(Fjordman) A report prepared by groups in the various Nordic countries has proposed instituting a legal ban on anti-Feminist “hatred,” comparing this to “racism.” Representing the left-wing coalition government in Norway, Ahmad Ghanizadeh from the Socialist Left Party (SV), the State Secretary in the Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion, was positive towards the proposal, and promised that the government would look into it.
My initial thought upon hearing this is that Leftism is now officially a religion, and that its proponents desire a “blasphemy statute” to ban any serious discussion of left-wing doctrines and their consequences as “hate speech.”
Writer and fellow online dissident Takuan Seiyo commented that not even George Orwell could have come up with anything that tops this scenario. Yes, there is a serious proposal afoot in Norway to ban “anti-Feminist hatred”. Yes, the ministry really has the Orwellian name of Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion. And yes, this State Secretary in Norway really is called Ahmad Ghanizadeh, originally from Iran.
In 2013, Norway’s Minister of Culture is Hadia Tajik, whose Muslim family came from Pakistan. One must assume that Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg of the Labour Party appointed her partly to remind the native population that they no longer have a culture, only “Multiculture,” but mainly in order to appeal to the Muslim and other Third World immigrant voters whose support his left-wing coalition depends upon in order to stay in power.
PM Stoltenberg in his prestigious New Year’s Speech for 2013 promised that his government would seek to ban “hateful utterances” on the Internet. The year before, Stoltenberg used his New Year’s Speech, always broadcasted on prime-time national TV and watched by a large proportion of his countrymen, to launch a frontal attack on alleged “totalitarian seducers” who use the Internet to spread unfounded “hatred.”
I was shortly afterwards contacted by the journalist Ragnhild Sleire Øyen from the state broadcaster NRK, the local equivalent of the BBC, who considered it obvious that the Prime Minister was referring to me personally. I’m sure many other citizens got the same message, and that may well have been intentional.
The PM didn’t mention any names explicitly, but then he didn’t have to, since so many others had done that dirty job for him. His right-hand man in Labour, Party Secretary Raymond Johansen, has singled me out for public attack by name several times, both before and after the Prime Minister gave this speech, as one of the individuals spreading irrational “hate” against Islam and therefore holding me partly responsible for the mental climate that allegedly created Anders Behring Breivik. I wasn’t the only name on that short list, but I usually topped it.
Norway is a small country, but I still find it unhealthy that a sitting political head of state uses his most prestigious annual speech addressing the nation to launch a thinly veiled attack on individual citizens who have done nothing criminal. An analogy for Americans would be if the President of the United States used his State of the Union speech to launch a thinly veiled attack on writers who use the Internet to publish ideas he dislikes, for instance the conservative author Michelle Malkin, or Glenn Reynolds with his major blog Instapundit. Even Obama hasn’t gone that far, at least not yet. The Social Democratic Prime Minister of Norway has.
Who gets to define “hate,” and do negative feelings always come out of nowhere? What if public anger, assuming it exists, actually has a cause that needs to be addressed? For example, being displaced in one’s own country by often hostile tribes? Should we simply ban any real discussions of this problem instead of dealing with the actual cause of public frustration? If so, what will be the long-term results of such a policy?
Elisabeth Skarsbø Moen is the debate editor and a regular columnist in VG, one of Norway’s two largest newspapers, and the largest one with a truly national readership. She writes in positive terms about Feminism, while at the same time championing the continued mass immigration of people from cultures that are extremely hostile to women. Like most other Western Feminists of her ilk, she sees no contradiction in this.
In October 2012, Skarsbø Moen wrote a deeply emotional column in VG entitled “Our children”, where she lamented that her society sometimes makes a distinction between “our” children and “other” children, that is, people born in other countries. She chastised her own country for not treating all children born anywhere on the entire planet as equally ours. The occasion concerned two young male Muslim asylum seekers from Afghanistan.
I don’t know these specific individuals, but it’s a fact that quite a few of the young asylum seekers who come to Europe from Afghanistan are actually young adults who lie about their age; so they are in fact neither children, nor are they “ours.” Skarsbø Moen thereby managed to tell two blatant falsehoods in just two words.
