It's Terrorism, Stupid!

April 14th, 2014 - "Heil Hitler", the man shouted when he was done. By then, he had shot to death three people: a 14 year old boy, his grandfather, and an unidentified woman. All three were Jews. All three had been killed at a Jewish community center near Kansas City. The killer, Frazier Glen Miller, is the founder and leader of the "Carolina Knights of the Ku Klux Klan" as well as the "White Patriot Party".

There can be no doubt that this deed, which occurred on Sunday, was motivated by antisemitism  and that the perpetrator is a rightwing extremist and a racist. Yet no-one seems to be willing to call this an act of terrorism. Instead, the NYT, The Washington Post and CNN are calling it a "shooting" or a "shooting spree".

Why?

Why does this attack not qualify as an act of terrorism? There are many definitions of terrorism, but most combine two elements: The victims are civilians, and the motif is political and/or ideological. Is that not true in this case? Of course it is.

Tomorrow marks the first anniversary of the Boston bombing, which was perpetrated by two brothers of Chechen background and of Muslim faith. In their case, there never was any doubt that they had perpetrated an act of terrorism. When Mohamed Merah killed seven people in Southern France in March 2012, among them soldiers as well as members of the Jewish community, everybody called it terrorism.

To be sure, the Boston attackers had used explosives against people - what other than terrorism could that possibly be? And Merah claimed he was a member of al-Qaida (which could never be substantiated).

But I still don't see why the Kansas City attack would be something entirely different.

I am not talking about judicial terms that may be applicable here. I am talking about journalistic reflexes. Because there is a hidden pattern behind this not calling the attack an act of terrorism. An Islamist who commits an act of violence and is being called a terrorist is being made and interpreted as a part of something larger - a group, a scene, a movement - by this very designation. By the same token, failing to call the Kansas City attack an act of terrorism will let Frazier Glen Miller and his deed appear unconnected to anything larger or broader.

The Boston bombers were not connected to other militant extremists in any meaningful way. They planned their attack by themselves. Of course there is still a connection between what they did and what other Islamist extremists did elsewhere in the world. But that connection is not factual; it is a connection in the sphere of phenomenology.

Is that any different in the case of the Kansas City attack? I believe not.

I believe that Miller's attack is, for example, as connected to the Nazi-Terrorist series of ten murders committed by the NSU in Germany as the Boston Bombing is connected to, say, the Jihadist attack on the US consulate in Benghazi.

Or to put it differently: If we (and not unrightly so) connect militant Islamists with one another because they shout "Allahu Akbar" while they are killing people, we should also see the connection between people shouting "Heil Hitler" while murdering Jews. We talk about the "Global Jihadist Movement" all the time. There also is a global anti-semitic, far-right movement that resorts to violence against civilians.

I am not trying to allocate blame here. I am just concerned that some of us journalists have not been able to insulate themselves fully from the impression that since 9/11 terrorism is an exclusively Islamist phenomenon. Whereas in fact, as we all know, the majority of terrorist attacks world wide are not committed by Islamists.

PS: In the interest of full disclosure, I was inspired by Thomas Hegghammer's tweet when blogging this. Here is how his tweet went: "@Hegghammer Convicted white supremacist massacres Jews, shouts Heil Hitler, but is still not a "terrorist" to CNN and KS police: cnn.it/RhMmZf" 

PPS: Also see http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dangerous-minds/201404/why-isn-t-anyone-calling-terrorism for a similar take. 

PPS: This is a slightly edited version of a German blog post that I published earlier today at DIE ZEIT's website, the paper that I work for. 

Germany's Circumcision Debate // The Backdrop

27th July 2012 - By now, some of you may have noticed that Germany is in the middle of a fully fledged debate on the issue of circumcision, the reason for which was a recently published court decision. As I have some experience with the difficulties of translating judicial issues between languages and judicial cultures, I figured it might be interesting for some of you to have a summary of what actually happened and what it is all about. And also: I think you all should care about this German debate - because it is far from over, and it may have serious repercussions.  (If you read German: Here is my research on the actual case the court decision was based on: http://www.zeit.de/2012/29/Beschneidung)

So first of all, here is what actually happened:

A court in cologne ruled, that a particular doctor (a surgeon by training) had actually committed a crime (causing bodily harm with an instrument) by circumcising a particular 4 year old boy. It should be added, that this decision was taken even though it was clear by testimony of an expert witness that the surgery itself was state of the art.

