“Terrorism” may no longer have any discernible meaning

I remember a conversation, on-air, on Oct 22, 2014 – the day that Micheal Zehaf-Bibeau killed Nathan Cirillo. To the skepticism of the host, I commented that “this is not a terrorist attack.” I have changed my mind. But, I suspect there are many who have not and there are still others who first thought of it as a terrorist attack but no longer do.

Last night I attended a public discussion between Mohamed Fahmy and Neil Macdonald, CBC senior correspondent. Fahmy is the Canadian journalist jailed in Egypt in 2014, and recently released.

Macdonald noted that Fahmy does not use the word “terrorist” preferring instead “violent extremist” or other iterations. Broadly, it was pointed out that “terrorism” is experienced subjectively. An individual experiences terrorism as “violence you don’t agree with." Fahmy was very clear in his utter condemnation of al-Qaeda, ISIS, Bashar al-Assad, etc. This part of the conversation was not about who is or who is not a terrorist. Rather, it was about the complexity of the word.

I think this is correct. “Terrorism” has become such a value laden term that I am struggling to figure out how to use it as, indeed, journalists in general are. 

In the 24 hours following Cirillo’s murder, Canadian journalists were restrained in their use of the term. American journalists, not. This tells us more about the national narrative in our countries than anything. Americans believe they are locked in a mortal struggle with terrorists, Canadians aren’t as sure. We are fighting something but we’re not as binary as our American neighbours. We are less prone to divide the world into "good" and "bad."

Define “terrorist.” Michael Zehaf-Bibeau will almost certainly meet whatever definition you adopt. But, introducing the term to a discussion may tend to derail the whole debate into jingoism. "Terrorism" is at risk of becoming some version of Godwin's Law.