By Sunniya Ahmad Pirzada

Afta di violent car attack wey happen during Liverpool Football Club Premier League victory parade—wey injure 109 people, di youngest na 9 years and di oldest na 78—police quick take action. Dem name di suspect sharp-sharp: Paul Doyle, one 53-year-old white British man from West Derby.

For British Muslims, dem breathe small relief. Di truth be say, if na Muslim or even person wey get brown skin do di attack, di headlines for news for don dey different, and di community for don face wahala.

We don see dis kind thing before. For August 2024, fake news wey talk say di Southport stabbing suspect na migrant or Muslim cause riot for UK. Muslim businesses suffer, hotels wey dey house migrants dem attack am. But later, dem find out say di attacker no be migrant or Muslim. Di damage don already happen sha.

Di police quick name di suspect and even talk him ethnicity, maybe to stop di online speculation wey fit turn to fake news. But dem still talk say, even though eyewitnesses talk say di attack be deliberate, dem no dey treat am as terrorism.

Doyle don dey face charges for dangerous driving and intent to cause grievous bodily harm. But dem no call am terrorism. Di decision to name Doyle—white, British—quickly, dey significant. E show say police dey try learn from di mistake wey dem don make before. But di question still remain: why dem no treat person wey allegedly drive car enter crowd as terrorist?

Di UK Terrorism Act 2000 don define wetin terrorism mean. E include serious violence against people, damage to property, or acts wey fit endanger life or public safety, if di aim na to influence government, intimidate di public, or push political, religious, racial, or ideological agenda.

But many times, dem dey apply dis definition anyhow. For example, Salih Khater case for August 2018. E drive car enter crowd for Westminster, London. Dem arrest am quick, detain am under di Terrorism Act, and sentence am to life imprisonment. E no get link to any terrorist group. Birmingham Central Mosque even confirm say dem no sabi am as person wey dey radical. But because e brown, and na asylum seeker from Sudan, dem tag am terrorist.

Khater action and Doyle own dey similar for di violence and recklessness. But while dem call Khater terrorist, Doyle dey treated as individual criminal, no link to any ideology or social matter. Why e be like dat?

Di identity of di person wey commit crime—him race, religion, class, and nationality—dey shape how media and police dey describe di crime. White British identity dey carry privilege and immunity. Once dem talk say di person na white British, di language go soft: drug use, mental health issues (Doyle na ex-marine), isolated incident.

But if 109 people dey deliberately harm, including pikin dem, no be terror be dat? Di people wey dey di chaos no dey terrorised?

Di truth be say, di word 'terrorist' don turn to racial term. Dem dey use am mostly for brown, Muslim, or foreign-born people. Meanwhile, violent white men rarely dey described as terrorists, even when di action fit di legal definition.

Dis double standard dey affect how we understand terrorism. E dey make di threat of far-right violence dey invisible. Di people wey dey marginalised—Muslims, migrants, racial communities—go dey carry di blame for crime wey dem no commit. But white perpetrators go dey treated as individuals, no be systemic threat.

Dis inconsistency no just dey frustrating, e dey dangerous. E dey distort wetin terrorism mean and who fit be terrorist. E dey allow some communities to dey vilified while others dey protected.

Language matter well-well. Di words wey we dey use dey shape di justice system, public opinion, and political policy. Di way dem dey reluctant to call white-perpetrated violence terrorism dey send bad message: say na only some lives dey important, and na only some acts deserve di full weight of di law.

We no need to dey label more people as terrorists, but we need consistency. If terrorism go mean anything, e suppose apply to everybody wey commit terror, no be only people wey look di part. Otherwise, no be justice we dey do, na bias and prejudice wey wear legal cloth.

So, make we ask ourselves: terrorism na about wetin you do, or who you be? Until we answer dis question well, di justice system go still dey dangerous and biased.