The Norwegian Inquisition - Sunset in the Land of the Midnight Sun


By Fjordman

Stortinget, the Norwegian parliament, in April 2005 passed a new Discrimination Act. The act says in pretty clear words[1] that in cases of suspected direct or indirect discrimination due to religion or ethnicity, Norwegians are guilty until proven otherwise. To me, it is surprising that they are allowed to pass such legislation at all. Isn't it a fundamental part of all international law that a person should be innocent until proven otherwise? Aren't our politicians thus depriving Norwegians of even the most basic human rights? However, I have heard claims that it is technically legal to do this. The act was passed in April with the approval of all parties in parliament, more than 80 % of MPs, with the sole exception of the right-wing Progress Party. Immigration spokesman for the Progress Party, Per Sandberg, is deeply disappointed[2] and fears the consequences of the new legislation. "This law will jeopardise the rights of ordinary, law-abiding Norwegian citizens. The principle of reverse burden of proof means that Norwegians are guilty of discrimination unless they can prove otherwise. It will lead to many convictions of innocent people. Reverse burden of proof is also combined with liability to pay compensation, which means that innocent persons risk having to pay huge sums for things they didn't do."

It is unclear why this act is needed at all, given that a survey of immigrants[3] only a few months ago indicates that a vast majority don't feel they've been discriminated against in Norway. Racism appears to be less widespread than earlier believed. And why on earth are we supposed to show this ridiculous reverence and respect for their utterly failed Islamic cultures in the first place? Why should people who come from some of the most advanced countries on the planet have to crawl for those who come from the most backward ones? If their Islamic societies are so great, how come people from these countries burn their passports and treat their fingers with acid to remove fingerprints, all in order to get into ours?

"Anti-racist" organisations are given a significant role in the new law. There is a new, state-sponsored Equality Ombudsman who will be responsible for enforcing it, and coerce all employers who refuse to abide by it. A multicultural Inquisition, in other words. Cabinet minister Erna Solberg, who has earlier called for the establishment of a sharia council[4] in Norway, proposed the new act. It will cover everything from the workplace to the housing market. In a recent case, a local furniture store wouldn't allow a female employee to wear a head scarf, arguing that it violated the store's dress code. Solberg’s proposal will toughen the law[5], and also require those charged to mount proof of their innocence. Solberg argues that existing law already makes it illegal for employers, for example, to prevent women from wearing head scarves if their religion calls for it. Her proposed law "would make this even more clear." This law could open the floodgates for all kinds of unreasonable demands from Muslim immigrants in particular, who will be given a licence for extortion of employers, courtesy of the Norwegian parliament. For instance, it is likely that they can now claim that it is “discrimination” if they don’t have a special prayer room provided. Already, Muslim taxi drivers demand a separate prayer room[6] at Oslo Airport, where they can pray during working hours, but have received a negative answer. The leader of the Somali Taxi Association, Ali Hassan, finds this discriminating and unacceptable, and is planning a law suit over the matter: "We think we have a right to pray during working hours. We demand to get a room where we can perform prayers, without losing our spot in the taxi queue." At the same time as this is going on, blind people with their guide dogs[7] are finding it increasingly difficult to get a taxi ride in the Oslo region, where Muslims make up a high percentage of cab drivers.

It is frustrating that Norwegian authorities make it mandatory for all non-Muslims to accept hijab, the Islamic veil, in their workplace. Many non-Muslims find hijab offensive, and even some Muslims, too. The veil, is not ”just a piece of cloth”. It serves as a demarcation line between proper, submissive Muslim women and whores, un-Islamic women who deserve no respect and are asking for rape. The veil should more properly be viewed as the uniform of a Totalitarian movement, and a signal to attack those outside the movement. An Islamic Mufti in Copenhagen, Denmark, sparked a political outcry after publicly declaring that women who refuse to wear headscarves are "asking for rape."[8] Apparently, he isn’t the only Muslim in Europe to think this way. Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet reported in 2001 that 65 percent of rapes in Oslo[9] were performed by "non-Western" immigrants – a category that, in Norway, consists mostly of Muslims. The article quoted a professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo, Unni Wikan, as saying that "Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility[10] for these rapes" because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. The professor's conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: "Norwegian women must realise that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it." In January 2005, Norwegian media reported[11] that 2004 saw the highest number or rape charges ever recorded in the capital city of Oslo. Strangely enough, there was now no mentioning of how immigrants were grossly overrepresented in rape cases. Why not? Unless there has been a sudden and unexplained drop in the number of immigrants raping Norwegian women between 2001 and 2004, which is unlikely, the statistics should be at least as staggering in 2005 as they were before. If they are not revealed, it can only mean that “somebody” didn’t like the numbers[12] presented in 2001, and decided to bury them. That “somebody” must be a person high up in the police hierarchy, maybe even in the government. The same thing happens in Sweden[13]. So in the end, the safety of young Scandinavian women is sacrificed in order to keep the glossy image of a multicultural society intact.

