Article written by

Our Guest Hoydens are some of our favourite commentors and/or bloggers who have something Hoydenish to say. » read our Guest Posting policy

4 Responses

Page 1 of 1
  1. hexy
    hexy at |
  2. tigtog
    tigtog at |

    Well said, STTT. I too have noticed the discrepancy, and have also noticed Malkin et al complaining about where’s the same level of outrage aimed towards the Muslim assassin’s terrorism? Of course totally missing the point you made – he was caught and charged with multiple terrorist acts, so everybody who wants him treated as a terrorist has already had their wish for justice fulfilled as well as it can be until he actually stands trial.

    The case of Roeder is not the same because everybody in the justice system is avoiding the word terrorist, therefore the outraged have not had their wish for justice fulfilled, and if he stands trial without being charged with a terrorist act, we still won’t have our wish for justice fulfilled.

  3. DeusExMacintosh
    DeusExMacintosh at |

    Yes, I had that Mission Impossible moment while reading about the Operation Rescue response to the murder of Tiller.

    This is your mission, should you choose to accept it… As usual, should you or any member of your Pro-Life Force be captured or killed, the organisation will disavow any knowledge of your existence.

    DeusExMacintosh’s last blog post..Selective Termination

  4. DeusExMacintosh
    DeusExMacintosh at |

    The Salon piece on Protecting Abortion Providers in the femmstroppo links I think goes some way to explaining the difference in treatment.

    Whilst the motivating factors for both your examples are roughly based in religion, the damage being done by the pro-lifers follows a model of harassment, assaults and murder that has more in common with the activities of animal rights activists. Yes, all three of these cases can be properly described as terrorism as one of the major motivation of these campaigns is to frighten opponents into submission, but the targets of pro-life and animal rights are very specific. There is a qualitative difference in killing an individual doctor and an attempt at the mass murder of anyone who happens to be handy – if Roeder had instead turned up at an abortion clinic and sprayed it with indiscriminate gunfire like Abdulhakim Mujahi Muhammed then I think he’d be facing similar charges. Not as many, I think you’re right, but not because he is white. It may simply be because Islamic terrorism is currently villain of the week and considered judicial “fair game” by the authorities but this sort of prosecutorial overkill isn’t unique when offences are against institutions of the american state. UK Hacker Gary McKinnon used his home computer in the UK to break into files at a naval air station in the States while looking for evidence of UFOs. The US authorities are charging him with terrorism and demanding his extradition to face prosecution over there. By labelling him a terrorist they are able to exploit a new extradition agreement supposedly designed to speed up the exchange of Al Qaida suspects between the two countries – creating in effect ‘extradition on demand’ without the traditional checks and balances process.

    British police have only recently begun to realise that domestic terrorism (non-islamic) needed to be taken much more seriously and major changes to the law have been required to give victims appropriate protection. No one has yet been killed by animal rights people (though there have been a couple of beatings that verged on attempted murder and they do use bombs). Perhaps the most positive legacy of Dr Tiller’s assassination is that US authorities will have to re-think their response in similar ways and be forced to recognise that the pro-lifers are a serious threat.

Comments are closed.