Question: why is there no securtity at cultural events? Why, when attending a Cultural Olympiad event at the Queen Elizabeth Theatre, do we not have to go through airport-style screening?
Not that I’m suggesting it. But isn’t it odd that a target as attractive to a terrorist as any crowd at a sports event – and arguably more vulnerable – isn’t subject to the same level of security?
The reason, I’d suggest, is that we’re always fighting the last war. Because of Munich and Atlanta, we accept the constraints for access to the public spaces at Olympic Games that were previous targets. Just as we now take off our shoes at airports. But since no one has set off a bomb in a theatre – yet – we accept a level of risk that requires, in another context, a billion-dollar expenditure to avoid.
The public seems to have reached its limit of tolerance, though, with the chain-link fence that cuts off access, physical and visual, to the cauldron at Jack Poole Plaza. This morning I see they’ve sliced a gap in the fence for cameras, and allowed people an unobstructed view from the adjacent rooftop to the west.
But really, why not just two rows of Jersey barriers and some Mounties? Isn’t it worth the risk? And if zero or minimal risk is the only acceptable option, then why, I ask, do we leave balletomanes and symphony goers as soft targets?
It would be worth the risk until someone gets hurt or injured or protestors smash the glass supports for the cauldron – then there’d be hell to pay.