After the terrorist attack on a Pride march in Berlin on Saturday, the Second Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party (Høyre), Ola Svenneby, is inviting the public—particularly the political left—to show less squeamishness when confronting Islamist terrorism.

In an opinion piece published in Aftenposten on Tuesday, Svenneby argues convincingly that such squeamishness does in fact exist. That was perhaps not strictly necessary, but he is in practice addressing fellow politicians, who evidently need it explained to them in the simplest possible terms.

He first points out that conservative Christians who refuse to marry same-sex couples are harshly criticised, whereas hardly anyone says so much as a word against imams. And if anyone should dare point to Islam, someone else immediately relativises the issue by pointing to conservative Christians who do not legitimise the use of violence.

[I]t seems far-fetched to point to the Christian Democratic Party’s (Kristelig Folkeparti) resolution on flags or opposition to rainbow flags in school playgrounds as the background to Islamist terrorist attacks. I have my doubts as to whether the perpetrators were radicalised through debates on Dagsnytt 18, to put it mildly.

Without mentioning Islam directly, Svenneby points out that terrorists from that camp are not alone in holding their particular “set of values”:

No one other than the terrorists themselves is responsible for the acts they commit, and this is also quickly pointed out after an attack. Religious groups should not be held collectively responsible for the actions of individuals. But even if the acts are committed by individuals, their set of values is rarely something they alone subscribe to. Previously, Berlin’s police chief publicly warned gay people against certain districts of the German capital because homophobia is so strong that they risk being subjected to violence. In that case, it becomes too simplistic to isolate the values behind the attack to the perpetrators alone.

Here, Svenneby could have rolled the ball into an open goal by discussing the situation for homosexuals in Islamic societies, but perhaps that will have to wait until 2027.

In the meantime, he observes that the debate is derailed from the very beginning:

It is becoming a recurring pattern that whenever gay people are the target of terrorism or violence, the debate immediately ends up revolving around racism and Islamophobia. And yes, whether we are able to conduct a debate that avoids stirring up hatred against other minorities is important. But a discussion about racism and Islamophobia cannot suffocate the discussion about how we are to prevent sexual minorities from being stabbed, mown down or turned into targets for gunfire.

But that is precisely what happens because the political left has embraced Islam. Svenneby himself observes one manifestation of this:

Several of us regularly try to take part in debates at the intersection of culture, immigration and radicalisation. These are difficult debates to participate in because one can easily contribute to whipping up a public mood that is not in society’s interest. It is therefore singularly unhelpful that several politicians appear to have adopted as their modus operandi the practice of branding those taking part in the same debate as “culture warriors”.

It is somewhat difficult to understand why this is perceived as such a burdensome label.

The Second Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party is at his bravest when he effectively concludes that the motivation of Islamists springs from Islam:

After Islamist terrorist attacks, the perpetrator’s motivation is often reduced to “hatred”. And it is difficult to disagree that terrorists are deeply hateful. But that is not their only motivation. Islamist terrorists are motivated by ideology and religion and are convinced in their own minds that they are acting on behalf of God. In that case, speaking only of hatred is, at best, an oversimplification. Precisely because combating hatred is considerably easier than combating perpetrators who are driven by deeply held ideological convictions.

In the manner of politicians, Svenneby alternates between blaming the political left for displaying the greatest squeamishness and cordially inviting it to rid itself of it. Only then, he argues, can Labour (Arbeiderpartiet, Ap) and the Conservative Party take “ownership” of the debate.

The alternative is that those he regards as unsavoury people will do so instead:

But if we do not take part in these discussions without prejudice and without squeamishness, other forces will. That is a guarantee that prejudice against minorities in Europe will increase.

A quarter of a century after 11 September, politicians are still dragging their feet when it comes to confronting the greatest problems they themselves created against the will of the population. Svenneby simply cannot claim any moral high ground. Everyone knows that Carl I. Hagen was right, but he cannot say so. Svenneby is a little apprehensive himself as well.