Seattle politician says ‘naming’ matters, refuses to say radical Islamic terrorism

Naming things and identifying hate matters to Seattle City Council member Tim Burgess, but he, like many Progressive politicians, refuses to label Omar Mateen as a radical Islamic terrorist. In fact, he refuses to use the term terrorist or talk about terrorism, but he’s quick to talk LGBTQ hate crimes and gun control and seems content on implying that Donald Trump is fueling violence. He’ll label everything and everyone — except the Orlando shooter’s inspiration.

Related: Dow Constantine blames everything but ISIS for Orlando shooting

In a somewhat disjointed blog post, Burgess writes:

Sometimes it is important to identify things, to name them, to call them out. Naming allows us to remember. It gives us a reference point, focuses our attention.

He goes on to point out that the shooting in Orlando that left 49 dead and more than 50 wounded should be labeled a hate crime against the LGBTQ community. He said, “[f]ailure to do so is passive acceptance.”

He’s right. It’s important to identify things and call them out. It allows us to remember. And the terrorist attack was a clear attack on the LGBTQ community (in addition to all Americans).

But if calling out hate and identifying our enemies is so important, why doesn’t Burgess call out Mateen as a terrorist who subscribed to radical Islam?

Mateen pledged allegiance to ISIS. He was such an adherent to ISIS beliefs, the U.S. government initially censored his speech for fear it might embolden our enemy.

Burgess, of course, goes after Donald Trump. He goes so far as to imply Trump’s rhetoric is responsible for the violence. He says, “Words matter. Hate spawns more hate. Left unchecked, hate leads to violence.”

Why, then, doesn’t Burgess label the Orlando shooting a terrorist act inspired by radical Islamic rhetoric? He described this shooting, in a separate post, as “domestic terrorism” but goes out of his way to avoid pointing out the shooter was a radical Islamic terrorist. He quickly labeled Dylann Roof, the man charged for killing nine African-Americans in a church, as a “white supremacist.” But Burgess won’t delve into the inspirations of Mateen. (In other words, he just wanted to point out that not all terrorism is committed by radical Muslims and he did that in a way that avoided even using the word Muslim).

It seems Burgess, using his own argument, is offering passive acceptance of radical Islamic terrorism. Unfortunately, because Burgess is leaving this hate “unchecked” it will lead to more violence. That is, after all, his own argument.

Follow @https://twitter.com/jasonrantz