London: Defining Terrorism For Anyone Still Confused

Another day, another terror attack in London. The incident in Finsbury Park is the third in the capital in as many months and Londoners are understandably anguished and angry. What they shouldn’t be, however, is confused about what is going on: this latest attack is an act of terrorism, plain and simple.

Terror in Finsbury Park

The Economist was quick to declare in the early morning that there had been another terror attack in London. It did not hesitate to define the incident as terrorism but others didn’t have quite the same approach.

As one Twitter user pointed out, headlines from some news outlets referred so little to the assailant that you’d think the van drove itself. Few mentioned terrorism, a label they instantly applied to Borough Market and Westminster. It all comes down to the fact the attacker was white and clearly not Muslim. The Mail Online (left) was quick to point out he was “clean-shaven” and “white” but did not call him a terrorist. It did have enough headline space to point out that the mosque involved was connected to Islamic extremist Abu Hamza.

When MP Jo Cox was shot and stabbed to death by Right-wing extremist and immigration opponent Thomas Mair last year there was a similar reluctance from the Mail and some other publications to use the “T” word or focus too heavily on his political motives. Mair assassinated Cox during the Brexit campaign, yelling out “Keep Britain independent, Britain will always come first” as he stood over her body.

In court he yelled “Death to Traitors”. Much of the press coverage gave more attention to his mental health problems than was the case with Michael Adebowale, the Islamist killer of Fusilier Lee Rigby whose previous mental health problems seem to have been much more severe and better documented than Mair’s. Given that the media still seems confused about what terrorism is, Felix is here to help clear up a few things.

So who is a terrorist?

Finding an international definition of terrorism has always been complicated but the Collins dictionary definition is “the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal” while Merriam-Webster calls it “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion”.

Interestingly the first use of the word according to the Oxford English Dictionary was during the French Revolution and their government’s “Reign of Terror”. The concept of terrorism began as acts of violence by the government towards the people.

The UK’s legal definition in the Terrorism Act 2000 includes “the use or threat of action… designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public”.

The UN has spoken of terrorism as “attack[ing] the values that lie at the heart of the Charter of the United Nations: respect for human rights; the rule of law; rules of war that protect civilians; tolerance among peoples and nations; and the peaceful resolution of conflict.”

Terrorism has no face

What’s quickly apparent is that the ethnicity or ideology of the perpetrators is never mentioned in these definitions: anyone aiming to create fear in a group of people is a terrorist. A UN Global Counter-terrorism Strategy from 2006 reiterates this, condemning terrorism “in all its forms and committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever reasons”.

If you’re still unsure you can look at the word itself. Terrorism comes from the latin terrere meaning to frighten or tremble. It’s as simple as that – this man attacking defenceless Muslims as they leave their Ramadan prayers and claiming he will “kill all Muslims” wants to create fear in the community – he is a terrorist.

 

by Jo Davey

The post London: Defining Terrorism For Anyone Still Confused appeared first on Felix Magazine.