What is a Terrorist?

In yesterday's morning's Globe and Mail, columnist Margaret Wente (Globe and Mail) posed the question as to whether or not people who suggest that individuals such as Michael Zehaf-Bibeau or John Nuttall and Amanda Korody  are not really terrorist, are in denial of the truth. She wondered whether or not in our overwhelming desire to distance ourselves from Mr. Harper (that is not quite how she put it), that we are avoiding reality.

It is a valid question.

I spend much of my day listening to music and playing with wool. "Playing" is perhaps not quite an accurate description as anyone who has spent a straight four or five hours carding, spinning or weaving will tell you. But I do spend a lot of time in an activity that does not take much intellectual thought. In fact things like spinning are really more about relying on muscle memory. One, after the skill has been somewhat mastered, only needs to keep part of the brain focused on the work. That leaves a lot of brain available to do other things. So I think. It is possible that, on occasion, my political and social justice bias convolute my thoughts so as to produce a false conclusion. Possible, but I don't think so. But the question of whether or not I am denying reality is sufficiently important to explore it further.

Yesterday afternoon as I worked, I spent some time thinking about the question. Later just before and then after supper I spent a hour or so trying to write out what I thought. I did a bit of research and came up with a number of definitions as to what the UN, the EU or what some Middle Eastern organizations defined as terrorism. It was interesting but it took what I thought I wanted to say in the wrong direction. I ended up writing about what other people thought - not what I thought.  I then spent some time researching all kinds of people and organizations who have been called freedom fighters or terrorists depending on who was doing the labelling and who won (who won is important - As Winston Churchill is reputed to have said "history is written by the victors"). The mythical Robin Hood, Nelson Mandela, the leaders of the rebellions in both Upper and Lower Canada in 1837 and countless thousands of others have all worn both labels. But this line of thought also led me down some convoluted pathways that got me lost in a morass of meaningless words.

I don't argue with Ms. Wente in that there are people in this world and perhaps even in Canada who because of a long standing ideology are prepared to engage in acts of extreme violence. I suspect that we agree that these individuals will commit these acts for the single purpose of trying to demonstrate/prove that their religious or moral beliefs are not only right, but that everyone else should follow them, and that they will hurt people and damage property to prove their point. I agree that we need to do something to address that issue.

I think however, where we disagree is on when is a terrorist a terrorist and when are they just some misguided, disenfranchised person who will jump on any bandwagon that slows down long enough for them to jump on. Doing a fifty second video full of standardized catchphrases does not make them a terrorists.  I think where we disagree is that I would argue that the latter person needs to be treated differently both long before they think about committing violent criminal acts and during any criminal proceedings than the former does.  I do not  think that there is a profound difference between the acts of Michael Zehaf-Bibeau or John Nuttall and Amanda Korody and proposed St. Valentines' Day shooting in Halifax. I am unclear as to why some of the above list get called terrorists and others are according to Peter MaKay   are just "murderous misfits". All of those people were struggling to fit in. All of them were failing in that struggle. It is not surprising that they latched on to a philosophical point of view point that legitimized their failures, that validated that it was not their fault and that provided them a purpose, no matter how misguided, to follow.

The Oxford Dictionary defines terrorism as "The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims" (Oxford). If Ms. Wente and could agree that the above definition is a good place to start from, my first question to her would be - do you really believe that  Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, John Nuttall or Amanda Korody had the capacity to articulate or understand the political aims in a meaningful way or that they really believed that they could achieve them? I don't think so. I think they were only parroting without true comprehension what they had heard.

I am not, in some desperate attempt to distance myself from all thing Conservative hiding my head in the sand pretending that there are no terrorist.  I am not denying that there is a serious problem in Canada and that there is a very real risk of a number of young people being seduced by the possibility of a world where they will have value - even if that means that they might lose their life. I agree that that risk is increasing ( as noted in a story from the Globe and Mail discussing immigrant gangs in Canada) and that it is well past time to do something about it. I would even agree that we need to have a national debate about it. But the debate would not be about terrorism. Terrorism and the radicalism of our youth is not the problem - it is just the inevitable conclusion if we don't learn how to support Canadians who find life a struggle.