The perpetrator of the Nice outrage exploited Western notions of human rights.
Returning to Paris from London the day after Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel killed 84 people in Nice and seriously injured many more, I was struck not by the atmosphere of fear or anger, but by the sheer normality of everything around me and the continuation of daily life as before. If I had not known what had happened the previous night, I should not have guessed that anything untoward had happened.
But of course I did know, and I noticed particularly that the women in various forms of Muslim dress went about their business without apparent fear of recrimination or retaliation. Their confidence in the rule of law in a liberal-democratic state seemed absolute.
It struck me that modern societies are so complex, productive, and
large in scale that outrages such as the one in Nice, however horrible,
might have no important effect on the course of history, and are
therefore not only evil but also utterly futile, advancing no cause at
all. In the long run, the current wave of terrorism, terrible and
murderous though it has been, may not be remembered as what is commonly
called an existential threat. Whether or not this turns out to be so depends on a number of
factors, among them how many people are willing to act as
Lahouaiej-Bouhlel acted, and with what intelligence and determination
the state (and the population) opposes them.
The 84 dead might be said to be the victims of political correctness
and the ever-expanding doctrine of human rights. Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was
born and raised in Tunisia and, a totally unskilled man, was given leave
to enter and stay in France only because he had married a French
citizen of Tunisian origin in Tunisia. The decision to allow him into
France was based on an abstract doctrine of human rights—in this
instance, the right to family reunification—rather than on France’s
national interest, which is never allowed to enter into such decisions. Read it all here...................