Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
Politics and Religion
Defining terrorism

Defining terrorism

Last updated on: June 20, 2017 at 12:14 pm by Jane the Actuary

Defining terrorism 2017-06-20T12:14:50-06:00 Jane the Actuary

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

From Wikipedia: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AFinsbury_Park_mosque_-_panoramio.jpg; Olof Lagerkvist [CC BY 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

The name of the Finsbury Park attacker has now been released: Darren Osborne, a 47 year old man from Cardiff, who ranted that “this is for London Bridge” after the attack, according to eyewitness accounts.

According to neighbors, he was not known or perceived of as racist, but was “shouty” and his mother reported that “had been on medication for mental health problems.”

He is alleged to have expressed increasingly antagonistic views towards Muslims in the weeks since the London Bridge atrocity. . .

Neighbour Saleem Naema, 50, a taxi driver, said: “I can’t believe it. I know him. I’ve lived here for five years, he was already living here when I moved in.

“If I ever needed anything he would come. I just can’t believe that he did that. I am a Muslim.”

So the story seems to be: man with anger management issues loses it when terrorists attack, and seeks revenge by going after worshippers at a prominent religious site connected to the religion.

Is this terrorism?

Is this a “hate crime”? Is terrorism being re-defined as we speak to encompass “hate crimes”?

Or is it something else?

The UK, as it happens, has a legislative definition of terrorism, from the Terrorism Act of 2000. Note that this predates the September 11th attacks, and seems to have its origins in their longstanding problems with the IRA, which we in the U.S. have forgotten about as a non-Islamic terrorist organization. Here it is:

Section 1. –
(1) In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where-
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation][2] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious[, racial][3] or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

So whether this attack was terrorism doesn’t seem to require, according to this definition, that the individual be affiliated with , or inspired by, an organized group like ISIS, only that the action is intended to advance a “political, religious, racial or ideological cause” and that it is intended to “intimidate the public or a section of the public.”

Is revenge a “cause”? Does mental illness influence whether an action is determined to intend to “intimidate the public”? In fact, the more difficult part of the definition is this latter part — how do you separate out an explicit “intention to intimidate”?

But beyond this definition, it seems to me that terrorism has become another word in that battle of words. It signifies importance: hence the demand that the Finsbury Park attack be classified as such was a matter of proving that the authorities cared sufficiently. And, in the U.S., arguments periodically surface on whether attacks by racists like Dylan Roof are “terrorism” or whether lynchings, in the past, were.

And Nabra Hassanen, the Muslim teen girl who was killed in Virginia early Sunday morning, was lumped in together with this attack, with twitter (and the Huffington Post) demanding that this, too, be labelled “terrorism”; now it’s being labelled by the police as “road rage” though the Muslim community rejects this, e.g.:

“Road rage. Indeed,” tweeted Rabia Chaudry, an attorney and senior fellow at the Washington-based U.S. Institute of Peace. “If you think for a minute that her appearance had nothing to do with this crime, you’re lying to yourself.”

(In a twist, the girl’s killer is an illegal immigrant from El Salvador.)

So what happens next?

UPDATE:

Turns out, when I opened the Tribune today at lunch, there was an article on exactly the question of “what is terrorism?” It was a reprinting of a Washington Post article that precedes the Finsbury Park attack, and instead addresses the question of whether James T. Hodgekinson was a terrorist. (The gist of it is summarized at International Business Times if you’ve used up your views.) And this article pretty much discards the question of discerning whether a killing is “terrorism” or not, but simply says that, absent a legal definition in the United States, and given that the common understanding that intent distinguishes terrorism from other mass killings is a fairly murky thing to discern in many cases,

One first step toward resolving the question of “what is terrorism?” — at least in the colloquial sense — is to stop focusing so much on the perpetrator’s perceived intent and to look more at the effects of the violent act. Today, attackers such as Hodgkinson, Hasan, Rizwan, Malik, Loughner and Roof have one thing clearly in common: Even if it’s not clear why, they want to kill as many people as possible. That should be enough to call them all terrorists.

Which is, on the one hand, makes a moral point that mass killings are all bad because they indeed kill people regardless of the motivation, but it misses the point that motivation does matter for us to understand the event, and that there is a meaningful difference in how we react to a killer with no motivation other than serious mental illness vs. someone who thinks he’s advancing a cause.

Image: From Wikipedia: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AFinsbury_Park_mosque_-_panoramio.jpg; Olof Lagerkvist [CC BY 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Uncategorized

Finsbury Park attack

terrorism

Previous Post

June 20, 2017

What the [asterisk] is going on with Illinois' public universities?

Next Post

June 20, 2017 Blockbuster, Borders, your local grocer?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Actuarial/Retirement Issues Politics Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 December 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 August 2021 June 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What did Job maintain throughout his speeches?

Select your answer to see how you score.

His guilt His silence His wealth His innocence