, those who would do them harm are forced to live with them. Then, and only then, can a full rapprochement begin. Yes, there are community leaders who work to integrate groups (such as the boxing club in the film), but there are also community leaders who exploit tensions between groups for their own power. Guess who wins. Guess who loses.