Terrorism is a crime of motive. Axel Rudakubana's motive was that he wanted to kill as many people as possible, and he thought a Taylor Swift dance workshop would be a great place to find the weakest people possible, who couldn't stop him.
That's horrific, and he fully deserves to rot in prison for the rest of his life, but part of the legal definition in the UK is that terrorism must be an action that pursues a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause. Rudakubana didn't have any cause like that; he just wanted to bathe in blood.
We could rewrite the laws and extend the definition of terrorism, sure, but if terrorism just becomes synonymous with any violence, why even have the word anymore? We already have names for violent crimes.
No, it's the source that determines whether he's a terrorist. What I personally trust doesn't matter here. If the police find that his motive was political, religious, racial, or ideological, they charge it as terrorism. If they find that his motive was something else, they don't.
And if all violence is terrorism, then there's no need to ever use the word terrorism.
Now, you might argue that there is no need to ever use the word terrorism - and you wouldn't get much argument from me. If you murder someone and get sent to prison for life, does it really matter how we label the murder? It's the same prison either way.
Terrorism is a crime of motive. Axel Rudakubana's motive was that he wanted to kill as many people as possible, and he thought a Taylor Swift dance workshop would be a great place to find the weakest people possible, who couldn't stop him.
That's horrific, and he fully deserves to rot in prison for the rest of his life, but part of the legal definition in the UK is that terrorism must be an action that pursues a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause. Rudakubana didn't have any cause like that; he just wanted to bathe in blood.
We could rewrite the laws and extend the definition of terrorism, sure, but if terrorism just becomes synonymous with any violence, why even have the word anymore? We already have names for violent crimes.
Mindreader?
No, months of interviews with detectives and forensic psychologists, who then reported their findings to the press.
months of interviews with UK police who have for 50 years searched for any reason to ignore and downplay muslim crimes?
THAT’s literally the source you trust.
The same source that called him a Welsh Choirboy, that refused to publish that he had an Al Queada manual and Ricin?
edit: and the same police that was busy attending a gay pride march when the stabbings happened
No, it's the source that determines whether he's a terrorist. What I personally trust doesn't matter here. If the police find that his motive was political, religious, racial, or ideological, they charge it as terrorism. If they find that his motive was something else, they don't.
And if all violence is terrorism, then there's no need to ever use the word terrorism.
Now, you might argue that there is no need to ever use the word terrorism - and you wouldn't get much argument from me. If you murder someone and get sent to prison for life, does it really matter how we label the murder? It's the same prison either way.