Different Uses of the Terrorist Label

If the perpetrator of an attack is identified as a Muslim, the attack is instantly labelled as terrorism, he or she is dehumanised, Islam is blamed, all Muslims are held accountable, and the threat is deemed global. Muslims in the UK are considered to be at risk of radicalisation for even boycotting supermarkets because of their political inclinations. Muslims are asked to do more to prevent terrorism by the media and politicians to make Muslims less ‘risky, manageable and controllable’ and, if need be, easily ‘disciplined’. It also means ‘performing assimilation’ which erases anger against the system by depoliticising Muslims, leading them to accept a subordinate and marginalised status. The tropes centre on representing Muslims as barbaric, backwards and ‘needing state intervention’ to root out, what Boris Johnson has called the “Islamist virus”⁶. Ultimately, even if Muslims adopt a moderate or even liberal approach to Islam, it does not mean they will be accepted and deemed as peaceful. According to Douglas Murray, a British right-wing commentator, “peace is only possible if there is less Islam”⁷.

The situation is very different if the perpetrator is identified as white. Then the labelling takes “much longer, and the race of the attacker is not attached to the act”^{8, 9}. The media starts the process of humanising the attacker by reporting on his or her troubled past, which often includes testimonials from family members, friends, and school teachers – as seen in the case Brenton Tarrant, who was responsible for the terrorist attack in Christchurch on 15th of March 2019. The Daily Mirror, a popular British tabloid newspaper, described Brenton as “an angelic boy”¹⁰. The paper also reported that his former associates said he was a likeable and dedicated personal trainer running free athletic programmes for kids. The newspaper completed the humanising process by stating that his journey to becoming a terrorist could have started when his father died from asbestos related-illness. The Christchurch attack has not resulted in all white people being blamed or held accountable for Brenton’s actions. The threat posed by white supremacists is deemed as local, and attacks by them are seen as an act of an individual suffering from trauma or some other psychological or emotional problem; an isolated act and not something that can be either traced back to culture or civilisation. Neither have the media and politicians called for state intervention to eradicate extremism from among the white people, nor have they called on the state to civilise white people by equipping them with the skills and values to live in a civilised and modern world.

Of course, the response to terrorist attacks by the public, the media and the politicians, neither explains the motivations nor the cause of the attacks. In some instances, they exasperate the situation. Motives are often complex and interwoven with narratives of ethnic struggle, identity politics and political grievances.

Terrorism is not caused by religion, culture, ethnicity or civilisation. Instead, the cause lies in unresolved conflicts, identitarian politics and invasions such as the 2004 invasion of Iraq. Since 9/11, it has become common for political parties and the media in Europe, Australia and the US to use orientalist tropes to foster fear on issues like terrorism, conflicts, food, environmental and economic insecurities, and the fragility of national identity. Each party tries to convince the electorate that the country is in imminent danger from the enemy within and foreign undesirables. The parties try to outdo each other by promising the electorate that they are the party that will defeat the enemy within and keep out all the ‘undesirables’ to ensure that the country is safe and secure for the in-group. All the while, scaremongering and fostering a climate of hate, mistrust and othering, which can lead to acts of terrorism. Such a climate not only engender push and pull factors for cumulative extremism but also validates and justifies white supremacist and other extremist ideologies.

If we are to eradicate terrorism, then we need to have an honest debate about the real causes of extremism and radicalisation, including the role played by politicians, government policies and the media. By media, I do not only mean social media but also news media, which, according to Britain’s counter-terrorism chief is causing far-right radicalisation¹¹. We need to have an honest debate about issues economic insecurities, such as immigration, integration, identity, job insecurity, foreign policy and security, which are a concern for many people across the world. We also need to hold politicians and the media to account for scaremongering and fostering an othering climate, which lends itself to extremism and in some cases, terrorism. Finally, we need to elect politicians who practise ethical politics that is based on ending global insecurities such as poverty and conflicts, on promoting human rights, and not on advocating or supporting policies that will undermine human rights at the expense of economic and political gain.