J.D. Tuccille: After the Belleville attack, Jews face tough decisions about security

COTTONWOOD, Ariz. — The evening that a murderous antisemite opened fire outside a Yom Kippur service at the Sons of Jacob Synagogue in Belleville, Ont., I guarded a synagogue in Sedona, Ariz., hoping to prevent exactly that sort of incident. Fortunately, my time was less eventful than that of Const. Jeff Smith, who was badly wounded while fighting the attacker. But I spent the evening with a pistol and pepper spray on my hip and an AR-15 in reach while sweating under body armour because attacks like the one in Belleville have become all too common around the world. And while those gathered at Sons of Jacob were lucky to have Smith in place to defend them, most institutions need to look to their own safety.

Sign In or Create an Account

Inside the Sedona synagogue, my wife and several other members of the congregation carried concealed firearms of their own in case my efforts proved inadequate. Like me, most of them are graduates of a well-regarded private Arizona school that offers firearms training to civilians, police officers and members of the military. Several of us have received additional training and we all practice our skills.

Columnist Jesse Kline keeps you up to date with what’s happening in Israel and the effects of antisemitism on life here in Canada. Friday mornings.

By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Channel Israel will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

That’s not uncommon in the U.S. When Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, Mich., was attacked in March by a Hezbollah-linked terrorist, he was stopped by the synagogue’s armed security detail. They pinned the attacker in place in his incendiary-filled vehicle, leaving him as the only fatality.

“As you have no doubt heard, Temple Israel was the victim of a terrorist gunman who was confronted and neutralized by our security personnel who are truly heroes,” Temple Israel posted at the time. “Our teachers followed their training and kept the children safe and calm.”

Const. Smith’s presence at Sons of Jacob was fortuitous, but not the sort of protection on which most houses of worship can rely. When the synagogue I guard planned public Hanukkah celebrations, local police were very co-operative and assigned officers to provide protection in addition to our own efforts. But they were also clear that their small departments have limited manpower and that officers would be pulled away if they were needed to respond to accidents or crimes.

That’s when local authorities are supportive, which is not always the case. In Montgomery County, Md., officials twice tried to ban even defensive weapons at “sensitive public places,” including houses of worship, over the protests of many of the affected institutions. I asked the main sponsor of the legislation if she had given any thought to consulting with those affected to learn if they prefer to make their own rules regarding the carrying of firearms, but she ignored the question and insisted she was just restating earlier legislation that had been partly overruled by the courts.

The Montgomery County law makes an exception for police and licensed security guards. But as mentioned above, police aren’t always available even in supportive communities, and Montgomery County is not very supportive. Professional security is expensive, putting its regular use beyond the means of even larger congregations. Around me, the Roman Catholic parish is the best-funded religious institution in the community, but like the synagogue, it relies on trained volunteer armed security — though I envy their eye-in-the-sky drones.

That’s typical. Surveys by Lifeway Research find that “around four in five U.S. Protestant pastors (81 per cent) say their church has some type of security measure in place” and “most (54 per cent) also say armed church members are part of the measures they have in place.” Just five per cent rely on police on-site.

Last month, Axios reported, “synagogues across the U.S. are having congregants train to be volunteer security teams” and that one nonprofit group, the Community Security Service, has trained “more than 7,100 active volunteers” to protect “more than 500 synagogues and events across the U.S. each week.”

No wonder that after Montgomery County passed its ban on firearms at houses of worship, a synagogue security volunteer told the Jerusalem News Syndicate, “We are still carrying. That remains true, despite Montgomery County’s best efforts.” He added, “I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by six.”

That commitment won’t be tested. Like the earlier county law, after a lawsuit by a synagogue and two rabbis, the gun ban is now under a federal injunction as a violation of the Second Amendment’s protections for the right to keep, carry, and use the means for self-defence as well as First Amendment protections for the right to worship.

“A threat to safety is likely an irreparable harm,” ruled U.S. District Judge Deborah K. Chasanow in finding the plaintiffs suing to block the law were likely to prevail in court. “A burden on religious practice cannot be fully remedied by money damages, and thus can be considered irreparable.”

Evading the efforts of government officials hostile to self-defence is an all-too-common necessity. When I attended a week-long defensive pistol class last year, one of my classmates, back for a refresher course, worked with a national organization to train Jewish security volunteers. He told me that while he and his colleagues are welcomed by synagogues and other institutions, they sometimes need to operate under the radar in communities where authorities put roadblocks in the way of their efforts.

But we’re fortunate in the U.S. to be able, in most places, to adequately provide for the congregation’s defence. As that Sunday Yom Kippur service emptied, before we received word of the Belleville attack, an Englishman visiting Sedona, which is a tourist magnet, told me that he worked as a security guard at his synagogue but isn’t permitted to wield much more than a stern look to deter potential threats. Given the dangers in the U.K. as much as elsewhere, he wished he could carry the gear available to us.

Even before the shootout at the Sons of Jacob Congregation, Canadian Jews also pushed for better security measures. In a February National Post article, Toronto Jewish community advocate Joseph Reichmann criticized police priorities when it comes to defending Jewish institutions and called for “professionally trained guards held to the same standards as any other armed private security.”

While not prohibited to the same extent as in the U.K., legally providing armed guards for houses of worship would probably require changes to restrictive Canadian laws that currently limit carrying guns to the protection of cash and “other goods of substantial value” or for use against animals in the wilderness.

With antisemitic attacks on the rise around the world, those responsible for synagogue security face tough decisions. If they’re lucky, they will have a constable Jeff Smith on hand. More likely, they’ll need to make their own provisions for the safety of their congregations. That may mean asking volunteers to spend time sweating under body armour and carrying protective gear in hopes it won’t be needed.

National Post

This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.