How best to defeat Islamist terrorism? Expel ISIS from Iraq and Syria? Crack down on domestic radicalization? Work with Muslim reformers to dismantle the ideological roots of Islamism? Each of these would, of course, be admirable pursuits. But none of them seems to spring first to mind among Europe’s best and brightest. Consider the latest report emanating from the European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI). It argues that the answer to defeating the head-hackers of ISIS is an extended bout of head-in-the-sand censorship.
The document states that “fuelling prejudice against Muslims shows a reckless disregard, not only for the dignity of the great majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom, but also for their safety.” Outside of a tiny number of bigots, it is unclear who, exactly, the pro-fueling prejudice lobby is, but so far so uncontroversial.
Unfortunately, the report continues. It cites “a recent study by Teeside University suggesting that where the media stress the Muslim background of perpetrators of terrorist acts, and devote significant coverage to it, the violent backlash against Muslims is likely to be greater than in cases where the perpetrators’ motivation is downplayed or rejected in favour of alternative explanations.”
You see where this is going. To head off even the remote possibility of “violent backlash,” journalists should not report the truth. Instead, they should suppress facts and roll with the most inoffensive, politically correct “alternative explanation” available.
Worse, the report darkly suggests that it is the role of government to begin a process of “rigorous training” to journalists in order to re-educate them on such matters.
It is not just those in Brussels who believe that pretending news is not news is the way forward. Some news outlets in France seem to be just as convinced.
In July, just after the ISIS-inspired Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel had used a truck to slaughter 86 people celebrating Bastille Day in Nice, several French outlets stated they would no longer publish the pictures of Islamist murderers. This included Le Monde and La Croix.
Inevitably, there was an academic on hand to back up the idea that ordinary people cannot be trusted with the truth. Paris Diderot University’s Fethi Benslama, a psychoanalyst, stepped forward to second the notion that “a pact in the media to no longer publish the names and pictures of the perpetrators of these acts” would be a good thing, since that kind of information is just “a really big boost to their efforts to make themselves world famous.”
Let us leave aside for the moment the fact that social media and the internet mean that newspapers trying to control the flow of information on such a topic is utterly futile. Such suggestions are gross insults to ordinary people and demonstrate a remarkable arrogance. They assume that the regular man or woman on the street cannot be trusted with reality; that they are incapable of reading the newspaper (even one as sober as Le Monde) without being whipped up into a frenzy of xenophobia and anti-Muslim feeling.
This conceit also assumes that those who see these attacks taking place are not capable of making their own conclusions about what is happening without guidance from the press. If only professional journalists had not publicly identified Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, then perhaps the masses would never know whether this heinous act was inspired by Buddhists, secularists or Islamists. Then again, perhaps those who heard Bouhlel shouting “Allahu Akbar” would start forming—and sharing—their own opinions.
Responding to Islamist attacks by censoring the press also betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the cause of terrorism. Reality TV stars want to make themselves world famous. Islamist fundamentalists? Less so. There are many complex reasons—theological, ideological, social—why individuals head down a radical path, and even more complex ones that then persuade them to carry out an act of violence. Wanting to be more like Kim Kardashian is not one of them.
The war with Islamist terrorists is real, and we are not going to win it by concealing the identity of those fighting us. Instead, we must fight fire with fire.
Yet there are clearly those in Europe who not only do not want to fight fire with fire: they want to pretend that no such fire exists. Unfortunately for those living in Europe, this collective denial is being encouraged at the very time the house is burning down.
The Heritage Foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Fellow, Robin Simcox analyzes terrorism and national security issues.
