Article content continued

The philosophical navel-gazing over “what is terrorism?” aside, there is actually a clear and concise definition contained in U.S. law. 18 USC § 2331 defines domestic terrorism as a dangerous criminal act, occurring within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, that intends to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, or influence the policies or conduct of a government.

Two of the required elements are fairly self-evident and non-controversial — dangerous criminal acts and territorial jurisdiction being objectively provable. The key element — and not coincidentally, the toughest to pin down — speaks to the motivation of the accused. Was his act designed and carried out with the aim to intimidate a civilian population or change government policy?

Does the alleged anti-abortion motive of the Planned Parenthood shooting elevate the attack to the level of terrorism? The answer is not as obvious as it might seem.

One could easily argue the shooting was designed to intimidate segments of the population: pro-life advocates, health-care workers, pregnant women or even women generally. In that case, the shooter most certainly fits the definition of a terrorist. The difficulty with that strict reasoning, however, is that the same logic can be applied to any number of crimes one would not traditionally associate with terrorism. Is a gang leader in Chicago who maintains power over his turf through fear and violence a terrorist? Would we accept that label on an environmental activist who throws a pie in the face of a politician to protest the seal hunt or deforestation? Such is the danger of an overly generous definition of terrorism.