Mmmkay, errrm. To me, the author gave a definition of the word "terrorism" as it is defined by the Canadian courts (one would assume she's Canadian) and showed how what she was describing fit that definition. It kind of seems like if you object to her using a national and government defined definition of a word to describe a situation covered by that word then your issue might be with the field of semantics as a whole rather than her? Like, if I use the word "bicycle" correctly and you feel disgusted by that - I can't help but feel that that's because you haven't understood how words work, rather than through any fault of mine.
I've been deliberately avoiding this conversation but this was just...what? I mean, you mention it has a clearly defined meaning and, yes, she quoted it. And tried to show how the situation she was describing fit it. It's a little difficult to really understand your objection here. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you? I might be as I certainly don't understand the reference to/relevance of the Brussels attacks.
Here's what the UN has to say on the subject: Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them
I study law here in Denmark, and our professor talked to us at length about the watering down of words like Terrorism in a legal sense. In Denmark's own criminal code it says the following about terrorism
§ 114 For terrorism, the punishment is imprisonment for life for any who with intent seeks to scare a population, or unjustly seeks to force danish or foreign public authorities or an international organization to take action or fail to take action; or to destabilize or destroy a country or international organizations fundamental political, constitutional, economical or societal structure, performs any of the following actions, when the action, in regards to its character or context, could cause a country or international organization serious harm.
I would like to believe that what is outlined above is the international standard when considering an action to be terroism or not. Calling something like this terrorism is hyperbolic to me. I am sure that Canada has laws regard criminal intimidation or coercion. If said laws have been folded into the terrorism law, then I truly do think that it needs to be looked at again, otherwise I could foresee quite a lot of situations that could be termed terrorism by Canadian standards.
§ 114. For terrorisme straffes med fængsel indtil på livstid den, som med forsæt til at skræmme en befolkning i alvorlig grad eller uretmæssigt at tvinge danske eller udenlandske offentlige myndigheder eller en international organisation til at foretage eller undlade at foretage en handling eller at destabilisere eller ødelægge et lands eller en international organisations grundlæggende politiske, forfatningsmæssige, økonomiske eller samfundsmæssige strukturer begår en eller flere af følgende handlinger, når handlingen i kraft af sin karakter eller den sammenhæng, hvori den begås, kan tilføje et land eller en international organisation alvorlig skade