Are we becoming inured to the dangers of radical Islam?
Are we becoming inured to the dangers of radical Islam?
Two Islamist terror attacks on European soil in the past week – but once again our political and media classes looked the other way
Recent events in Israel and Gaza are horrific beyond words. The sheer scale of the carnage dictates, not unreasonably, that our media organisations have devoted huge coverage to the conflict. As matters escalate, the humanitarian crisis unfolding inside Gaza has understandably become the focus of international attention. But it behoves all of us not to forget the barbaric and indefensible attacks on innocent Israeli citizens that triggered the current wave of violence. There is a danger that in the debate over Israel’s military response, and with the insatiable demands of the 24-hour news cycle being what they are, we lose sight of the appalling deeds of the Hamas terrorists.
Which brings me to a wider point. Is our society – or, more particularly, the political and media classes that influence so much of our national conversation – becoming inured to both the threat and reality of Islamist terror attacks? Have such incidents become so common that they are accepted as part and parcel of what it means to live in a Western democracy?
I raise these questions not as some sort of enemy of Islam – in fact, I think there is quite a bit to be admired about the religion – but because there have been two Islamist attacks on mainland Europe within the past week alone, and the reaction (such as it was) in each case was, I think, indicative of how such occurrences have become almost normalised.
In the first incident, in the French city of Arras, a teacher was stabbed to death by a suspect who, according to witnesses, shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ (‘God is greatest’) while carrying out the attack.
In the second, two people of Swedish nationality were slain by a gunman in Brussels (the victims were apparently in town to watch their national football team play against Belgium). Several others were injured. The attacker was later shot dead by police, though not before he had posted a video online in which he claimed to be a member of Islamic State and declared that he had carried out the attacks in the name of God.
So two significant Islamist terrorist incidents within a few days of each other on the streets of major European cities – just across the Channel, in fact – but what was the reaction in Britain? Well, of course the attacks were reported on by our media – it would have been most odd if they hadn’t been – but the coverage was not much more than fleeting, and, in each case, most news organisations provided little beyond the basic facts.
Strikingly, there was, so far as I could see, no meaningful analysis of what might have inspired the attacks; no reference to the growing prevalence of such attacks in Western societies; no discussion of how, in an increasingly interconnected world – and one in which national borders are more and more porous – such attacks might ever be prevented (perhaps we are already well beyond that question); no debate on the crucial questions of multiculturalism, integration and social cohesion; no assessment of whether we in the West might have taken a wrong turn on all these questions and are now paying the price; no suggestion of what we might do to remedy things.
Some might be tempted to argue that the decision of the British commentariat to look the other way can be explained by the fact that the two incidents in question occurred beyond these shores. However, to understand why that explanation wouldn’t be terribly convincing, we need only look at what happened when similar incidents occurred in Britain.
In 2021, Emad al-Swealmeen, a failed asylum seeker from Syria (‘failed’ in the sense that his application was rejected; he was never actually deported) tried to blow up Liverpool Women’s hospital. Though his bomb exploded, he succeeded in killing only himself. The inquest into al-Swealmeen’s death heard that he had converted to Christianity in 2017, but the conversion was probably bogus – most likely undertaken to support his asylum claim – and he was a practising Muslim when he died.
I can think of few acts more abominable, and which violate every moral principle imaginable, than attempting, in the name of some religious ideology, to slaughter scores of women patients inside a hospital. There was a time – and it surely wasn’t that long ago – when such a deed would have been considered simply inconceivable. And had such an atrocity occurred, or been attempted, it would have provoked the most intense public debate.
But when news of al-Swealman’s actions broke, and then again during the inquest into his death, the reaction of large parts of the media was to do little beyond report the events in a matter of fact way. Almost as though there was nothing else to be said. ‘A failed asylum seeker tried to blow up a hospital filled with women in a likely Islamist-inspired attack. Here’s some CCTV footage of the incident. Now over to Trevor for the sport…’
Most, if not all, of our politicians appeared not to have even noticed the incident.
Similarly, when, also in 2021, member of parliament David Amess was knifed to death, much of the commentariat – especially those poor souls afflicted with Brexit Derangement Syndrome – seemed more concerned with using his murder as an opportunity to push the fight against ‘online hate’ rather than discuss the ideology that had killed him: radical Islam.
The year before these incidents, a Libyan refugee and jihadist stabbed three people to death in a park in Reading. There were, in the aftermath, the usual public expressions of sadness and sympathy for the victims but, once again, barely anything in the way of debate over the most fundamental questions.
Even with the reaction to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing – carried out by Islamist Salman Abedi – which killed 22 concert-goers, there was, unless I am completely misremembering things, little beyond the usual platitudes and laying of flowers and lighting of candles. It was as though Manchester had been struck by a natural disaster rather than a terror attack. There was virtually no public debate about how and why the British-born twentysomething perpetrator had turned so viciously against his own country and community. Some appeared to consider any mention of his motive or religion positively indecent.
All of which compels me to conclude, in response to my own original question, that, yes, our society has become inured to these events – at least to the extent that our political and media classes, imbued as many among them are with liberal-progressive tendencies, are utterly unwilling to confront, let alone answer, the tough questions. When each fresh atrocity occurs, they merely sigh, shake their heads, call on us not to be divided, and avert their gaze until the next time.
And that attitude is a dangerous one for the obvious reason that a refusal to openly debate the wider causes and consequences of such attacks makes us less safe. It also means the creation of an atmosphere in which anyone who does question the merits of a liberal immigration policy or highlight the failure of authorities to police our borders properly or raise concerns over public policy on multiculturalism or integration is likely to attract sneers and be condemned as uncouth or callous or racist.
The threat of future Islamist-inspired terror attacks inside our country inevitably lies behind much of the public concern over the migrant Channel crossings. People can see that the small boats are usually filled with young men from volatile parts of the Muslim world and fear that, while most will turn out to be perfectly decent citizens, among their number may exist some potentially violent radicals. There is nothing uncouth or callous or racist about holding these concerns.
Consider, for example, these extracts from a report in The Guardian that appeared after the Brussels attack:
‘The suspect in the shooting was a 45-year-old Tunisian man who had probably been living in Belgium since 2016 and who had applied for asylum in 2019 … Police had been aware of him since 2016 when a foreign police service classed him as radicalised. However, nothing concrete had been done with the information as there were so many such reports at that time … The state secretary for asylum and migration said the suspect’s asylum application had been rejected in 2020, after which he disappeared from authority’s radar.’
What is clear is that the failure on the part of Belgian authorities wasn’t attributable just to plain old incompetence; instead the system was simply overwhelmed by a colossal number of asylum applications, and the gunman slipped from their gaze.
Does anyone really believe that, with our broken asylum system and porous borders, the same thing might not happen here – or, more accurately given the facts of the al-Swealmeen case, might not happen here again?
So those in positions of power and influence can go on ignoring the tough questions and avoiding any meaningful debate every time a terror attack occurs, and they can continue to smear and denigrate anyone who is prepared to ask those questions and initiate that debate, but that doesn’t mean that the problems and challenges that have arisen as a consequence of our wrong-headed approach over so many years to issues such as immigration, multiculturalism and integration will disappear. On the contrary, they will just become more acute.
Sooner or later, our nation will need to start having some difficult conversations with itself.
Finally, a note to say that I appeared in my regular Friday evening slot on GB News’s ‘Dewbs & Co’ last week. Topics included the Israel-Hamas conflict, the ‘surveillance society’, and ‘trans influencer’ Dylan Mulvaney being named ‘Woman of the Year’ by a US magazine (give me strength!). The full programme can be watched here.