However, because the doctor couldn't possibly know that he committed a crime, given that no-one had ever been found guilty for circumcising anyone, he was not punished but acquitted.

In his ruling, the judge came to the conclusion that there were two fundamental rights to find a balance between: the child's right to physical integrity vs the parents' right to a) act in what they assume to be the child's best interest and b) their own (and somewhat by extension their child's) right to religious freedom. (It was undisputed that the circumcision in question didn't happen for medical but for religious reasons.) The judge decreed that the first mentioned weighed heavier.

This decision has in itself no consequences beyond the actual case. It is not a general ruling. Any other court in another city may come to another conclusion. (Except that, if another court came to come to the same conclusion, that other surgeon would probably not be acquitted because after the Cologne court's decision and its publicity any doctor could theoretically be assumed to have heard about its outcome.)

The immediate consequence of the publication of the verdict in this particular case was that large parts of the Muslim and Jewish community in Germany heavily criticized it. As I am sure you all know, Jews consider it a indispensable religious duty to circumcise any male newborn on the eight day. Muslims have a bit more freedom to maneuver here - in Germany it is usually done between the 7th and the 10th birthday I am told. But it is "only" considered advisable, not an immediate religious duty. However, most Muslims have their sons circumcised. (As, by the way, so do many parents' from Christian families.)

When I heard about the case, I started some research about how this case came about. Here are my findings in short:

* The kid in question is the some of an Iraqi family who live in East Germany. They knew a woman in Cologne who told them she knew a surgeon of Syrian origin who was known for his good circumcision skills.

* The mother went to Cologne with her son, They met with Dr Omar Kezze, a greed on a date for operation, and Dr Kezze circumcised the 4 year old on a Thursday in Nov 2010. The same evening he went to see the boy, who with his mother was living with their Cologne friend. Everything was fine. Dr Kezze asked the boy to come to his practice again on Saturday at 10 a.m., that is two days later. Just to be sure.

* On that Saturday, at 8 a.m., the boy's mother ran into the street and shouted, in Arabic (this is according to people who have seen the relevant documents which are sealed), that "my son is bleeding". It should be noted that the woman is heavily impaired as far as her eyes are concerned. It should also be noted that she ran into the street in an state that is described in court documents as "confused". I have not met her. I will pass judgment. But from what I understand (and from what another paper actually wrote about her) I assume that we are looking here at some sort of overreaction.

* Apparently an Arabic neighbor in that street heard her - and called the police and an ambulance. The family's host tried to get Dr Kezze to sort everything out, but everything happened very quickly from here on and the mother and the boy were brought to the emergency ward of the University Hospital.

* Here, the mother was asked to explain what happened. She hardly speaks any German. The doctor, according to my research, understood that she said her son had been circumcised "without anesthetics in a private home with a pair of scissors." The hospital alarmed the police who began an investigation.

* The investigation showed that the surgery had in fact been carried out by a surgeon in a practice with anesthetics. However, another doctor in the University Hospital voiced suspicion about the quality of the operation. He later withdrew these suspicions. But that was when the trial had already started.

* The police turned over the results of the investigation to the state attorney. That state attorney had to decide whether or not to charge Dr Kezze. She decided to do so. She also said it was a severe case because an instrument (a scalpel!) had been used.

* The first court acquitted Dr Kezze and said that he had not commuted a crime. The parents' right ti determine weighed heavier than the child's right to physical integrity.

* Said state attorney challenged that verdict and took it to the next higher court - with the known outcome.


So what we are looking at here is a very special case. In my personal opinion, it was not a case that was particularly inviting if you as a state attorney were seeking to make the case that circumcisions are a problem. But it happened none the less.

By now, the German government has made it clear they would like a solution for the obvious problem caused by this decision, namely that Jews and Muslims alike have to fear that they are asking a surgeon to commit a crime if the seek a circumcision for religious reasons. As was to be expected, the debate is heated: A child's right to physical integrity vs "old fashioned" and "outlived" religious duties is a feast for secularists and ultra-liberals.

In the end, it could be that the Supreme Court (Constitutional Court) will have to rule. My sense is that they would, eventually, grant parents the right to decide for a circumcision. Germany, of all countries in the world, simply can't afford to be known as he country where Jews can't live according to their religious duties. But in the mean time, the fight is on. And let me tell you: it really is a fight!

Good night. Y.