admin
A man drove his car into a crowd in Modena and seriously wounded several people. When police asked why, he had an answer that seems custom-made for our times: he said he was bullied and lives in a racist country. That excuse has already been treated by some as a politically correct get‑out‑of‑responsibility card. It deserves a hard look.
The Modena ramming and the suspect’s “explanation”
Salim El Koudri plowed his Citroen into a crowd in Modena, leaving two people so badly hurt they had to have their legs amputated and five others injured. When taken into custody, he told investigators he felt marginalized and bullied and blamed racism in Italy. That line — “I’m oppressed, therefore I attack” — is both shocking and telling. It treats violence as a response to feelings, not a crime. And it lets a perpetrator recast a violent act as a moral grievance.
Officials’ response: compassion or surrender?
Mayor Massimo Mezzetti has been quick to wave away calls to expel the suspect, saying he could face mistreatment if returned to his parents’ country. That is a standard-issue compassion argument. Fine, be humane. But compassion should not mean ignoring victims or letting ideology and identity override basic safety. When mayors and officials reflexively center the attacker’s feelings, they send a signal: the state will treat violent acts as social problems, not criminal behavior that demands consequences.
Mental illness, jihad, or a convenient defense?
El Koudri reportedly had psychiatric treatment in the past and has a history of anti‑Christian language on a job form. Some will point to mental illness, others to possible ideological motives. Both can be true, and both can be excuses. The real problem is how often violent acts by people from certain backgrounds get labeled only as mental-health issues or “loner” problems while the possible ideological thread gets ignored. That pattern protects political narratives more than it protects the public.
What this means for policy and public safety
We should be compassionate toward people who truly suffer discrimination. But compassion must not turn into permissiveness for violent behavior, or a reflexive policy that shields attackers because they can claim victimhood. Law and order, clear consequences, and honest public debate about integration and radicalization matter. Allowing the attacker’s grievance to dominate the conversation is an insult to the victims on the pavement and to every taxpayer who expects safety in public spaces.
