On June 12, 2016 Omar Mateen attacked the gay nightclub “Pulse” in Orlando, Florida and killed 49 innocents. Only four days later, on June 16, lone attacker Thomas Mair brutally killed MP Jo Cox on her way to a surgery in her Yorkshire constituency. The first incident was labelled by media everywhere as yet another terror attack on the West, the latter incident has, so far, mostly been presented as the deed of a confused and troubled loner. Why is that? Why do we say one of the perpetrators is a terrorist, while the other is not?
One might say that the difference is that many people were murdered in Orlando, while the attack in Yorkshire was specifically directed at one public figure. But if the number of victims is such an important factor, why was the knife attack on MP Stephen Timms by a Muslim widely reported as a terror attack, while the 2014 Charleston church shooting, where nine people died at the hands of a racist, was not?
Even though it is hard to pin down exactly what is and what isn’t terrorism, a widely accepted definition is “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation […] in the pursuit of political aims”.
Both, Omar Mateen and Thomas Mair, made references to a political cause they serve. Mateen admitted in a police call that he supported the IS, while Mair, instead of stating his name at court, proclaimed “death to traitors, freedom to Britain” to the judge. This fits in with evidence the Washington Post presented that Mair has had links to a white supremacy group. In fact, while Mair’s link to this group is proven, there is no evidence that Mateen actually had a link to IS. Moreover, Mateen ostensibly supported several Islamist groups that are at war with each other, suggesting that he did not know a lot about the ideologies of either group and that he really only used political convictions as an excuse. Based on these facts it would actually be more adequate to say that Thomas Mair is a terrorist and Omar Mateen the lone attacker – but then he is not Muslim…
However, this is not the whole story. The important fact that we should focus on is that both individuals have a documented past of mental problems. Mateen had sexual identity issues, previously showed behavioural problems, and had a predisposition for domestic violence. Mair also had a history of mental illness. That does not mean that mental health problems always lead to violence against others. Indeed, most of the time the contrary is true.
There are two reasons why the troubled past of Matten and Mair matters. The first one is that putting down every murder committed by a Muslim as an act of terrorism, regardless of background and circumstance, stokes fears and poisons our relationship with those peaceful and innocent Muslims who are part of our society and who condemn such attacks just as everyone else does. The other reason is that acknowledging the fact that causes other than religious extremism can lead to such horrendous indicants enables us to better prevent them in the future and to save the lives of innocent people.
I admit that the line between terrorist and lone attacker is blurry. But Mair’s mental illness background and Mateen’s lack of real political conviction, paired with his troubled past, shows that neither of the two recent attacks should be labelled terrorism.
Though their background stories are by no means an excuse for their barbaric actions it does show that they acted as loners. I hope this leads us to shift our focus on religious beliefs as the main cause for such ‘terror attacks’ to an understanding that there are many causes for such incidents.
thadeharms.wordpress.com 