Last July, the quiet seaside town of Southport in England was shattered by a horrifying act of violence. An 18-year-old man burst into a dance class and killed three young girls, injuring ten others. What followed was not only a national tragedy but also a disturbing chain of events that exposed deep societal divisions and the readiness of some to exploit misinformation for political gain.
Initially, rumors spread that the attacker was a Syrian Muslim, an Arab, and an illegal immigrant. These claims, amplified by far-right groups and certain media outlets, sparked riots across England and Northern Ireland. Mosques were vandalized, Muslim immigrants were assaulted, and a hotel housing refugees was targeted for arson. However, as facts emerged, it became clear that the attacker, Axel Rudakubana, was a Black British teenager born in Wales, a Christian whose family had migrated from Africa decades ago. Despite this revelation, racist and far-right political figures continued to weaponize the tragedy to push anti-immigrant narratives, deliberately misleading the public.
A Quest for Motive
In the aftermath, British authorities launched an extensive investigation into Rudakubana’s background, seeking a political or ideological link to the murders. Police scrutinized his digital devices for connections to extremist organizations such as Al Qaeda or ISIS but found none. Merseyside Police Chief Constable Serena Kennedy described Rudakubana as having an “unhealthy obsession with violence,” evidenced by the violent media content he consumed, but emphasized that no ideological motivation could be identified.
Despite the lack of evidence connecting Rudakubana to terrorism, Prime Minister Keir Starmer described the incident as “a new form of terrorism,” arguing that individuals radicalized by extreme violence posed a unique and growing threat. Starmer’s remarks ignited a broader debate about the definition of terrorism and the dangers of expanding its scope to include individuals with psychological or social disorders.
The Expanding Definition of Terrorism
“Terrorism” has increasingly become a catch-all term for acts of violence that challenge societal norms or governance. Governments worldwide often use the term to encapsulate a wide array of threats, from organized extremist groups to individuals acting out of personal turmoil. Critics argue that this dilution risks undermining the distinctiveness of the term and its utility in addressing genuine threats.
Starmer’s comparison of the Southport murders to school shootings in the United States underscores this shift. He suggested that online platforms facilitating access to violent content are radicalizing young people, likening this phenomenon to the ideological indoctrination associated with terrorist groups. Starmer proposed changes to the UK’s counter-terrorism laws to address what he described as a new and dangerous form of extremism.
Frankly, there is something wrong with this approach to me: If we were to call everyone who loses their mind and commits an act of violence a terrorist, the concept of terrorism would lose its meaning.
Systemic Failures
Rudakubana’s violent tendencies were evident long before the Southport tragedy. Between the ages of 13 and 14, he was referred three times to the Prevent program, the UK’s counter-terrorism initiative aimed at deradicalizing individuals. However, no action was taken because his obsession with violence was not tied to any identifiable ideology. This failure to intervene early has become a focal point of criticism, with Starmer describing the decision as “clearly wrong.”
The case also exposed significant gaps in the regulation of weapons. Despite his criminal record and young age, Rudakubana was able to purchase an assault knife from Amazon. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper called this oversight “a complete disgrace,” vowing to implement stricter measures on online knife sales.
Addressing the Root Causes
The Southport tragedy and its aftermath raise critical questions about how society addresses violence and its root causes. While some, like Starmer, advocate for expanding legal frameworks to classify more acts as terrorism, others warn that such measures risk stigmatizing vulnerable individuals and exacerbating the problem.
Rudakubana was not a terrorist in the conventional sense. He was a lonely, socially isolated young man whose fascination with violence went unchecked.
Labeling such troubled individuals as “terrorists” can inadvertently push them toward extremist ideologies and terrorist organizations. Terrorist organizations prey on lonely and disaffected individuals. By treating every misfit or troubled youth as a terrorist, we risk giving these groups exactly what they want: a steady stream of recruits.
What teenager Rudakubana needed was intervention—mental health support, community integration programs, and consistent oversight. Instead, his struggles were ignored until it was too late.
The Epidemic of Loneliness
The Southport murders reflect a broader, more insidious issue: the epidemic of loneliness and disconnection in modern society. Advances in technology and shifts in social structures have left many individuals feeling isolated in a world that is more interconnected than ever.
Until recently, mass shootings and random acts of violence were often dismissed as an “American problem.” However, similar incidents are now occurring in countries like Serbia, Germany, France, and the UK. This troubling trend suggests that the root causes of such violence—loneliness, social alienation, and untreated mental health issues—are universal and growing.
Addressing these issues requires more than criminal measures or restrictive laws. It demands a holistic approach that strengthens families, schools, and communities while providing robust mental health support. You can’t solve the deterioration of the individual by simply preventing them from buying knives online.
Moving Forward
The Southport tragedy should serve as a wake-up call for Britain. Rather than focusing solely on punitive measures or expanding the definition of terrorism, policymakers must address the underlying social and psychological factors driving such acts of violence.
Failure to do so risks perpetuating a cycle of fear, division, and reactionary politics—while leaving the real issues unaddressed. As the debate continues, one thing is clear: tackling the root causes of violence is the only way to build a safer and more cohesive society.