An extremist with links to radical groups drives a vehicle into a crowd, killing one and injuring others. Terrorism? When Islamist extremists do it, yes. When white males do it, apparently not. At least, according to Australian media.
James Fields, who earlier in the day had rallied with neo-Nazi group Vanguard America, is alleged to have driven the car that killed a woman protesting against the far right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia and has been charged with second degree murder.
Among even Republican politicians, there was no doubt that this was a terrorist attack. Florida Senator Marco Rubio tweeted:
“Very important for the nation to hear @potus describe events in #Charlottesville for what they are, a terror attack by #whitesupremacists”
Texas Senator Ted Cruz tweeted:
“I urge the Department of Justice to immediately investigate and prosecute today’s grotesque act of domestic terrorism.”
With even senior Republicans calling the act terrorism, surely the media wouldn’t be backward in labelling it what was? No such luck.
In an article yesterday, and this morning, abc.net.au did not use the term “terrorism” except to quote Cruz and Rubio’s tweets. SBS ran AAP copy but didn’t use the word “terror” despite the article confirming Fields’ extremist links. The Australian ran AP copy and wouldn’t use the t-word. News.com.au copied the ABC and only used “terror” in quoting tweets. Instead, Fields was described as “accused killer”, “alleged driver” and “a 20-year-old man”. Compare and contrast ABC coverage of the London Bridge and Westminster Bridge attacks earlier this year, which were immediately described as terror attacks; ditto news.com.au coverage.
A 2015 survey by the University of North Carolina and Duke University of US police agencies found that nearly twice as many agencies identified right-wing extremists as the greatest threat to safety as did Islamist terrorists. The great majority of terror attacks carried out on US soil since 9/11 have been by white neo-Nazi or anti-government terrorists.
yep
jumping the gun again Bernard it is a matter for the police not homeland security this would make it a criminal offence–we had an incident of our own in Melbourne a car used to kill and maim never heard the T word used by you or anyone else just a small amount of hypocrisy on your part
You must be thinking of some other “T”-word.
The Hoddle Street shootings have reached the 30 year anniversary but I don’t recall the convicted perpetrator ever being described as a terrorist.
There was never any suggestion that the Melbourne killer had a political motive, unlike the case discussed here. Bernard is right.
Fair point
Crikey May 29 2017 (Kingsbury).
No indication the Bourke Street slaughter was of a terrorist nature. Terrorism implies wreaking terror to achieve a political end. Yes in London and yes in Charlottesville. Nothing to do with which political flavour the terrorist supports.
If this mental defective had been the right religion, right colour, right affilations, right ideology – and not just the right m.o?
KKK!?!?? Look at who they terrorise.
The Daily Sturmer already have another angle on it (having muffed the “self-defence” line – yes, they really tried that).
That the driver couldn’t have been one of their guys because his mothers maiden name is “Bloom”. It’s not quite up there with Leibowitz; but they just want to clear the air on him not being one of their guys.
Thanks for drawing it to our attention yet again, BK. I just wish you had the platform to draw it to the attention of the rest of Australia.
Down the rabbit hole goes Aunty again. “Impartial”, my arse. I want my 8 cents a day back, thanks.