It's just a spring clean for a May queen

Yesterday something terrible happened in this lovely little land of mine. Some lone nut, for no apparent reason and to no end other than attempted regicide, took his small, black, Japanese car, smashed it through the minimal barricading and stormed at the Queen's open-top motorcoach. He missed it by a small length and came to crash into a stone monument nearby. In his assault, he rammed through a dense mass of onlookers. So far, six have died including the driver himself. He was removed from the wreckage and transported to hospital where he died later that night.

Let me make this one thing very clear: the human suffering caused is horrible. I sympathise deeply with the every victim of this action, and those near to them. Some things, however, don't sit right with my mind. As events unfolded and the media repeated what little footage they had, I was amazed at the response of the Royal family. I'm sure they have received extensive training on how to act in response to an assault. Even if they haven't, the security people on the coach with them must have. How is it possible then, that when a vehicle smashes nearby in an obvious attempt at their lives, they remain standing up, facing the event? This seems like an insane thing to do if you've ever watched news reports concerning cars and buses on, let's say, the Gaza strip.

Now, I don't know the exact job description of the two gentlemen standing in the left rear corner of the bus, but I assume they were hired to ensure the safety of the passengers in any eventuality. I believe this situation qualifies very neatly for the 'potentially threatening eventuality'-category. Why is it then, that they remain completely indifferent? I sincerely hope they were fired, and recommended never to work in security again.

Another issue I had with the unfolding events was at the very first press conference. The statement being made was, right off the bat: there are no indications of connections to terrorism. Now, if racing your car flat out at the Head of State, violently and horrifically killing a number of civilians in the process and creating fear, panic, and disarray at a public gathering isn't terrorism, then I truly wonder what is.

...And that was sarcasm. I don't wonder what terrorism is, I'm actually very clear on the matter.

You see, some time ago every household in the Netherlands received a small brochure, to inform them of the latest additions and modifications to our national lexicon. It functionally defined such terms in an infuriatingly presbyopic manner. A link to the full text is below. This magnificent piece also took it upon itself to define what 'propaganda' is, if anyone was still unclear on the matter after reading. So, you see I'm also very aware that the functional definition of the term has very little to do with the literal meaning of the word. But, for now, the functional definition will have to do.

*) Terrorisme: het plegen van zwaar geweld met als doel politieke of
godsdienstige standpunten aan anderen op te leggen.

("Terrorism: The act of committing grievous violence with the intent to impose one's political or religious views on others", my translation)

For one thing, this is one massive non sequitur. It either presupposes a means making one's political or religious views intentions clear in the violent act, or supposes violence itself as an act of communication. Suppose you're at a shopping center. A bomb goes off. Would this in any way lead you to think: My, maybe I'll convert to Islam. No. Unfortunately though, this monstrous deformity of a definition is what we have to work with. So, the perpetrator had allegedly murmured or gargled some feeble words to the first police officers at the scene. This must have been some statement indeed: Evidently, his words were so clear and unequivocal as to assert beyond any reasonable doubt that: -yes, this man was premeditatedly assaulting the Queen and -no, he had no political view to impose on anyone by attempting to kill the monarch. I hope you see my frustration at the incredibility of such a statement.

What I took it to mean in stead, was that this man had absolutely no connections to any groups or people our national security services are currently monitoring. Quite disturbing. This would mean that the term 'terrorist' is a label these security services can arbitrarily attach to an individual, completely disregarding whether this person's actions or stated intentions resemble in any way the definition of that term. Let's hope this label does not entail exclusion from the civil order.

Oh, wait. Don't I remember the Senate passing a law just a few years back, through which anyone on the European Union's list of terrorists automatically falls under European jurisdiction, forestalling his right to legal claim? Being labeled a terrorist places one outside the polity, effectively classifying one persona non grata. This is not a power I would entrust any leadership.

I hope I'm wrong.

Please, someone... Prove me wrong, because these and other observations are forming a very ugly picture.