WHEN there is a terrorist atrocity, the EU has told the British press that where the perpetrator is a Muslim, this fact should not be reported.

Christian Ahlund, a career human rights activist and now head of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) explains: “ECRI considers that, in light of the fact that Muslims are increasingly under the spotlight as a result of recent Isis-related terrorist acts around the world, fuelling prejudice against Muslims shows a reckless disregard, not only for the dignity of the great majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom, but also for their safety.

“In this context, it draws attention to a recent study by Teesside University suggesting that where the media stress the Muslim background of perpetrators of terrorist acts, and devote significant coverage to it, the violent backlash against Muslims is likely to be greater than in cases where the perpetrators’ motivation is downplayed or rejected in favour of alternative explanations.”

Mr Ahlund is to be praised for his concern that Muslims might be suffering “prejudice” and “violent backlash,” but his choice of words is extraordinary.

To be prejudiced means to adopt an attitude without considering whether there are good reasons to take that attitude.

Since more than 90 per cent of terrorist attacks in recent years have been perpetrated by Muslims, when I read about a terrorist atrocity I have overwhelming reason to believe Muslims were responsible. This is not prejudice but inductive logic and evidence-based supposition.

The other phrase in Mr Ahlund’s statement which puzzles me is “violent backlash.” What does he expect? If untold thousands have been slaughtered by Muslims on three continents these past 20 years, perhaps it’s not unreasonable – certainly not unexpected – that communities suffering the slaughter will get pretty sick of it and retaliate?

And a backlash is explicitly a reaction to an aggressive act: as we used to cry in the schoolyard: “You started it!” Mr Ahlund shows a great deal – one might even think an excessive – degree of sympathy for Muslims who suffer from backlash, but he makes no mention at all of the suffering of those on the receiving end of what we might call the “frontlash” – the original violence that provoked the retaliation.

Besides, the practice and ethics of good journalism, as well as the virtuous doctrine of free speech, make it entirely necessary for the reporter to mention as many significant facts in an event as he can find. If the terrorist advertises his Muslim credentials by shouting, “Allahu Akbar!” as he beheads that old lady or throws a bomb into the shopping centre, then surely we should notice the fact? I’ll tell you what: if, in perpetrating an act of terror, the assailant should utter the bloodcurdling scream, “The Women’s Bright Hour will meet at 2pm!” the press would be on to the Methodists within the next five minutes.

Refusal to face facts is no recipe for effective public policy and it is certainly no basis for good journalism. When I was first trying to learn to write for the newspapers, my superiors drummed into me: “Facts, boy. Always the facts. What? When? Where? Who? How? Only then can you move on to ‘Why’?”