The question may seem a strange one, but to not ask it would be blatant hypocrisy.

In 2009, France edged out Turkey by one vote in its bid to host the 2016 European Championships. Fast forward to today and one thing both countries sadly have in common is that terrorist attacks have become routine.

It is almost certain that if Turkey had won the bidding for Euro 2016, the media would be screaming blue murder, demanding to know how a country in such a situation could ever be allowed to host one of the biggest sporting events on the planet. How do we know that? Well just look at the treatment of the other middle income countries who have dared to put their heads above the parapet and host a major tournament.

Because of high crime rates in deprived areas, Brazil and South Africa were treated as if they were too poor and naïve to ever host large numbers of tourists, let alone a World Cup, while Ukrainians were labelled Nazis because of a small minority of racist football hooligans. In each of these competitions, none of the pre-tournament fears ever became a reality and fans fell over themselves in praise of how welcoming the local people were.

Of course when these tournaments all turn out to be excellent, nobody ever apologises for the pre-tournament slander they threw at the host nations.

On a larger scale than Brazil, South Africa or Ukraine in the run up to their tournaments, France today is under siege by a tiny minority who threaten the lives of locals and visitors alike, and in no way represent the majority of French people. And for once, the media seems to acknowledge this. Instead of asking the legitimate question as to whether a country with such internal instability which seems unable to protect its people should be allowed to host a World Cup, what we are seeing is #JeSuisCharlie or #PrayforParis.

Not that there is anything wrong with that, but nobody ever pleaded on social media for people to pray for the majority of law abiding people in Rio de Janeiro or Johannesburg, rather they asked for the people to be punished by losing their tournament because of incidents that were no fault of their own.

It’s no understatement to say that this is a form of neo-colonialist thinking (incidentally, a term I usually hate). The French are a ‘civilised’ people like us, therefore whatever internal problems they have cannot possibly be their fault any more than they would be ours if they happened in London. When almost a hundred people are shot dead in Paris, that does not mean their security services are incompetent, as it would if it happened in Brazil, Turkey, Ukraine or South Africa.

And the ‘civilised’ French are currently under siege by uncivilised Muslim terrorists from the third world. Never mind that many of the terrorists were French-born and therefore France’s responsibility, the French are ‘us’ and the terrorists are ‘them’. Whereas in Turkey, the terrorists are ‘them’, but because Turkey is not a ‘civilised’ country we can relate to, the Turkish people are also ‘them’.

Finally, to answer the question that was posed at the beginning of the article, France should be allowed to host Euro 2016, just as it was right to let the aforementioned countries host their respective tournaments. But the fact that the question hasn’t been asked represents a ridiculous double standard.