*UPDATED* The Weight of Words: Are We Using “terrorist” right”?
Monday morning’s early attack on a Muslim Mosque and Welfare House in London has raised the number of deadly incidents in the United Kingdom in 2017 to four, all within the span of two months.
One person has been killed and 10 others injured after a man operating a van rammed into worshippers near a mosque, before the driver — a 47-year-old white man, is said to have screamed: “I’m going to kill all Muslims,” according to The Telegraph.
Darren Osborne, from Cardiff, was arrested and is being held on suspicion of attempted murder and alleged terror offences, though the authorities have not formally identified Mr. Osborne as a suspect.
The dictionary definition of the word terrorist by the Oxford English Dictionary is “a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.” This clearly applies to this potential suspect, yet why have some major media outlets been hesitant to call him so, instead opting to focus on the weapon of attack as the main perpetrator?
Not many outlets called Dylann Roof, the Charleston, South Carolina, church shooter, a terrorist, instead they questioned his mental health. He was humanized and many suggested that he didn’t know he was doing something harmful due to his “condition” and his “adolescence.”
Both the U.S. and European media outlets have transformed the word “terrorist” into an arbitrary and politically-charged word, especially when describing people of color. These suspects get characterized almost immediately as terrorists and other harsh terms. Meanwhile, white suspects are often referred to as “lone wolves,” identified by vague descriptions of their residence or education, or not referred to at all in news headlines about the malicious acts they have carried out.
We have used “terrorist” to vilify our post-9/11 image of Extreme Islamists. The violence acted out by a group or singular person somehow has come to encompass all people who share the same skin color or religious views.
Headlines from the Finsbury Park attack Monday morning made almost no mention of the man who committed the crime, many of them saying things such as “1 dead after van mows down pedestrians,” (CNN) or “Vehicle hits pedestrians near notorious Muslim Mosque,” (TMZ). Vehicles, like the van used as a weapon in London, Paris, and Berlin, are manned by the drivers and are not themselves the mode of violence or hatred.
The van did not commit murder, the man driving the van did.
Theresa May has stated that the attack is being treated as a potential terrorist attack, this, along with other similar incidents, such as the one on London bridge, should be treated with equal initial comment.
Already, Metropolitan Police have stated, “He has been taken to hospital as a precaution and will be taken into custody once discharged. He will also be subject of a mental health assessment in due course.”
Since the potential suspect’s name has been released by the UK media, publications such as BBC and The New York Times have focused on Darren Osbourne’s problems with alcohol and his mental state. “He had family problems and was known by locals as belligerent and aggressive, with a drinking problem,” stated the second sentence of The New York Times’ recent article; its title — How Neighbors Saw Man Held in London Mosque Attack: ‘Drunk, Cursing and Vile.’ The title itself, already framing how Osbourne will be viewed by the media, a troubled man with a drinking problem.
The citizens chosen to be interviewed in these publications were all Osbourne’s neighbors and aquantiances. Khadijeh Sherizi, a resident of Osbourne’s community, told BBC that Mr Osborne was polite and her children, who are Muslim, would play with his children most days. Elsa Newington, who works at a grocery store, told The New York Times that Mr. Osborne shopped there regularly and would buy his children chocolate and candy. After dropping them off at school, he would return to buy alcohol, she told the Times. “He came in here drunk a lot,” she added. These accounts focus mainly on the character of Osbourne, with brief mentions of his violent background.
Articles about the Manchester bomber and London Bridge attackers tend to focus on the religious backgrounds and police records. CNN referred to Khuram Shahzad Butt, one of the three London Bridge attackers, as a “27-year-old British national born in Pakistan… [who] was a tall, lanky, straggly bearded young man of few words — a brainwashed follower of al-Muhajiroun.” Manchester bomber, Salman Abedi, was described by The Telegraph as “Born and raised in Manchester in 1994,…the second youngest of four children,[Abedi] grew up in a Muslim household but matured into a university dropout with an appetite for bloodshed.”
Rarely do they stop to question these mens psychological state, or offer anecdotes that give insight to their lives and character the way the media has done with interviews about Osbourne.
All of the attacks that have occured in the UK are different in nature and the attackers may have diverse backgrounds, but all of them have been, by definition, hate crimes carried out by “terrorists.”
The hesitation by certain media outlets to refer to this white, male perpetrator as a terrorist is incredibly telling. As Charleston Mayor Riley said about the Church Shooting, “the only reason that someone could walk into a church and shoot people praying is out of hate.” The same could be applied to the events at Finsbury Park, as the victims were simply participating in Ramadan night prayers. The van driver condemned himself with his racist and xenophobic statements, showing that this was a deliberate action of hate against the Muslim Church he targeted.
There should be greater caution when individuals as well as the media use the term “terrorist” because of the consequential connotation that has unfortunately been attached to people of color and of religion — specifically the Muslim religion. By only using the word when describing a specific type of person or group of people we are negatively stereotyping a great portion of the world’s population and embedding this racism into minds. It creates bias in our authoritative and legal systems that trickles down from serious criminal acts to things such as innocent parking tickets.
Just as the Associated Press Stylebook dropped the term illegal immigrant due to its unprecise usage, we should consider this option for “terrorist” to prevent unnecessary labels that judge and demean groups of people that are not connected to the terrorist acts.
Despite how his community viewed Darren Osbourne, the focus of the media should attempt to offer more relevant information on his past to put him on an equal level as any other criminal who attemps to hurt innocent people and encourage hatred and violence.
