
Falling victim to a hate crime taught me a dark lesson about Europe
With a weekend to kill in Brussels, I did what any single gay man would: I downloaded the apps and arranged a date. Perhaps it was the magic of the city, a beautifully relaxed metropolis, or the breezy beauty of the botanical gardens, where we had met, but things went well. Emerging from the gardens, I revelled in my own little European romance – all things were possible, I knew, and the sun was shining. And then, as we emerged from the park, carefree and hand-in-hand, we were assaulted.
To someone who has never experienced it, it is impossible to describe the bewildering emotions of a confrontation like this. First there is the confusion, tinged with a little disbelief – one forgets that this is a thing that happens, and even the reasoning that underpins the aggression feels alien. There's then the gut-wrenching awareness that you are in danger, along with an instinct to protect the boy holding your hand. You count the numbers, in our case six versus two, and vainly search for a way to diffuse that incomprehensible aggression. If you're lucky, you back away, ashamed of your timidity, but knowing in that moment that there is no other option. We were lucky to get away unharmed, but we struggled with the experience for days afterwards.
Our crime? Their French was broken, but, when hate is shouted loudly enough, language ceases to be a barrier. There were children in the park, our behaviour was both disgusting and immoral, and we must leave immediately. As they muscled towards us, in mixed Islamic religious dress, liberally spitting at our feet, we struggled to respond. Raising our hands, and with a show of contrition, we retreated. Thankfully, they followed us only half way down the road. Now walking quite distinctly apart, the streets took on a different aspect. Searching for safety, we walked for three blocks before we again found a street that looked like Brussels.
As we looked for safety, I felt in my gut what is often said in the abstract and which had felt abstract until that moment: that a way of life, and its values, are under direct threat. It feels very much more real when your own liberties are being forcefully curtailed under the direct threat of violence.
Over the next few days I shared my story with everyone from local politicians to barmen. Their faces showed the same weary resignation. They were sorry to hear that it happened, but not surprised. 'That part of the city isn't safe after dark, anymore,' said one. 'It happens all the time', I was told.
The accusation of immorality is the one that lingers; it's novel by the standards of good old-fashioned British homophobia. Call me a 'fag', if you like, but 'immoral' feels altogether more insidious.
A deep-rooted sense of moral superiority is hard to shift – and yet that is what the chimeric 'integration' would require. Could I have convinced those boys that embracing my immorality would be a virtue?
Viewed through their limited – in scope, but not in conviction – moral lens, Western permissiveness isn't something to emulate: it's something to denigrate. We are all immoral.
All this can pull us very easily towards a feeling that integration is failing, and that the landscapes of our cities and of our lives are being rewritten around us. Indeed, perhaps that freedom of expression, easy equality, and the ability to live openly that I grew up taking for granted, are no longer guaranteed. I feel that current now, and the sense of acute disillusionment that it brings, because it confronted me in Brussels.
What hit me most strongly that day is that the threat doesn't feel real until it's you being threatened – until it's your liberties and your safety at risk. Those protesting today across the UK and Europe, against failures in social integration, are beginning to resort to violence, out of a frustration and anger that they are being ignored. Perhaps though, they are just the first to feel as I did in that moment, because it is their communities that are being confronted with those failures.
