Why is one mass shooting a ‘terror attack’ and the other an unfortunate consequence of ‘mental illness’?
The San Bernardino shooting in California by Tashfeen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook on 2 December is being investigated as an act of terrorism according to the American Federal Bureau of Investigation. As is the 5 December knife attack by a man named Muhaydin Mire, who attacked three people in a London underground station. But what about Zack Davies, a neo-nazi who tried to behead a British Asian dentist in a racially-motivated attack?
At most dinner party discussions about terrorism, there is, at least, one person who will point out that the world has, to date, despite nearly daily occurrences of “acts of terror”, not reached a consensus on what the term defines.
Across the world, however, including in India and the United States of America, terrorism is defined, essentially, as an intentional act of violence aimed at intimidating or coercing a group of people or a government.
Hypocrisy?
In the case of San Bernardino and the London knife attack, the assumption is that the Muslim perpetrators engaged in an act of violence against the non-Muslim population to intimidate them as well as the government.
By these standards, Zack Davies shouted “white power” as he attacked Dr Sarandev Bhambra with a machete in Flintshire, United Kingdom. And what of the “white supremacists” who shot five Black Lives Matter protesters in Minneapolis, USA? These racial attacks were acts of violence aimed at intimidating a group of people based on an ideology of racial superiority. So, aren’t they acts of terrorism?
Closer to home, consider the murders of rationalists MM Kalburgi and Govind Pansare. They were killed for their beliefs which had invited the wrath of right-wing Hindu organisations. This is no secret. Does this not count as intimidation of a group of people through violent acts? Does this not count as terrorism?
Islamophobic Bias
So why are only certain types of violent acts slotted under the umbrella of terror? Why is it that when a murder or mass shooting doesn’t neatly fit onto the shelf marked Islamist radicalisation or bearded, religious extremism, it’s treated as a case of mental illness or a murder?
The horrific Charleston mass shooting by Dylann Roof who killed nine people during a prayer meeting at an African American church on June 17 earned him the tag of “mentally ill”, not “terrorist”.
On the other hand, Islam-convert Michael Zehaf-Bibeau who fatally shot Corporal Nathan Cirillo in Ottawa on 21 October 2014 was called a terrorist by then-Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. According to the Zehaf-Bibeau’s biography, however, he had a history of mental illness and drug abuse. Perhaps, the crime wasn’t motivated by the desire to intimidate a population or a government. But, he fit snugly on the shelf of religious extremism – “of course, he was a convert to Islam” – so it’s far more difficult to argue that he isn’t a terrorist.
What’s in a Definition?
A rose by any other name, said Shakespeare. Murder, terrorism – who cares, right? They’re all killing people and that’s what needs to be stopped.
But let’s consider that murder and terrorism are treated differently not only in the eyes of the law but also in the eyes of society. A murder is an individual act and the blame falls solely on the perpetrator, colouring her in the shades of a psychopath, an anomaly – a rare occurrence in a sea of normalcy.
But terrorism, because it’s directed against a group, is often seen as also perpetrated by a group. In several cases, that is true – case in point, current terror groups like ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram or the Lord’s Resistance Army. But, it is the wider population that follows the religion that these groups misinterpret that bears the brunt of the retaliation.
Islamophobia is a growing concern, especially in the West, but also in India, where communal riots have become par for the course.
Let’s call a spade a spade. If San Bernardino was a terror attack, so was Charleston as was the murder of MM Kalburgi.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)