It also must be mentioned that these “children” usually bring with them an Islamic culture that is often violent and usually extremely hostile to women’s liberties. Yet this self-appointed Feminist does not seem to care much about that, or worry about the future consequences of allowing such a culture gain a foothold in her own country. Skarsbø Moen’s column was pure emotional pornography about how cruel and evil we are for not allowing potentially violent and generally hostile Muslims into our countries.
Neighboring Sweden has in little more than three decades metamorphosed from a safe country into being flooded by street crime and having one of the world’s highest recorded rape rates. Young blond girls in Stockholm suburbs are getting used to being called “whores” on a daily basis, and sometimes dye their hair in an attempt to avoid sexual harassment in the streets of what once was their own country.
Coincidentally, this transformation all took place at the same time as the largest wave of mass immigration in recorded history, much of it from brutal and repressive male-dominated cultures. Yet most of the left-wing or Marxist Feminist activists and journalists in Scandinavia strenuously deny that there is any connection between these two phenomena, and will aggressively attack as “racists” those who dare to suggest that the mass immigration they support has caused any of this.
In December 2011 a Swedish mother-of-two was subjected to a brutal gang-rape by perhaps a dozen young male asylum seekers from Afghanistan in a refugee camp in Mariannelund, Sweden — although only seven of them were convicted for this gruesome crime. Swedish newspapers such as Aftonbladet systematically conceal the ethnic identity of the perpetrators in cases involving immigrants, though, and only show photos featuring white criminals.
Reports stated that “The rape was oral, anal and vaginal sometimes with three rapists inside her at the same time while everybody was cheering and clapping. The gruesome rape marathon lasted for 7 hours. 11 suspects may have been involved, taking turns while drinking and getting high on drugs. The asylum seekers were cheering and clapping their hands during the rape marathon while calling the victim ‘whore’ and ‘slut’.”
The Swedish victim went into shock and has naturally become heavily traumatized. She is now subject to panic attacks and lives in a psychiatric clinic. She is also bound to a wheelchair due to the damage to her abdomen. The main perpetrator – Rafi Bahaduri, 25 – had already committed four other rapes in Sweden that we know of.
Despite this, Elina Gustafsson, a local member of the Swedish Social Democratic Youth League (SSU) who defines herself as a “proud Feminist,” thought it would be “racist” to expel these convicted Muslim criminals.
I’m reminded of another left-wing politician from Sweden. The Marxist Feminist Gudrun Schyman, then the leader of the “reformed” Communist party, in a speech in 2002 suggested that Swedish men are just like the Taliban. Fredrik Virtanen, a male columnist for the national newspaper Aftonbladet, immediately agreed with her that yes, Western men are just like the brutal Taliban regime and other Muslims from Afghanistan.
The young woman from Mariannelund, Sweden who just had her life ruined might disagree with this claim. Even native-born psychopaths rarely behave in this manner, yet such a treatment of women is unfortunately not rare in the most repressive parts of the Islamic world, whose primitive tribal cultures Western authorities insist on mass-importing to our cities.
Gang rapes and certain other types of violent crime were exceedingly rare in the Nordic countries a few decades ago, but are currently in the process of becoming routine. In Trondheim, Norway, on the 28th of May 2011, a young girl named Eva Helgetun took her own life. She was just 14 years old, and had been gang-raped by immigrants a few weeks before. Too many others share her fate.
In the 1960s when the so-called Second Wave of Feminism began, often with strong Marxist inspirations, Western women were relatively safe compared to women in other parts of the world. Half a century later, Western women have never had more Feminism, yet they and their children have also never been less safe.
Perhaps pointing out this fact constitutes “hate” in the eyes of some people, but that doesn’t make it any less true.
The problems caused by Third World mass immigration will not go away if we ban people from speaking truthfully about them. How hard can it be for members of the ruling elites to grasp this simple fact?