Whether it's your street that's no longer safe after dark, or you that's accused of moral indecency and forced from the streets of Europe's capital, one thing becomes disorientatingly and confrontingly clear: something must be done.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
What France's fight against Islamism can teach Labour
So far this year France has deported 64 individuals from its database of radical Islamists. More are planned in the coming weeks and months, putting the minister of the interior, Bruno Retailleau, on course to surpass last year's total of 142. A senior unnamed prefect was quoted in yesterday's Le Figaro declaring: We are very committed to this issue; it is an ongoing effort by the state, given what is at stake. It is even monitored weekly by the (interior) minister at the central level. Retailleau is supported by his predecessor, Gérald Darmanin, who has been the Minister of Justice since last December. It was Darmanin who last year commissioned a report into the Muslim Brotherhood, a report that, when published in May this year, revealed the disturbing extent of their growing influence in the country. The government of France considers that the rights of the victims are the priority When Darmanin ran the interior ministry, his chief of staff was Alexandre Brugère. He has been the prefect for western Paris since November last year and in that time he has been relentless in prioritising 'the deportation of undocumented foreigners who disturb public order'. Brugère has this year expelled 370 undesirables, a 61 per cent increase on the same period in 2024. Some are petty criminals or members of drug cartels but most are radical Islamists. Last month Brugère expelled four such individuals, including a Syrian who had his refugee status revoked after expressing support for the Islamic State. Brugère has promised to remain 'extremely firm in the fight against Islamism', conscious of the gravity of the threat posed by extremism. This was underlined earlier this year by Céline Berthon, the head of DGSI, France's equivalent of MI5. 'Our biggest challenge today is online radicalization,' she said in an interview in March, explaining how individuals 'can be influenced or controlled from outside, particularly by terrorist organizations present either in Syria and Iraq for the Islamic State, or in Afghanistan and Pakistan for the Islamic State in Khorasan.' A similar warning was issued by MI5 Director General Ken McCallum last October. 'We're also seeing far too many cases where very young people are being drawn into poisonous online extremism,' said McCallum in a speech from the Counter Terrorism Operations Centre. The division of MI5's counter-terrorist work, he added, was 'roughly 75 per cent Islamist extremist, 25 per cent extreme right-wing terrorism'. Doubtless MI5 is working as tirelessly as its French counterpart to monitor the Islamic extremists, but what is being done by the government? If Labour has deported any Islamic extremists flagged by MI5 they haven't been made public, which is perhaps surprising given the Prime Minister's oft-mentioned determination to clamp down on the extreme right. Last week, it was announced that members of the government's national security and online information team (NSOIT) have been tracking people who make critical comments online about migrant hotels and policing standards. It is the same team deployed during the Covid Pandemic to keep tabs on anti-lockdown campaigners. While Labour appears less ardent in its monitoring of Islamic extremism, the Tories can't claim to have done a great job either during their time in office. In April 2024 there was a pledge to introduce legislation to 'protect the public from…foreign nationals who are sowing division and spreading hate in communities, potentially having them removed from the country.' Why so long? In 2017 – after seven years of Tory governance – it was reported that since 2004 Britain had deported 11 extremists; in the same period France had expelled 120. The Conservatives' promise to finally act came to naught; three months later, they were out of office, replaced by a government led by Keir Starmer. This is the same Keir Starmer who, as a barrister in 2008, represented the Palestinian-born Abu Qatada as he fought a deportation order to Jordan where he was wanted on charges of terrorism. Among Qatada's many incendiary declarations was a 1999 fatwa 'authorising the killing of Jews, including Jewish children'. Often described as Osama bin Laden's 'ambassador in Europe, Qatada sought to remain in Britain because – as Starmer told the judge – 'deportation and the revocation of refugee status both interfere with domestic civil rights'. The judge dismissed Starmer's argument as 'fallacious' but it took another five years before the government overcame the Human Rights lawyers and finally deported Qatada. Starmer's role in defending Abu Qatada was a line of attack for Rishi Sunak in last year's televised election debates. The morning after the debate, the Labour party issued a statement in which they said: 'In this country, everyone is entitled to a defence, which means lawyers cannot choose who they work for.' This line of argument was addressed by Bruno Retailleau in October last year, a month after he was appointed Minister of the Interior. 'In the face of disorder, we must find the right balance between protecting individual freedoms and protecting society,' he said. He then singled out the European Court of Human Rights, which had recently prevented France from deporting an Islamist and said in such a case 'the balance is no longer right, as we are protecting the rights of dangerous individuals more than those of the victims'. Retailleau and the government of France consider that the rights of the victims are the priority and that dangerous individuals must be deported. This doesn't appear to be the priority of the British government.

