The killing of Corporal Nathan Cirillo was not a terrorist attack.

On Oct 22, 2014 Michael Zehaf-Bibeau killed Corporal Nathan Cirillo at the Canadian National War Memorial. Zehaf-Bibeau then assaulted Parliament where he was killed by Sargeant of Arms, Kevin Vickers. A tragic day.

This was not a terrorist attack. This was a murder.

The Conservative government clearly believes that the events of that day were terrorism – ministers have been very thorough in their use of the term “terrorist.” But, all too often disagreement rests not with the facts but with the interpretation of them -- with the definition of the terms. Language matters. Before engaging in debate about whether or not Michael Zehaf-Bibeau was a terrorist or not, we need to define terrorism. 

What if the facts of the day were identical to what we know, except that Zehaf-Bibeau was without any religious affiliation? What if the subsequent RCMP investigation could not find any motive? The point is, murders committed by recent converts to Islam are not, by definition, terrorist acts just because the perpetrator is a recent convert. There has to be something in the broad context of the act – beyond religious belief – to lift the events from murder to terrorism. Being Muslim doesn’t preclude terrorism, but it doesn’t define it either.

Terrorism is violent acts intended to create fear and, thus, advance a religious, political, or ideological goal. 

ISIS beheadings are terrorism. Their hope is to advance extreme, morally bankrupt ideology by terrifying us. Convert or die. Leave us alone or more of your people will be killed. That sort of thing. The point is that these heinous acts come with the threat of more, similar acts in the future if the perpetrator's ideology is not advanced. That’s the terror part. 

Zehaf-Bibeau no doubt intended to advance some ideological goal (although what, exactly, is hard to imagine). But, there was no command and control. There was no larger plan. Zehauf-Bibeau was not part of an organization that threatens more attacks. He cannot threaten more, similar acts in the future. He may have been inspired by terrorism; he was not a terrorist.

This may seem a very subtle distinction but it matters. Language matters. How we categorize things will very much affect our response.

ISIS is a terrorist organization and needs to be confronted. The existence of ISIS way well inspire more attacks in the future. If we can get to a world without terror, perhaps there will be fewer young men driven by madness to atrocities. This is a laudable goal and is to be pursued. But, it is not exclusionary of the fight for the mental health, hearts, and minds of our youth.

If we want to make Canada safer now, perhaps the solution is with mental health agencies. Perhaps the solution is to give troubled young men like Zehaf-Bibeau something other than terrorism to inspire them. Something to focus on.

The reason this distinction is important is because we have limited resources. The fight against terrorism is in the hands of CSIS, RCMP, military, and similar agencies. But, this militarized-police response to terrorism must walk hand-in-hand with the broad societal response of hope, meaning, and mental health. There must be a balance.