Norway: peace at gunpoint
Flowers and Norwegian flags are seen at a temporary memorial site on the shore in front of Utoeya island, where people pay their respects for the victims in Friday's (July 22, 2011) killing spree and bomb attack in Norway. Photo: myvisitingcard and AFP
Various international channels and websites informed us what had actually happened in the capital of peace so far. The first concern of the people and Media was to identify the perpetrators of Norway's shooting and bombing attacks. We know that if the criminal was Arab or Muslim, once again the eyes of the world would turn towards the Middle East peace and 'democratic will' of the majority of the population. That the confessed murderer, but unrepentant, is a Norwegian neo-fascist and supporter of ethnic cleansing does not diminish the gravity to attack. The far-right terrorist Anders Breivik had a grim purpose: to draw attention to the growing rejection of the European population to foreigners (especially Muslims) entering their countries. They get great benefits, manage work and education for their children, they try to maintain respect for their cultures and traditions, which is not appreciated by some Norwegians -- though the immigrants are following the law of the host country. Even Thomas Eriksen, a professor of anthropology at the University of Oslo says, "We have to find out what kind of country Norway is. That's where the struggle is going to be in the coming years. And we are going to have to deal with that." He says many immigrants still face an uphill battle in terms of integration and acceptance from their fellow Norwegians. "They can acquire our civilization but never our culture," he says, offering up a common opinion. "In other words, they won't be 'us' they'll always be the 'other'." Initial reports indicated an attack in response to Norway's interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. But as the slaughter was unfolding we still hadn't encountered that cold, blue eyed stare. According to an article in Time magazine "The horror couldn't be pinned on the familiar lunacy of Islamic jihadism. So another narrative began to emerge, of a rarer form of madness. These had been the actions of a psychopath, a lone wolf." It is not justifiable to totally agree with this statement. If the person who killed at least 93 people in Norway were Muslim, the Press would have recognized him as terrorist. For now though, he is just an 'assailant ', 'attacker' (Reuters), 'gunman' (BBC, CNN & Al Jazeera) or a psychopath, and a lone wolf. The US Dept of State calls it an 'act of violence', not an 'act of terrorism'. But according to the FBI report, 94% acts of terrorism in US are not done by any Muslim but their own Christian people and others. It is like 'terrorist' is a name held in reserve for Muslims only, such as barbarians as far right terrorists, freedom fighters as Palestinian terrorists, folk heroes as Irish Republican and Loyalist terrorists and by-products of US neo-conservatism as Al-Qaeda terrorists. However, most of the Muslims do not support extreme measures undertaken by the above mentioned groups but when there's any violent activity done by any Christian, the western media never consider it as act of terrorism rather more comfortable to compare it with an isolated atrocity done by a psychopath. Moreover, most of the time, they deny the issue of influence of any political party on the perpetrator. In the case of Breivik, leading members of the European far-right have been quick to disassociate themselves from Breivik and to reinforce the idea that he was driven not by ideology but insanity. "The manifesto of the perpetrator makes clear that this is the work of a madman. That the struggle against Islamization is misused by a psychopath is disgusting and a slap in the face of the global anti-Islamic movement," wrote Geert Wilders, chairman of the Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV), in a statement published on his party's website. Founded in 2005, the PVV has swelled to the third largest party in the Dutch parliament on a platform calling for a halt to immigration from non-Western countries. Even the Sweden Democrats, a group Breivik linked himself to in his 1500-page manifesto, also expressed its disappointment with the recent attacks. Jimmie Akesson, the group's leader called Breiviks actions "an attack on the entire democratic society." But we know that this group allegedly blames Muslims for many of society's social ills, which definitely helps to germinate supranational fascism within a nationality. The rise of anti-immigrant thought in the European political mainstream may even be increasing the risk. Europe's right-wing extremists are exceptional voices, numbering in the thousands. But their voices can take on disproportionate weight and skew perceptions of immigration. People who skimmed through the web pages of racist groups or had a glimse of the online debates of Norwegian newspapers must have had realized the rage with which Islamophobia is being spread, particularly the evil hatred of anonymous writers are unleashed on anti-racist liberals and the left. Most Norwegians, however, reject Breivik's anti-Islamic views, preferring to see the Muslim as a tolerant, peaceful people and Breivik as a backwards extremist. Now, the activities of left groups should be more prominent because Muslims are contributing in the economy not only in Norway but all over the European nations. It's estimated that only 11 percent of Norwegians are immigrants or the children of immigrants and about 2 percent of the population practices Islam. Most of them settled in the densely populated areas of Norway's largest cities being attracted to its robust economy, political stability and liberal welfare policy. One has to remember that Islam is about peace and respect towards other religions of the world. When Mark Stroman of Texas who claimed that the shooting spree was a retaliation for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks killed two men and injured another in late 2001 targeting people from the Middle East, but unfortunately all three victims were from South Asia. Then the lone survivor, Rais Bhuiyan of Bangladesh unsuccessfully sued to stop the execution, saying his religious beliefs as a Muslim told him to forgive Stroman. The courts denied his requests. It was the death of 49-year-old Vasudev Patel, from India, that put Stroman on death row. Bhuiyan also said he wanted to spend time with the prisoner to learn more about why the shooting occurred. "The killing is not the solution," said Bhuiyan. "He learns from his mistakes. If given a chance, he is able to reach out to others and spread this message to others." The Norwegian should learn that extreme fundamentalism only leads to massacre, it doesn't bring any positive result. Immigration policy of Norway should not be strict rather the right-wing should understand that even if some Muslim groups are really feeling enmity towards some people the question is why? Why would middle-east and other Muslim countries be a threat to western countries specially? Rather US and Israel who has been killing civilians, children and women occupying other countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel, is a threat to world peace. However, the bloodbath of Norway should remind us that just like most Europeans are not racists, not all Muslims are radical and hate the West, and that the criminal activities of sporadic groups of any region should not tarnish the reputation of all people having similar religious affiliation.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments