Article content continued

To be sure, the idea that attacks against women or feminists are “political enough” to constitute terrorism is novel. In a post-9/11 world, people have become accustomed to terrorism driven by more “conventional” political and religious goals: shifts in Western foreign policy, or silencing offensive cartoonists. Yet it is generally understood that violence driven by hatred for particular ethnicities or political groups can constitute terrorism. It is no great leap to broaden that understanding to include violence driven by hatred of women or of feminism.

Feminism is after all inherently political, as it engages with how power is shared and decisions are made in society. If this is accepted, then it can be seen that an anti-feminist act is also inherently political. And if that action involves the targeted, theatrical killing of civilians by extremists, then why would it not be considered terrorism?

It could be argued that the shooter in the Montreal Massacre was driven by personal concerns such as unemployment and mental illness, and thus not “truly” acting out of politics. However, just because a person is struggling psychologically and personally does not render them incapable of political action. This applies to benign political involvement as much as it does terrorism. And politics is always blended with personal considerations. For example, people generally vote and campaign for the policies they think will create a better life for them and their loved ones. And just because someone joins Al-Qaeda out of a desire for personal glory or revenge does not erase that they are participating in a politically defined terrorist organization.