The latest horror from ISIS – this time the massacre of 30 Ethiopian Christians – is reported here, and makes interesting, if very sad, reading. It is to be noted that the message of ISIS is directed to us, “the nation of the Cross”. What are we to make of it? First of all, our immediate reaction, in contrast to the cold-blooded nature of the murders perpetrated by ISIS, must be pity and sympathy for the Ethiopian victims and their families. Ethiopia is one of the world’s poorest countries, and these men would have been in Libya as migrant workers. They were neither rich nor powerful, but weak and defenceless: but the victims of Islamists have by and large always been humble folk, such as the office workers killed on 9/11. Islamic terror always goes for soft targets. Islamic terror in fact despises weakness: remember the famous words of Osama bin Laden, about how people always sympathise with the stronger horse, not the weaker one? That is the truly evil doctrine of Islamism in a nutshell: an admiration for strength, and a hatred for the weak. Civilisation, by contrast, should always seek to protect the weak, if it is to be worthy of the name. Secondly, how should we react to the following menace? “We tell Christians everywhere that the Islamic State will spread, God willing … It will reach you even if you are in fortresses. Those who embrace Islam or jizya will be safe. But those who refuse ... will have nothing from us but the edge of the sword. The men will be killed, the women and children enslaved, and the money seized. That is Allah and the prophet’s judgment.” This contains nothing new. I seem to remember reading that the same offer was made in 1565 during the Siege of Malta. It is the standard threat. Our reply should be as it was then. Indeed our reply should be the same as the 30 Ethiopians and the 21 Egyptian Copts before them: a refusal to convert. If it is death or Islam or the extortion that is jizya, I prefer death. But at the same time we should take this menace seriously. It may seem odd to point this out, but if uttered in Britain, these words would surely constitute a criminal offence. Yet there are people in Britain who support ISIS, and who are not in jail. This is partly because they are careful not to say anything that could lead to their arrest – some of them, notoriously, are lawyers – but it is also because the police have been dilatory in arresting them. In the recent media storm surrounding the so called “jihadi brides” one important fact emerged. The father of one of the girls, who had the chutzpah to complain that the police had not done enough to stop his daughter leaving for Syria, had attended several marches with known terrorists. ISIS are not isolated fanatics, but highly organised and have a hinterland of support in many Western nations, including our own. (We know this as a fact, given that so many ISIS “warriors” are from the West, such as the notorious ‘Jihadi John’.) Naturally, we have freedom of speech, but it seems incredible to me that this freedom includes the freedom to campaign against freedom itself. During the Second World War, Nazi sympathisers were sent to the Isle of Man. The parallel should be obvious. Remember the Islamist demonstration outside Westminster Cathedral on September 17 2006? (There is a good eye witness account here). That employed the same language and the same threats, nine years ago. These threats have now been fulfilled by deeds. Isn’t it perfectly reasonable for us to ask the Muslims who live in our midst to disown this sort of language, as well as these sorts of actions?