A Tale of Two Labels
Two shocking incidents, both involving extreme violence and targeting specific groups, have sparked a debate about how we define and respond to terrorism.
On one hand, a man armed with a knife killed five women and a male security guard at a Bondi Junction shopping centre. While the majority of those injured were also women, police deemed the attack not to be an act of terrorism.
On the other hand, a 16-year-old boy armed with a knife stabbed a bishop and a priest at an Assyrian church in Sydney's west. This incident was swiftly labelled a terrorist attack due to its "religiously motivated" nature.
Both incidents caused fear and terror within the community. So why the different labels?
The answer lies in the legal definition of terrorism in Australia. A terrorist act is defined as one that "intends to coerce or influence the public or any government by intimidation to advance a political, religious or ideological cause".
In the case of the Wakeley attack, police concluded that the attack was religiously motivated, fulfilling the legal definition of terrorism. However, in the Bondi Junction attack, the perpetrator's motive remains unclear. While police acknowledge a possible "incel" ideology, they haven't definitively established it as the driving force behind the attack.
This lack of clarity has led to calls for a more robust approach to gender-based violence. Independent MP Zoe Daniel argues that "mental health issues should not be cover for violence against women".
The different labels assigned to these two incidents have opened a crucial debate about how we define and respond to terrorism. Should deliberately targeting women be considered an act of terror? This question demands further discussion and potentially a reevaluation of the legal framework surrounding terrorism.