Leader Live
2 hours ago
- Leader Live
Titan tour operator ‘leveraged intimidation tactics' to evade scrutiny
The incident resulted in the deaths of five people in June 2023 – including British adventurer Hamish Harding and father and son Shahzada and Suleman Dawood. The chief executive of tour operator OceanGate Expeditions, Stockton Rush, and French national Paul-Henri Nargeolet, were also killed in the incident. On Tuesday, the US Coast Guard published a 335-page report in which identified eight 'primary causal factors' that led to the fatal implosion. The report said OceanGate had a 'toxic workplace environment' and used the 'looming threat of being fired' to prevent staff from coming forward with safety concerns. It added that analysis revealed a 'disturbing pattern of misrepresentation and reckless disregard for safety'. The report criticised OceanGate's design and testing processes and the continued use of the Titan submersible despite 'a series of incidents that compromised the integrity of the hull and other critical components'. The tour operator's former director of engineering was reported by the US Coast Guard to have said the first hull used on the Titan submersible was akin to a 'high school project'. According to the report, a contractor hired by OceanGate in 2022 voiced 'numerous safety concerns' to a company director, before being told: 'You have a bad attitude, you don't have an explorer mindset, you know, we're innovative and we're cowboys, and a lot of people can't handle that.' Authored by lead investigator Thomas Whalen and marine board chairman Jason Neubauer, it read: 'For several years preceding the incident, OceanGate leveraged intimidation tactics, allowances for scientific operations, and the company's favourable reputation to evade regulatory scrutiny. 'By strategically creating and exploiting regulatory confusion and oversight challenges, OceanGate was ultimately able to operate Titan completely outside of the established deep-sea protocols, which had historically contributed to a strong safety record for commercial submersibles. 'The lack of both third-party oversight and experienced OceanGate employees on staff during their 2023 Titan operations allowed OceanGate's chief executive officer to completely ignore vital inspections, data analyses, and preventative maintenance procedures, culminating in a catastrophic event.'

Leader Live
2 hours ago
- Leader Live
Negligence of Titan tour operator chief contributed to implosion deaths
The US Coast Guard said OceanGate Expeditions 'leveraged intimidation tactics… to evade regulatory scrutiny' before the implosion of the deep-sea vessel which led to the deaths of five people, including chief executive Stockton Rush, in June 2023. British adventurer Hamish Harding, father and son Shahzada and Suleman Dawood, and French national Paul-Henri Nargeolet, were also killed in the incident. The report, authored by lead investigator Thomas Whalen and marine board chairman Jason Neubauer, concluded that in Mr Rush's case, there was evidence of 'potential criminal offences'. It concluded Mr Rush had 'exhibited negligence that contributed to the deaths of four individuals' and may have been accused of 'misconduct or neglect of ship officers' had he survived the incident. The offence carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison in the US. The report said OceanGate had a 'toxic workplace environment' and used the 'looming threat of being fired' to prevent staff from coming forward with safety concerns. It added that analysis revealed a 'disturbing pattern of misrepresentation and reckless disregard for safety'. On Tuesday, the US Coast Guard published a lengthy report which identified eight 'primary causal factors' that led to the fatal implosion. The report criticised OceanGate's design and testing processes and the continued use of the Titan submersible despite 'a series of incidents that compromised the integrity of the hull and other critical components'. The tour operator's former director of engineering was reported by the US Coast Guard to have said the first hull used on the Titan submersible was akin to a 'high school project'. According to the report, a contractor hired by OceanGate in 2022 voiced 'numerous safety concerns' to a company director, before being told: 'You have a bad attitude, you don't have an explorer mindset, you know, we're innovative and we're cowboys, and a lot of people can't handle that.' The report read: 'For several years preceding the incident, OceanGate leveraged intimidation tactics, allowances for scientific operations, and the company's favourable reputation to evade regulatory scrutiny. 'By strategically creating and exploiting regulatory confusion and oversight challenges, OceanGate was ultimately able to operate Titan completely outside of the established deep-sea protocols, which had historically contributed to a strong safety record for commercial submersibles. 'The lack of both third-party oversight and experienced OceanGate employees on staff during their 2023 Titan operations allowed OceanGate's chief executive officer to completely ignore vital inspections, data analyses, and preventative maintenance procedures, culminating in a catastrophic event.' Addressing potential criminality, the report said: 'Had OceanGate's CEO and chief pilot survived the incident, the MBI (Marine Board of Investigation) would have recommended that the commandant refer the matter to DoJ (Department of Justice) for their consideration on whether to pursue a separate criminal investigation. 'The MBI concluded that Mr Rush, in his dual role as CEO and as the acting master or pilot of the Titan submersible, exhibited negligence that contributed to the deaths of four individuals. 'As both a corporate executive responsible for the vessel's operation and its master during the casualty, Mr Rush may have been subject to criminal liability under the standards set forth in 18 USC § 1115 (misconduct or neglect of ship officers).'