Domestic terrorism

[Hope]

Some of you may remember the horrific story of a violent attack on a Sikh doctor near Wrexham earlier this year.   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-33277656

Speaking after the verdict, the victim's famly described the attack as act of terrorism - but the BBC use the term 'racially motivated' and as 'revenge' for the death of Fusillier Lee Rigby (though how an attack on a Sikh could be considered revenge for that attack - carried out by 2 British-born Nigerians is hard to understand).

Are we too soft on domestic terrorism here in the UK?

[floo]

Some of you may remember the horrific story of a violent attack on a Sikh doctor near Wrexham earlier this year.   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-33277656

Speaking after the verdict, the victim's famly described the attack as act of terrorism - but the BBC use the term 'racially motivated' and as 'revenge' for the death of Fusillier Lee Rigby (though how an attack on a Sikh could be considered revenge for that attack - carried out by 2 British-born Nigerians is hard to understand).

Are we too soft on domestic terrorism here in the UK?

I hope they throw away the key when they actually get around to sentencing that terrorist. Tesco in Mold is my supermarket of choice, knowing me so well I would probably have intervened if I had been shopping in there that day. His actions would have made me so angry I would have barged in where angels feared to tread!

[Rhiannon]

I think by the old accepted definition of terrorism then this wasn't actually terrorism - that has some kind of goal as its long term outcome as well as creating fear of more to come. But increasingly we are using the term 'terrorism' to refer to acts of violence that have a racial, religious or political motivation without the idea of spreading fear or with a clearly defined goal. It could be that all hate crime - which this undoubtably was - will end up being labelled as 'terrorism'.

[wigginhall]

There's a line going around in the US at the moment, that when a Muslim uses violence, he's a terrorist, a black man is a violent thug, and a white man is mentally ill.   This has come out of the Charleston atrocity, where nine black people were killed in a church, and many people are saying that it was a terrorist act. 

It's also true that the definition seems to be changing, as terrorism used to mean being part of an organization.  But then 'lone wolves' using political violence are a feature in the US also, and the aversion to labelling white people terrorist seems to be based on racism.    In other words, white racism is so common that people don't see it as deviant really.   But I suppose the UK is different to some degree.

[Rhiannon]

Yes, I think the situation is very different in the USA compared to here.

I think we've been used to associating terrorism with politics; although the IRA had a religious element to them they had a clearly defined political aim. Since 9/11 we have terrorism that doesn't have such a clear-cut goal but that is driven by religious and racial ideologies that vary from group to group. Perhaps we are now going to understand a new form of terrorism driven simply by these, that has no real goal except producing fear.

[Nearly Sane]

I am of the violent thug mentality, I.e. I just think of anyone acting like this as a violent thug. I find the idea that things are worse because it is a hate crime ludicrous, any violent act like this is hate filled. The idea that as a society we regard one as somehow worse carries with it the thought that what we do not deem a hate crime is somehow not as bad.

I also think the idea that any one off crime carried out by an individual or a couple of people without any links to a group or intended political goal can be regarded as terrorism as pointless.

[Rhiannon]

Yes. There is also the danger that it gives a veneer of acceptability to it- your terrorist might be my freedom fighter, as the saying goes.

I think there is an element of navel gazing in this.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I guess it depends on if this counts as links to a political group.

Zack Davies posted an image of himself in a balaclava with a large knife and the flag of the far-right group National Action hours before he carried out his violent racist attack.

http://www.channel4.com/news/national-actions-zack-davies-guilty-of-attempted-murder

Some info on National Action:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/06/new-neo-nazi-group-national-action_n_4910260.html

According to Channel 4 news:

A large amount of white supremacist material was found when police searched his house. He was also obsessed with the "no compromise" tactics of the group called Islamic State and Jihadi John, who has appeared in its films decapitating western hostages.

The victim's brother said "We are in no doubt, given the racial and political motivations, that this should have been rightly defined as an act of terrorism. By his own admission, the defendant Zack Davies had extreme neo-Nazi views and is a member of a white supremacist organisation.

[Nearly Sane]

As Rhiannon said, there is a danger in some form of respectability being given by the title, and simply acting out of some ideas of hate does not male it terrorism to me, which feels like it has to be a campaign.

[wigginhall]

I think in the US, the drive to label Charleston terrorism stems out of the history of white racism, which is endemic and quasi-respectable.   So the idea of white terrorism is a kind of shock tactic, really saying that white attacks on blacks are no different from Muslim attacks.   So it seems very semantic, but it's basically a political drive, especially in the light of many killings of black men by cops.   

If a Muslim had killed 9 white people in a church, the US media would have gone into hysterics, but as it was, it was some mentally ill white kid, nothing new, move along.   See the campaign 'Black Lives Matter'.   Maybe they don't.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think the family was trying to make the point the mindless violence against Lee Rigby was described as an act of terrorism by some people because the perpetrators stated it was in revenge for invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, so this mindless violence by someone in revenge for Lee Rigby, given that the perpetrator is a member of a political organisation with a political ideal of keeping Britain white should also be described as terrorism - their aim seems to be racial activists trying to terrorise people of a different colour to leave. 

National Action states it is 'more radical than the BNP' and is targeting students and universities in the UK to spread its message of hate. Benjamin Raymond is the leader and one of his internet posts was “There are non-whites and Jews in my country who all need to be exterminated. As a teenager, Mein Kampf changed my life. I am not ashamed to say I love Hitler.”

