Despite the horrors, history shows that peace prevails

I have created a new folder on my computer in which to save columns.

It is called “terrorism”. In the aftermath of the London attacks, most people seem to choose one of two camps — the “love will prevail” pep talkers and the “wake up!” warriors.

Am I alone in finding that neither resonates? I can no more fill my heart with love and talk about our unity than I can furiously denounce others for their lack of rage, declare the West’s impending doom or demand the British election be postponed.

Denial or hysteria cannot be the only options. There is something in between. Of course daily life does not sail on unchanged when it’s punctuated by terrorist attacks.

It carries on, but with a little more wariness and fear. And yet, nor am I convinced that Islamist terrorism, despite its horrors, poses an existential threat to our civilisation.

I believe that Britain and its values are resilient and deeply rooted. I believe this not because of “love”, but because it is one of the lessons of our history. We have certainly faced greater perils. At various points, would-be invaders or empire-building tyrants on the continent have threatened Britain’s security.

We’ve had tyrants of our own, civil war and bloody religious strife.

We’ve had periods of greater vigilance, such as during the threat of IRA bombs. We’ve lived with official advice, such as “how to survive an air raid”, as terrifying as the police’s latest mantra that the public ought to “run, hide and tell” during a terrorist attack.

This danger, they say, is different. Britain is facing something it hasn’t seen before — a threat from within. We are destroying ourselves by mass immigration, argue the pessimists, led most eloquently by Douglas Murray in his book The Strange Death of Europe.

European civilisation, he argues, is dying mainly because countries such as Britain are now home to big Muslim populations, some of whom wish Europe harm, do not share its values or have descendants susceptible to radicalisation.

Given that sporadic Islamist terrorism and attempted attacks now seem to be part of normal life in Europe, it is time to engage seriously with this argument, rather than simply shouting it down as racist.

Immigration has changed Western Europe. It has enriched us, yes, both materially and culturally. But it has also brought new problems.

Take, for example, Britain’s thousands of new connections to people and politics abroad. Relationships between immigrants and their homelands bring valuable trade links and cultural exchange.

They bring unwanted connections, too, such as Manchester’s links with the anti-Gaddafi Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, whose members include the father of the Manchester bomber, or the several hundred British Islamic State fighters who have reportedly returned home. Our approach to these problems — relying on resource-intensive surveillance — does not seem like a good one.

Other problems are less distinct. Segregation can happen over time and often goes unnoticed — many people choose to live harmlessly among others like themselves. But sometimes, it allows toxic ideologies to spread and, in some Muslim circles, anti-British narratives have a powerful hold.

These present Muslims as the eternal victim of Western aggression and perpetuate conspiracy theories about British collaboration with evil-doers. Britain isn’t perfect, of course, and many Muslims have no doubt come across discrimination or ignorance.

But this is a tolerant country, and surveys of Muslims suggest that most feel they benefit from its freedoms. Britain is not very good at explaining that these freedoms come as a package, along with tolerance, democracy and some degree of liberalism.

There is no straightforward solution here. Ramping up anti-Muslim rhetoric, banning burqas and forcing immigrants to choose between nation and religion — the French approach — does not seem to work.

What does work? Well, as Murray argues, to spread our values, we need to remember how we developed them. Democratic civil society and tolerance did not just descend from heaven. They emerged from a long history. Scholarship and the economy played their part, bringing urbanisation, independence, new technology and the scientific method.

Strife and war played their part, too — Anglicanism emerged only after years of religious fanaticism and conflict, constitutional monarchy only after civil war, and universal male suffrage only after the horror of World War I.

And dogged campaigning played its part, giving us child-labour laws, the abolitionist movement and female suffrage. These are the things that made democracy. It did not spring unbidden from its obvious righteousness, but from a long history of trial and error.

There is no straightforward solution here. Ramping up anti-Muslim rhetoric, banning burqas and forcing immigrants to choose between nation and religion — the French approach — does not seem to work.

The pessimists tend to argue that this means we are locked in a terrible clash of civilisations within our own country. They demand an end to “platitudes” and issue dire warnings about the disaster to come. The British Government should concede this point — our future immigration policy should take into account not just our economic needs, but also social cohesion.

It is irresponsible to continue as normal when our own leaders admit that we have not worked out how to foster better integration.

But what would the angry pessimists have us do about the current situation? Should we filter people based on their religion or skin colour? Should we exile British citizens who have done nothing wrong?

What is to be gained by arguing for the intractable incompatibility of Islam and democracy? Muslims are part of Britain — thousands participate in our democracy, from Sadiq Khan, London’s mayor, to any Muslim who reads the papers or casts a vote.

If, instead, we look to our history, Britain will find it rich with examples of fanaticism succumbing to moderation, rational debate winning arguments and peril giving way, in turn, to peace. Progress isn’t easy or automatic and it doesn’t come from denying the existence of a problem. But it’s too soon for defeatism.

After a year of writing columns, I have just created my “terrorism” folder, but I believe there will come a time when I consign it to a folder labelled “archive”.

The Daily Telegraph, London