Anything I Disagree With is Terrorism

[jamesq]

There's a disturbing trend among politicians, the media and pundits to expand terrorism to include anything they don't like. Here's an example:

A Liberal MP says he believes the federal government should investigate whether the pieing of Fisheries Minister Gail Shea by a woman opposed to the seal hunt constitutes an act of terrorism.

"When someone actually coaches or conducts criminal behaviour to impose a political agenda on each and every other citizen of Canada, that does seem to me to meet the test of a terrorist organization,"

You can read the whole story here.

Do you see the problem with defining terrorism with "criminal behavior to impose a political agenda"? It's too big. It makes any protest that's not 100% squeaky clean (and therefore ineffective) a terrorist act. A wildcat strike by a union that's not legally allowed to strike (law enforcement or emergency services for example) suddenly makes the union terrorists. Bicycle activists that clog a major roadway with a thousand cyclists are suddenly terrorists. Pie throwers are now terrorists.

Do any of these things bring terror to your heart? You don't need to agree or disagree with the message they're trying to promote (I think Emily McCoy, the PETA protester/pie thrower is guilty of nothing more then assault and being an attention whore). In fact, you might think they're completely wrong-headed in their means and ends. That doesn't make them terrorists.

Wikipedia has what I think is a good, ad hoc definition of terrorism (while acknowledging that there isn't international agreement on this): "Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)."

I think we can all agree that the 9/11 conspirators, the Beltway snipers and guys like Ted Kaczynski and Tim McVeigh are terrorists.

We can probably agree that there's equally violent crime that is not terrorism. Run-of-the-mill serial killers like John Wayne Gacy or Clifford Olsen are not terrorists - they had no ideological/political agenda. Even John Hinckley Jr. fails to qualify because he was motivated by erotomania when he attempted to assassinate President Reagan.

Does the pie-thrower qualify? No. Her goal wasn't to make the Federal Fisheries Minister (or anyone else) scared of pies - it was to ridicule. Charge her with assault and put her on trial. The minister might want to look into beefing up security too.

Words have power. If we call too many things terrorist, we might start to believe it and then we'll be jumping at shadows. Conversely, we might dilute the term so much that it ceases to have any meaning whatsoever. We don't want to raise the pie throwers to the level of airplane hijackers. Neither do we want to lower hijacking to the level of pie throwing.

(Crossposted to canpolitik)

Comments

[snooness2]

We are already jumping at shadows... that's part of the problem.

[danceintheabyss.livejournal.com]

As the problems get bigger, so do the shadows of fear they cast. Till one day we look up for the sun and its no longer there because our fears have shadowed it from us. There are many valid things to fear, but we can't let them be all that there is. soooooo...........
ALL YOU BLOODY FEAR MONGERING IDIOTS OUT THERE..... STOP!!!! IT!!!!!.
geez

[rato-do-perigo.livejournal.com]

It's the trend word like "pandemic". It's just the flu people.

[ladyerwyn.livejournal.com]

You tell it! Fear moves people into giving up their rights and freedoms.