[Nearly Sane]

And yet that still isn't a campaign in any sense. I get what wigginhall says that there is a use of semantics to make a political point, and that there is need for the issue of semantics to be addressed because it is used to discriminate and divide. I am just uncomfortable with a tactic which seems to be a sort of arms race in terminology which leaves there being an idea that some killings are not as bad because the violent thug didn't obsess about swastikas/jihad/cartoons. Perhaps it is a drive to make sense of things by giving them categories that would make the ideas of solutions easier.

[Rhiannon]

I agree very much with NS. Before she became Mrs Cole Cheryl Tweedy as she then was assaulted a nightclub cloakroom attendant. Although she was found guilty of assault she was cleared of racially aggravated assault, which in turn allowed her to take to social media to thank everyone who had stood by her as she was 'unfairly victimised and accused'. We all know her career would have been finished had she been found guilty of racism but a bit of casual thuggery to someone not in a position to fight back? Nothing wrong with that.

In giving things labels we rank some crimes as worse than others - we should see cruelty, thuggery and murder for what they are regardless of the race or religion of the perpetrators.

[Rhiannon]

I think in the US, the drive to label Charleston terrorism stems out of the history of white racism, which is endemic and quasi-respectable.   So the idea of white terrorism is a kind of shock tactic, really saying that white attacks on blacks are no different from Muslim attacks.   So it seems very semantic, but it's basically a political drive, especially in the light of many killings of black men by cops.   

If a Muslim had killed 9 white people in a church, the US media would have gone into hysterics, but as it was, it was some mentally ill white kid, nothing new, move along.   See the campaign 'Black Lives Matter'.   Maybe they don't.

The Klux Klan have operated as a terror organisation for decades and the Oklahoma bombers had white supremacist links. There's a narrative here that could legitimise calling this a terror attack. Whatever, America has some serious issues on race that it has barely begun to grasp. But I don't think the same narrative runs through Britain.

[floo]

There are some very nasty white supremacists here in the UK. They will no doubt latch onto the unpleasant UKIP as the BNP is now a busted flush. Any racist abuse needs to be cracked down upon very severely indeed, or we might be faced with the serious problems the US is having at present where these evil scum are concerned.

[Nearly Sane]

This may just be me, but in the various arguments following the Charleston murders, I feel as if the issue of black people being assaulted and killed by police has somehow been subsumed into the idea that Charleston was some form of terrorism. In connecting what seems like an endemic police problem to this in the overarching narrative of racism, Charleston because of the numbers and context is the marquee name. And if it gets seen as terrorism, then it becomes those extremists rather than a systemic problem.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

And yet that still isn't a campaign in any sense. I get what wigginhall says that there is a use of semantics to make a political point, and that there is need for the issue of semantics to be addressed because it is used to discriminate and divide. I am just uncomfortable with a tactic which seems to be a sort of arms race in terminology which leaves there being an idea that some killings are not as bad because the violent thug didn't obsess about swastikas/jihad/cartoons. Perhaps it is a drive to make sense of things by giving them categories that would make the ideas of solutions easier.

Neither was the mindless violence against Lee Rigby part of a campaign, which is why it was argued by some people that such acts should be considered criminal acts and not acts of terrorism. The acts were a result of individuals being radicalised on-line or by the people they associate with who then go out and commit violence.

This article in the Guardian questions whether Lee Rigby's murder should have been labelled as "terrorism" by certain media outlets and politicians, as that then opens the way for drone strikes and invasions to be labelled as state terrorism.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback

Yes, acts of thuggery should be seen as criminal acts - the family just made the point that if the victim had been white, certain media outlets and certain politicians would have instinctively reached for the "terrorism" soundbite.

This is an interesting comment in the Guardian questioning the right way to deal with these acts, as the court cases (unlike the military tribunals in Guantanamo) give the perpetrators a platform frm which to spread their views to a much bigger audience.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/20/breivik-terrorist-like-al-qaida   

[Nearly Sane]

Thanks for those links, Gabriella. I think we underestimate the impact of semantics and even when we try and deal with it, we end up with all sorts of unintended consequences. I agree with the point about the family but it's not just about this, it is the idea of hate crime and the classification of some pointless thuggery some how not being as bad that I struggle with

[wigginhall]

The trouble now is that the labelling of crimes has become political.   Thus, those US media which talked of Charleston as a mentally ill white kid,  were maybe saying that white supremacist violence doesn't really count, whereas Muslim violence does count, as terrorism*.  So the labelling of Charleston as terrorist is a kind of riposte, and also makes the point that white racism is so endemic, that big news organizations are soaked in it, ditto the police, ditto right-wing politicians, and so on.

I don't know whether you can make the same argument in the UK, since we don't have the same background.  It's possible that white violence against non-whites is excused, I'm not sure.

*In fact, they may be saying that white supremacist violence isn't actually white supremacist violence, they just know that, you see.   

[Hope]

It's also true that the definition seems to be changing, as terrorism used to mean being part of an organization. 

It was appeared that the perp. in this case was a member of more than one extreme right wing organisation.

By the way, Oxford Dictionary defines terrorism as "The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims: ..."

[Hope]

Have no idea what prompted this but was saddened to read this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bradford-west-yorkshire-33313434

[Jack Knave]

I feel the word terrorist is being over used and misused and has become an in-word to stress one's abhorrence at almost any violent act. And for the politicians to justify bringing in some law or other. In doing so it encourages people to misread and misconstrue what the violent act was about in the first place.