We need the truth to understand

Early in the week, I made the mistake of checking Twitter and discovered millions of Australians had committed a terrorist attack in Christchurch. In particular, white Australians were held collectively guilty by trolls online and sections of the Left media.

The ABC converted the atrocious slaughter of Muslims by a self-confessed ethno-nationalist into cheap political capital. By week’s end, the broadcaster had published pieces casting most of the green-Left’s political opponents as terrorists by association.

Reading through the ABC coverage, one found Sky News held guilty for its “tone” and the thought crime of permitting conservatives to speak. It not only allowed right-of-centre commenta­tors free speech but demo­crat­ically elected conservatives, too. The Australian government was held guilty of protecting the ­nation’s borders and criticising ­ji­hadi networks. The Ten Network trumped them all by charging the Australian government with the thought crime of Islamophobia.

The use of the New Zealand terror attack to promote the politics of Islamophobia is unwise. Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, former member of the International Institute for Islamic Thought, contended that Islamophobia was invented by Islamist groups during the 1990s. He described it as a “loathsome term … nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics”.

Predictably, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan used the tool of censorship to criticise the “Islamophobic” West after the Christchurch attack. Censorship of dissent is his modus operandi. He also blamed the suspect, Brenton Tarrant, for distorting Christian faith and the Western world generally for Islamophobia.

It is curious to blame Christians and conservatives for the terror attack, given Tarrant repudiates both in his manifesto. ­Instead, he describes himself as an ethno-nationalist — a belief system that could be attributed to ­Erdogan in light of his threat to kill the descendants of Anzac soldiers. In the past, he promoted ethno-nationalism among Muslims in Europe, urging those of Turkish descent not to integrate and describing their assimilation as a crime against humanity.

The charge of Islamophobia is used to justify the censorship of free speech. It is especially problematic in the context of terrorism, given the long history of jihadis killing critics of Islam whether they are Muslim or not.

There have been significant ­efforts to censor vital truths about the Christchurch terror attack. Tarrant’s vile manifesto has been suppressed online. It is a truly shocking document. Despite years of writing on terrorism, there were sections so replete with hatred they brought me to tears. But there are essential reasons that it should be read by anyone wanting to understand the New Zealand attack.

To understand terrorism, you must understand the terrorist mind. Yet just as the public was encouraged to ignore the connection between Islamist ideology and jihad, so too does the suppression of Tarrant’s manifesto diminish our capacity to appreciate cause and effect. Ignorance is not a virtue.

By definition, terrorism is an act of violence carried out for political/religious reasons. The way to prevent future attacks is to understand the terrorists’ motives and intended aims.

One of the outcomes Tarrant discusses in the manifesto is to provoke an extreme reaction among Muslims. He thought a backlash against such reactions would then be perceived as justifiable. Erdogan unwittingly took the bait. Those suggesting that criticism of Islam be classified as Islamophobia and censored are falling into Tarrant’s trap.

Unfortunately, the ethno-­nationalist ideology described in the manifesto is common to many militant groups from different races, religions and cultures. While comparisons have been drawn between white supremacist terrorism and jihad, there are significant differences made evident by the manifesto. For the purpose of contrast, consider the playbook of Islamic State, The Management of Savagery, attributed to former al-Qa’ida official Mohammad Hasan Khalil al-Hakim. He presents Islamist terrorism as a total war strategy, stating that ­jihadis are “progressing until it is possible to expand and attack the enemies in order to repel them, plunder their money, and place them in a constant state of apprehension and (make them) desire reconciliation.”

By contrast, Tarrant’s manifesto is disorganised and unsophisticated. There is no total war plan. There is no government support for his terrorist cause. There are no wealthy backers financing his plan for ethnic supremacy. His declared ally, Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik, is serving a lengthy prison sentence.

The Christchurch terrorist’s greatest advantages were easy ­access to semiautomatic wea­pons and the lack of laws to prevent incitement to violence. The Coalition proposed such laws in Australia as part of reforming section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act, but they were rejected.

The most disturbing parts of Tarrant’s manifesto are the beliefs in ethnicity-based nationhood (ethno-nationalism) and the ­dehumanisation of people who don’t belong to the preferred ethnicity. The extreme nature of ­hatred is evident in a section that echoes abhorrent Nazi beliefs about Jewish children. In defence of the plan to kill Muslims, including children, the author writes: “Any invader you kill, of any age, is one less enemy your children will have to face.”

Let us be very clear about the self-declared saviour of Western civilisation. There is nothing civilised about the slaughter of innocent women and children. There is nothing brave about killing men in prayer. The massacre of unarmed civilians in Christchurch was a coward’s punch on steroids by a man who betrayed the best of the West by silencing dissent with a gun. Those who seek to excuse him are cowards in arms.