Yesterday I wrote about the media’s use of two words – “Islamic” and “Islamist” – and asked if they were in any way related. I apologise to coming back to the same subject so soon but it is, I believe, important and there is another aspect to it which I had not thought of yesterday.

Terrible things are happening in the Central African Republic. For instance, a Christian woman had her hands chopped off by a gang of Muslims. This provoked horrific reprisals. It was not an isolated confrontation: such atrocities, and worse, are happening in the CAR every day. The way these events are usually described gives pause for thought. In every report I have read, the Christians’ bloody acts of savagery are described as having been perpetrated by Christians. I think this is fair enough, for Christian is what they are. I decided to broaden my enquiry further and so considered other areas of conflict in which Christians have resorted to violence: in Sudan, for example, and in Somalia – and even in Kenya. In every case the reporting is distinguished by its accuracy and respect for the plain truth. The atrocities were committed by Christians and the reports said exactly that, neither more nor less.

There was no mealy-mouthed attempt at camouflage by euphemism. No use of a spurious and dishonest neologism such as “Christianist.” So when acts of terror are perpetrated by Muslims – something which is not unknown – may we be allowed to say so, and so abolish this lying evasion “Islamist”?

Regrettably, this will not happen. For while, as we know, all religions are equal, some religions are more equal than others.