Speaking about a successful terrorist attack in Paris may sound as a misnomer after last Sunday's grand march in Paris. Talking of a successful terrorist attack may appear as a public insult after 17 individuals, 12 during the attack on Charlie Hebdo, a policewoman and another 4 in the Jewish supermarket were mercilessly killed. Yet, we have to be honest with ourselves. Terrorists, once again, succeeded in putting the values of the secular state under the spotlight. Huntington's theory about the clash of civilizations has become more actual and real than ever.

This attack was carried out by four individuals, including a woman, who is still on the run. Yet despite the small number of terrorists, it is being described as an act of war. In other words, it is not just an attack by a group of Islamist extremists, but an attack by a civilization against another. This is the first reason why this terrorist attack was a success. This is what they wanted to achieve. A small commando group started a new cultural war. Those who carried out this atrocity wanted to instigate a psychology of fear in Europe while at the same time, they knew perfectly well that their actions would trigger a public debate on the values of the secular state.

Cultures are once again in confrontation. One hopes that this barbarous act generates a positive reaction in the Muslim world. Expressions by moderate Islam that this was not done "in my name" are extremely positive.

However, this attack brought to the fore another reality. These extremists or terrorists come from some of the poorest suburbs of France where unemployment is running high. I am sure that in these quarters, the population is not all with Charlie. Yet, poverty and unemployment are now the least discussed issues in Europe despite their importance. Their elimination would greatly help decrease the risk of terror. On the contrary, we are discussing security measures which in the long run will make the rich richer, and the poor poorer.

Secondly, they have put into question the values of freedom of expression. I am strongly in favour of such expression. But expression needs counter weights and balances. In Malta, we countered freedom of expression with the libel laws. You can say what you want. Those offended, presumed or not, have legal remedies to seek redress. Religion is protected by the Blasphemy Laws that should remain in place. This attack brought about discussion here about the need to abolish these laws. The terrorists are raving with joy.  This will play neatly in their hands. For this reason, to abolish these laws would be a serious mistake.

We are now introducing new laws to protect other vulnerable groups (and rightly so); these groups are considered according to race or sex. The biggest mistake that the state can make - and this is the problem in France now - is to think that any group in society can freely attack another group (because of religion) while there are group or groups protected under the premise of racial or sexual orientation. Protection should be given to all or to none.

While in the West, there is a clear distinction between Catholicism and race or between Islam and race, this distinction is not so clear with regards to the Jews. Even today, not all Arabs are identified with Islam, but Jews are always identified with religion. Here, religion and the nineteenth-century theories of race are one and the same thing.

Once a particular group feels unprotected, laws in general start sounding unjust and unbearable. We should avoid such a mistake here in Malta.The worst thing that can happen to a State is to appear dysfunctional to groups of its own citizens because of religion. In France, these groups feel that they have been crushed by the system. Poverty and social inequality does the rest.

Thirdly, this attack was successful in France because it challenged the support that the French secular State, in particular the left, gave to Islam. From the time of France's Third Republic onwards, Islam was seen by the Left and the Radicals as a weapon to weaken Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. Catholicism was seen as the main force of opposition and the institution that was weakening the French efforts for territorial hegemonization. Making everybody French meant making everybody follow the Parisian way life. There were regions which opposed such a trend as the Vendée and the Bretons. The former experienced genocide at the hands of the French Republican State. The latter had to suffer the barbaric suppression of their language and culture. These were seen as a threat to French National Republican Unity.

More importantly, one needs to remember that secular France considered Islam as the fifth Republic's natural ally. This may appear strange today, but secularism in France was created to oppose Christianity. I personally remember Socialist and other leftist French MPs on the French television making strong attacks against the church in the 90s, while supporting and speaking strongly in favour of the Islamic religion. Similar discourses were even made in Malta during the eighties.

A number of areas in France are today controlled by Muslims. The result is that it has become especially dangerous for a white person to live or visit these places. I repeat that this has happened with the full support of the French secular state, because Islam was considered as a natural ally of the French Left.

Incidentally, these satirists in France were not to the secular state's liking because of their caricature of Islam. They are associated in France with a particular element of the Socialist Left, the Trotskyist, after Leon Trotsky who was one of the architects of the Communist Revolution in Russia in 1917. The French state sought to interfere and would have preferred if these satirical journals left Islam alone. Being persons of principle, they defied the left and the right and continued with their work. They paid thoroughly for their stand. My sympathy goes to the families of these victims.

Fourthly, the European States, in particular Israel applied such tactics. Malta was a victim of these terrorist attacks.The assassination of a Muslim activist in front of a hotel in Sliema in 1995 comes to mind. Very few countries condemned such an attack. It is a relief that today this attack was condemned by all, Arabs and Christians, from the Left and the Right of the political spectrum. Fathi Shaqaqi was considered a terrorist. There have been many other murders, which have remained unexplained till this day.

Now the secular state is hit in full force and the chances for the extreme right to strengthen its political ties are now real.  Demography is against the French. Today in Europe, it is the sons and daughters of migrants who are having  children. The Left and Liberal parties ridiculed the 'family' signing, in the process, their own extinction. Marseilles is 33% Muslim. This attack will now increase the feeling of us against them. If one believes in race, the problem here is that, us - the so-called European race - is in the process of extinction. Demographers are predicting that by 2050, the so-called non-European (or extra-community people) will be in a majority in Europe. The fact that I am speaking in terms of old Europeans and extra-community people shows that the past policies of the secular state for integration have failed. The terrorists have won. With their acts, they have only heightened our failures.

The victory of the terrorists will be complete once the European States start to cancel our personal liberty in exchange for our security. Perhaps, yesterday'smarch in Paris should be read as a call for the preservation of our personal liberty. Democracy, as we have known it in Europe, is at risk of comingto an end.The choice now is between personal liberty and personal security. The terrorists succeeded in creating the perception that they are no longer compatible;the preference of the European States is going for security. I am sure that many in Europe will support such a choice. Schengen is already being discussed and France is today one of the countries that wants to revise the Schengenagreement to exert more control on the movement of persons within the European Union.The risk for Europe is to become one police state. If this happens, the terrorists would have scored their biggest victory