“From where Winston stood it was just possible to read, picked out on its white face in elegant lettering, the three slogans of the Party:
George Orwell, prolific writer and a staunch opponent of totalitarianism (including communism), writing in the spring of 1945, in a long essay titled “Antisemitism in Britain“, for the Contemporary Jewish Record, stated that anti-Semitism was on the increase in Britain, and that it was “irrational and will not yield to arguments.”
He argued that it would be useful to discover why anti-Semites could “swallow such absurdities on one particular subject while remaining sane on others.”
Anti-Zionists today, those who are opposed to the Jewish state’s very existence and engage in demonization beyond any limits of reason, as those active in the fight for the state’s survival are acutely aware, is often equally irrational and unable to yield to even the most lucid arguments.
Indeed, the quote I cited above from 1984 reflects one of the common understandings the word “Orwellian” – the capacity to hold inherently irreconcilable, hypocritical, and/or irrational political views without the slightest cognitive dissonance.
The Orwell Prize for Journalism is characterized, on their website, as:
“Britain’s most prestigious prize for political writing. Every year, we award prizes for the work – the book, the blog which comes closest to George Orwell’s ambition ‘to make political writing into an art’.”
The 2011 list includes prolific Israel haters such as Robert Fisk (See here, here, and here), the man with the proud distinction of engaging in journalistic bias so egregious as to inspire the word “Fisking“) and Guardian contributor, Rachel Shabi.
In discussing a review of “Not the Enemy: Israel’s Jews from Arab Lands”, the New Centrist succinctly sums up Shabi as follows:
“Shabi is part of small group of post-Zionist Mizrahi intellectuals who want to reclaim the non-European aspect their identity. I think this is a positive thing. But some of these post-Zionists have a tendency to borrow analytical frameworks from Marxists and others who view Ashkenazim and Zionists as imperialists and colonialists. In this narrative, the Mizrahim are indigenous people who have been victimized by Zionism, just like the Palestinians. In other words, Mizrahi Jews and Palestinians are people of color and Ashkenazis are whitey. Shabi and her political allies, in turn, are part pf the global resistance against the forces of global empire.
Here’s a sampling of Shabi’s offerings on the evils of Zionism and the moral sins of Israeli Jews:
“Most Israelis, in other words, seem to have convinced themselves that their own moral superiority somehow sanctions and justifies their own acts of moral repugnance. As a line of defence, it’s hard to see how this will stand up in court.” The self-defence defence January 23, 2009
But Palestinian analyst Ghassan Khatib says there is another factor at play in the overall media skew. “Even if the Palestinian side came up with proper messages, Hamas has been successfully labelled by Israel as a terrorist group and is portrayed in the western media in a manner similar to al-Qaida,” he says. As a result, western audiences are more prepared to sympathise with Israel – because it fits the “us or them” binary to which post 9/11 ears are attuned.” Winning the media warJanuary 10, 2009
“Kfir Brigade’s own former members describe its role in enforcing the Israeli occupation as having turned them into “monsters”. This brigade is the nightmare of bed-wetting Palestinian children and its deeds should be the nightmare of any Israeli who seeks peace, rather than perpetual loathing, between the Jewish and Palestinian peoples of the region.” Bruiting about brutes November 29, 2008
In the mind of Shabi, every Israeli act, her every fear and concern, can be contorted in a way to suggest the state’s inherent and immutable bigotry.
Indeed, her capacity to twist and turn prose in a way which assigns maximum malice to the Jewish state seems to have no limits as, more recently, she penned a piece for the Guardian which managed to spin Israeli concerns over the potential rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as evidence of Israeli racism.
The Muslim Brotherhood, as we noted previously, is a viciously anti-Semitic movement, which openly calls the destruction of Israel and whose spiritual leader, Yusef al-Qaradawi has endorsed the Holocaust as divinely inspired just punishment of the Jews.
The capacity to engage in such a profound moral inversion – accusing Jews of racism for expressing their concern over a movement inspired by a man who endorsed the Holocaust – represents the dangerous doublethink so eloquently illustrated in the totalitarian dystopia of Orwell’s novel and seems, at the very least, inconsistent with the moral parameters of the prize which bears his name.