The difference between terror and terrorism
The recent shooting at Ottawa’s parliament building has brought into sharp focus just how easy it is for a society to obfuscate a criminal tragedy into political opportunism in this post 9/11 world.
The incident in Canada’s capital was conducted by a lone gunman, by all reports a homeless man who had a long criminal history with alcohol and drug problems, combined with emotional issues. Michael Zehaf-Bibeau was a deeply troubled individual, although someone who was able to obtain a rifle, kill a reservist standing guard at the National War Memorial, hijack a car, run into the parliament building unopposed, fire off a number of rounds before finally being shot and killed by the sergeant at arms. It was a horrifying series of events witnessed by dozens of frightened bystanders, bringing the government to a standstill for the day.
This crazed shooter may or may not have derived motivation from the extremist Islamic fundamentalist group ISIS, of which the RCMP claimed he made a video in support. Zehaf-Bibeau had no known official connection to the organization – although reports suggested he intended to travel to the Middle East, but couldn’t due to restrictions placed on him by the Canadian government. That restriction, plus the timing of Canada’s public involvement in the war against ISIS, could have been the trigger for his rampage.
His act created a tremendous amount of terror. But it was not an act of terrorism.
Unfortunately, that difference – which should be readily apparent – was for the most part lost on the political and media elite reacting to the tragedy. Almost immediately the incident was branded as an act of terrorism by the media, despite lacking proof as to the gunman’s identity or motive. Worse, the political leadership responded as recklessly, with Prime Minister Stephen Harper connecting the act to Canada’s decision to support the American bombing campaign against ISIS. The PM maintained the connect throughout the day, only dialing back the rhetoric the following morning, proposing the shooting might be considered a criminal act. By then, however, the framework for discussion had already been established, with the general public readily accepting it had to be terrorism. Out came the platitudes, with serious commentators declared Canada had ‘lost its innocence’ that ‘terrorism had finally come to our shores’ or that Canadians had to demonstrate that ‘we were not going to be intimidated.’ Little response was offered as to how the country’s political virtue or cultural strength might be so shattered by one single shooting – or that the previous actual acts of terrorism in Canada during the 1970s – ranging from the FLQ activities to the bombings by Cuban-American anti-revolutionaries in Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto — could be forgotten.
The actions of Zehaf-Bibeau may have been influenced by his sympathy for ISIS or other radical Muslim extremists. It’s possible his shooting spree was in some way associated to fundamentalist ideology – if only in his own mind. His criminal history and his mental state, however, is just as plausible an explanation for his decision to murder reservist Cpl. Nathan Cirillo and then go on a suicidal run through the parliament building. Or it might have been a combination of both. But so far there has been no evidence of a history of radical political involvement, no declarations of his intent to change society through violent methods aimed at the civilian population or government institutions – which is the definition of terrorism. Zehaf-Bibeau was not a terrorist, just someone who brought terror to Canada. He was a criminal, not a terrorist.
Osama bin Laden was a terrorist, as was Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh – both having specific and well-articulated political agendas. As is Luis Posada Carriles, who remains comfortably residing in Miami, despite long recognized as one of the masterminds of the destruction of Cubana Airlines Flight 455 on October 6, 1976, killing all 72 on board. Posada has an extensive history of terrorism – conducting acts of violence against civilians in order to induce political change, in this case the ending of the Cuban revolutionary government. The ex-CIA agent was also the architect of the 1997 bombing campaign against hotels and tourist facilities in Cuba, resulting in the death of Canadian businessman Fabio di Celmo.
Carriles is one of many Cuban-Americans who have dedicated their lives to the overthrow of the Cuban revolution, through violent means aimed against Cuban citizens. The Castro government has documented more than 600 incidents in the past 50 years, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,500 innocent civilians.
These real acts of terrorism has been a factor in the development of a siege mentality within the Cuban government, revealed in the implementation of internal policies that restrict certain civil rights; all under the justification of combating terrorism. Intrusive surveillance systems and various controls of the press, speech and assembly have been criticized by human rights organizations – Cuban response is that the programs are necessary to prevent further acts of terrorism.
Not surprisingly, other societies that experience terrorism respond likewise, most notably the passage of the Patriot Act in the United States shortly after 9/11. Following the Ottawa incident it became apparent that the Conservative government under Prime Minister Harper might consider new anti-terror powers allowing for the arrest, without charge, of individuals suspected of intending to travel abroad to engage in possible terrorist activities. As well as legislation restricting “hate speech” on the internet – what constitutes such speech to be determined by the government. This, in reaction to a shooting that could legitimately be considered a criminal act speaking more to the security measures in the nation’s most important government structure than to an ideologically driven act of violence.
Governments willingly respond to demands for increased security measures when under threat, perceived or otherwise. Those measures consistently result in loss of civil rights and social liberties.
Cuba has a long and unfortunate history of terrorism against its people, and has vast experience in taking steps to prevent further acts – imposing policies that are often justifiably criticized. Canada should take care to ensure it is able to determine what is an act of terrorism, and what is criminality that causes terror, before changing its laws to increase security while decreasing civil liberties. Particularly from an incident that remains undetermined as to whether it even constitutes an act of terrorism.
Keith Bolender is a freelance journalist and university lecturer. Author of two books – Voices From the Other Side; an Oral History of Terrorism Against Cuba, and Cuba Under Siege.
