Since that fateful day in September 2001, the definition of the word ‘terrorism’ has been somewhat revised by the popular press to refer almost exclusively to Islamic fundamentalism.
Western governments’ intelligence work, and the media spotlight, has focused almost exclusively on Islamic extremism, painting Muslims as suspicious, yet forgetting about the enemy within.
When a right-wing, blond Norwegian man did the unthinkable and killed at least 77 of his fellow countrymen last week, analysts the world over started questioning whether governments and the media were aiming their cameras at the wrong suspects.
It would be a mistake to denounce all far-right activists as potentially violent or deranged. Many dabble with radical factions as a result of frustration with mainstream parties and not because they are in agreement with leaders fanning their warped ideologies. This means right-wing extremist parties and groups are often disorganised and fragmented.
But it would be equally a mistake to believe there are no extremists in their midst. Studies have shown that disturbed people capable of resorting to violent means operate beyond the borders of conventional party politics.
Anders Breivik has been denounced as a loner with extremist views, but many within the far right, including in Malta, share his ideas about the need to take radical action against the ‘threat’ of Islam and immigrants. Browsing the manifestos of Breivik and those of local extreme right-wingers, such as Imperium Europa and the Viva Malta forum reveals some uncomfortable similarities.
They believe they are fighting a battle for racial or cultural survival; that political parties are weak in the wake of the ‘invasion’ of Muslim immigrants. And all this morphed into arguments based on historical myths and ill-informed views.
Malta has seen growing resentment towards black people and Muslims in the last decade, especially because of the arrival of asylum seekers. The poisonous hatred posted online is only too visible, unworthy of a country that often claims to be tolerant.
Even the case of an Eritrean who died at sea to save another man elicited outrageous comments online that he should never have left his country in the first place. The sad reality is that a section of Maltese society sees nothing wrong in discriminating against people of different colour or creed. Integration remains a dirty word.
All too often we hear voices condemning those who help or rescue African migrants as traitors to the nation. We even heard a mainstream leftist party’s rhetoric about the need to act tough on immigration in the clichéd “national interest”. History teaches us that extremists make inroads when their views are endorsed by moderate elements in society.
When right-winger Norman Lowell tried to disassociate himself from Breivik by accusing the Norwegian of loving Jews (who he described as “rodents”), he merely underlined his bigotry and warped way of thinking. Lowell’s Zionist conspiracies might be dismissed as a joke but his inflammatory speeches against black migrants cannot be ignored.
Yet, how many times have we heard people saying Mr Lowell “does have a bit of a point”, unaware they are singing from the same hymn sheet as Breivik?
Five years ago a spate of arson attacks against NGOs and journalists who bothered to help and explain the plight of irregular immigrants was pinned down on right-wingers, though the culprits fled justice. It was a vivid wake-up call that there could be elements in right-wing factions who translate their distorted views into violence.
Like the rest of Europe, Malta has to use Norway’s twin attacks to be vigilant against home-grown intolerance which we have put up with for too long. It helps to probe the enemy within.