Sir

Your Editorial 'Unwise branding' (Nature 447, 353; doi:10.1038/447353a 2007) is against equating animal-rights activism with terrorism. In it you state that “there is no such objective thing as a terrorist”. This statement is yet another example of the moral blindness invading public discourse in the United Kingdom.

It is straightforward to define terrorism in an objective and legally egalitarian manner, for example by defining as a terrorist any person who uses violence to further his or her ideology, without taking into consideration the likelihood that innocent people may be injured, maimed or killed by such violent acts. Arson fuelled by ideology would certainly fit this definition of terrorism, and the animal-rights arsonists discussed in your Editorial were apparently not deterred by the possibility that people might be injured or killed in the fires they set.

Your second concern, regarding “who will be willing to publicly break bread with a terrorist, reformed or otherwise”, is answered by current reality in Northern Ireland, South Africa and other places around the globe.