There is little doubt the killer was an extremist. Although mental illness may also have played a role in his decision to spill blood, hatred seems to have been his definitive motivation. He was driven by allegiance to a belief system that resides in the darkest recesses of human nature, and his action was intended to terrify those who don’t share his perception of the world and its threats.
But few are calling Thomas Mair a terrorist.
Mair, 52, is charged in the June 16 murder of Jo Cox, a member of British Parliament who was known for her support of Syrian refugees and opposition to Britain withdrawing from the European Union. During her accused killer’s initial appearance at Magistrates’ Court in London on Saturday, Mair refused to give his name, the BBC reported. Instead he exclaimed, “Death to traitors, freedom for Britain.”
Despite Mair’s reported ties to neo-Nazi groups, this is the angle Breitbart chose in reporting that Cox had been fatally shot and stabbed: “Labour MP Jo Cox Killed on Street – Suspected Attacker ‘Mental Health Problems.’” But Breitbart is hardly the only news outlet to avoid using the t-word in describing the actions of a man linked to right-wing extremists; a quick Google search of “Thomas Mair” proves the point. Glenn Greenwald, writing in The Intercept, says he has no problem when the media rejects the label “terrorism” – in fact, he applauds the refusal to jump to judgment. He just finds that such “journalistic restraint is extremely selective.”
“Does anyone have any doubt at all,” Greenwald wrote, “that if Cox’s suspected killer had been Muslim, yelling ‘Allah Akbar’ instead of ‘Britain First,’ then every media outlet on the planet would be describing him forever as a ‘terrorist’? The fact that they are not doing so here sheds great light into what this word really is.”
By way of explanation, Greenwald points to a scene from the animated Fox TV show Family Guy, which shows a color-coded guide to determining whether somebody is “mentally disturbed” or a “terrorist.” The gag is that the colors are skin tones, with light skin aligned with “mentally disturbed” and darker tones with “terrorist.”
Like a lot of humor, it’s funny because it’s true. The word “terrorism” is loaded, despite the relative simplicity of its definition: “The systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion.”
Perhaps the BBC, in its editorial guidelines, offers the best solution to the problem: “The word ‘terrorist’ itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term, without attribution. We should let other people characterize while we report the facts as we know them.”
It’s a start.