We have to separate the fight against Islamism from integration policy

The fight against Islamism is hopeless if it is based on ideological wishful thinking that declares the perpetrators to be victims of the circumstances. Then there is simply cowardice and comfort. 

Canadian politics reacted to the beheading of the French teacher Samuel Paty with downright shameful indifference: single tweet by Foreign Minister François-Philippe Champagne-Socialist.

But when it comes to fighting Islamism, Canada has long been at a dead end. It started with mixing the topic with integration policy.

Rarely has politics in Canada and France reacted so completely differently to an attack as in the case of the brutal murder of the teacher Samuel Paty a little over two weeks ago, and the subsequent murders in Nice. While France’s ruling politicians have now declared France’s Islamists “enemies of the republic” and posthumously awarded the murdered teacher Paty the highest honor in the country, the Order of the Legion of Honor, and honored him with a memorial service in the Sorbonne, government politicians in Canada debated that immigrants are the group most affected by the corona crisis. I think that those who are hardest hit by the Corona crisis are those who are seriously ill or even died from the virus.

Foreign Minister François-Philippe Champagne-Socialist condemned the terror attack near Paris on Twitter. So far, however, it has been avoided to name the Islamist motivated perpetrator as such.   But not only Canadian politicians reacted with a downright shameful indifference to the beheading of Samuel Paty.

It is only five months since the death of George Floyd during a police operation in Minneapolis (USA) led to mass demonstrations in Canada as well. His death raises legitimate questions that America is grappling with politically and legally. More and more, however, not only the world-famous video, but also facts that have not yet been taken into account, such as the questions about why the convicted Floyd resisted his arrest or what role the cocktail made from various drugs that he has had in his blood, played when he died, was discussed and included in the rating. Since Floyd was dark-skinned and died in a police operation, many in this country and thus from a great distance immediately tended to the conclusion that he could only have been a victim of racism.

The death of Samuel Paty, on the other hand, who as a teacher wanted to discuss freedom of expression with his students and had to pay for his education and tolerance-promoting pedagogy with his head (literally), is clearly not a reason for demonstrations or outrage in Canada. But where does this indifference to victims of Islamist terror come from? 

Attacks in Canada only barely prevented

Islamist terror, which is already part of everyday life in France, can also reach Canada at any time. This is proven not least by processes that are currently taking place before the courts – unnoticed by the public. There is Ikar Mao charged with two terrorism offences in December 2019 and remains in custody.  There is a publication ban about his case.  There is Haleema Mustafa, also charged with two terrorism offences in August 2020.  There is Shehroze Chaudhry arrested in September 2020 after he gave an extensive interview about atrocities he committed with ISIS in Syria.  There is Omar Mohammed, arrested in August 2020 after being released from prison in 2019; he spent several years in jail for previous terrorism offences.  These are just a few of the Islamic terrorists arrested in Canada in the past year, but the list goes on and on.  There is the “Toronto 18”, the 2013 Via Rail Plot, the 2014 Quebec attack, the murder at Ottawa’s War Memorial and the storming of Parliament, the 2017 Edmonton terrorist attack (the terrorist, despite having an ISIS flag in the truck and yelling “Allah Akbar” was not charged with terrorism(!?) – thanks to Rachel Notley and Justin Trudeau) and others.

That there have been fewer than a dozen successful Islamic terrorist attacks in this country is more a testament to our intelligence services and policing, and the lack of ability of the Islamisits.

But none of these cases sparked any discussion either. Instead, one cannot help but get the impression that politicians and, unfortunately, the media too, want to sweep these failed attacks under the carpet.

Is the security of terrorists more important than that of the population?

How did this political impasse come about? How could such a situation, which is in fact an invitation for Islamists to become more active in Canada, even arise? In the days after the beheading of Samuel Paty there was much criticism that the political left divided into “good” and “bad” perpetrators and victims and made this division dependent on whether they perceive an act of violence as outrageous according to their categories or not. The problem is the ideological distortion of reality on the part of the left, which unfortunately has also been carried over to the integration debate. This distorted perception of reality reduces the world to two groups of people: perpetrators – victims, powerful – allegedly powerless, white – black, evil – good, rich – poor, etc.

Conflicts and events are mainly interpreted and classified against this background. A narrative has been established that is not questioned any further: If a dark-skinned person is killed by a white police officer in the USA, then it can only have been racism – and not just a racist individual, but social racism as a whole. It is true that the left has long since lost all moral compass, but it does not go far enough as an explanation.

The “mother of all mistakes” in dealing with Islamism was the mixing of the topic with immigration policy. This quickly led to the position adopted by the government funded mainstream media media to this day, according to which a critical examination of Islamism and its consistent naming and combating should be equated with racism (“islamophobia” – which is not a real word). 

Along with this, the ideologically motivated construct was quickly born that an extremist Muslim would only become a violent Islamist because he had previously been discriminated against and marginalized in society. Experts who contradicted this, pointing out that Islamists were referring to Islam, were quickly removed from the debate (cancelled) because they stood in the way of the ideology according to which society helped to create this type of violence.

And it got worse: on this purely ideologically based assumption, prevention and deradicalization programs were developed that devoured millions of dollars in tax money. We should better use this money to promote our education system, for example for the necessary practice of all students to engage in tolerant and at the same time democratic thinking.

An integration policy that deals with the subject of Islam should not be criticized. But to use this endeavor as a pretext to end up declaring violent Islamists to be child-like, to the effect that they are seen as helpless victims of exclusion and not as terrorists who have made a conscious decision to do what they do and are also completely convinced of their actions.  To think otherwise is a racist view. In this way, the ideology of the “critical theory” of the so-called Frankfurt School of interpreting social conflicts under the aspect of “power versus powerlessness” is transferred to all areas of life.

Apart from that, there are two other aspects that play a role here and that are not primarily ideological but deeply human: fear and comfort. Fear, because a confrontation with Islamism reveals its violence more often and more clearly. Make no mistake about it: if we stand up to Islamist terror and its totalitarian ideology, people will die at the hands of Islamists. But let’s not fool ourselves into anything else: further terrorist attacks are planned and will also take place because the framework conditions currently allow this. But silence will not protect us.

The second human factor, convenience, is currently spreading because anyone who takes up the issue of Islamism and terrorism also has to deal with the left mainstream and is immediately labeled an Islamophobic racist by them. Expressing oneself can have negative existential effects on every man and woman, so it is human and understandable that hardly anyone likes to argue against the mainstream and take these risks for themselves.

“Deradicalization” follows ideological wishful thinking

None of the expensive and fruitless deradicalization programs have yet been questioned by journalists; instead, most of the major media reported as if there was no alternative to these programs and the ultimate wisdom. And even now, many still do not want to see that fighting Islamism is based on ideological wishful thinking and otherwise only spends financial resources on so-called prevention service providers, and can never work in practice.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s