Militant Islamists like Mullah Krekar[14] do reside in Norway. Besides, Norwegian police have already issued a mobile security alarm[15] to Progress Party leader Carl I Hagen. They worry that he's a target for terrorists unhappy with some anti-Islamic remarks he made last summer. Hagen criticised Islam, and could see no similarity with the concept of moral and justice found in Christianity. Hagen also said that if Israel loses[16] in the Middle East, Europe will succumb to Islam next, if Islamic fundamentalists have it their way. Christians should support Israel and oppose Islamic inroads[17] into Europe. In an unprecedented step, a group of Muslim ambassadors[18] to Norway blasted Carl I Hagen in a letter to newspaper Aftenposten, claiming he had offended 1.3 billion Muslims around the world. Pakistan’s ambassador in particular has interfered in unacceptable ways in Norwegian internal affairs before, trying to instruct and intimidate a Norwegian politician of Pakistani origin who dared to voice her support for banning Islamic veils from Norwegian schools.[19]

Dr. Ole Jørgen Anfindsen, editor, HonestThinking.org[20], believes that Norwegian authorities have cheated with prognoses for the number of immigrants. According to his numbers, ethnic Norwegians will become a minority in their own country before 2050 if the current trends continue. The number of Muslims in Norway over 15 years has quadrupled[21], meaning an annual growth of more than 9%. A Norwegian researcher warns that ethnic gangs[22] can give Norway the kind of immigrant-related organised crime that accompanied waves of migration to the USA. Dr. Inger-Lise Lien concludes that the ethnic groups themselves are worried. Oslo, which used to be a safe Scandinavian city, today looks more like New York City pre-Giuliani. Native Norwegians are quietly moving out[23] of the immigrant ghettos in inner-city Oslo in large numbers. Tensions with immigrants have spread even to smaller towns[24]. The trend is identical to what can be seen in neighbouring Sweden, where several cities are now on the verge of collapse[25]. Norway has already experienced what seems to have been an attempted Islamic terror attack[26]. At the same time, there is new legislation proposed against "discriminating" statements[27] made about specific groups, even on Internet discussion forums and websites. Which means that Norwegians can't say too much about Muslim immigrants destroying the country, because that is racism and thus illegal. At a time when the multicultural ideology is increasingly seen as a mistake in many countries, the authorities here respond by making it the official state ideology and banning all opposition. The heavily left-leaning Norwegian media are remarkably quiet about this, and do not make a fuzz about this infringement of freedom of speech.

Scandinavia is a Utopia lost. Previously quiet Scandinavian nations now suffer Islamic terror threats and death threats[28] against people criticising Islam. Norway celebrates 100 years as an independent state[29] this year. Judging from this new discrimination act and the runaway Muslim immigration, perhaps the anniversary should be called “From independence to colonisation”. At the same time as their women are no longer safe in the streets because of immigrant gangs, the authorities respond by making Norwegians de facto second-rate citizens in their own country. They use their own people as stepping stones for their personal careers in the UN bureaucracy. Pompous, hypocritical Scandinavian clowns, lecturing about how to create the perfect society while their own citizens find it increasingly hard to live in their major cities.

To Americans out there: Tired of hearing Europeans criticise you and how “fascist” your administration is? Well, it wasn’t the USA that just passed a law - with the support of more than 80 % of the lawmakers – that states that their own citisens are guilty until proven otherwise. Want to get even with some smug anti-American Europeans? Here’s your chance. Leave a message on my Fjordman blog if you want to write something about this case. I will try to help with translations as much as I can. There is unfortunately no shortage of material.














8.http://jimball.com.au/features/Political uproar over mufti's rmearks -The Copenhagen Post.htm












20. http://honestthinking.org/en/pub/VG.205.05.15.OJA.Cheating_with_immigration_numbers.htm












The Anti-Racist Witch-Hunts


By Fjordman


The leading Norwegian blog Document.no[1] tells the horrifying story about how two decent white men in 2007 were attacked by a media lynch mob for their supposed "racism." As it turns out later, the mainstream media didn't present nearly all of the information relevant to the case at the time, which didn't prevent them from nearly destroying these two men. This happened at the same time as there is a growing wave of crime and violence targeting the natives. The response of the authorities to rising levels of racist violence targeting the natives has been to increase crackdowns on "racism" – by the white natives. In 2005 the Norwegian parliament – with the support of 85% of MPs – passed a new Discrimination Act[2], prepared by then Minister of Integration from the Conservative Party, Erna Solberg, who had earlier called for the establishment of a sharia council in Norway.


A spokesman for the right-wing Progress Party, Per Sandberg, feared that the law would jeopardise the rights of law-abiding citizens. Reverse burden of proof is combined with liability to pay compensation, which means that innocent persons risk having to pay huge sums for things they didn't do. If an immigrant claims that a native has somehow discriminated against him or made a discriminatory remark, the native person has to mount proof of his own innocence. This harsh law was passed despite the fact that most immigrants themselves claimed they had encountered little discrimination.


I have later discovered that similar laws have been passed across much of Western Europe, encouraged by the EU and the Council of Europe (CoE) in cooperation with international Islamic organisations. The Norwegian law followed an initiative from the CoE. There was virtually no public debate about this law, which was passed in relative silence prior to the national elections that year. Not a single journalist genuinely criticised it, and most barely mentioned it at all before it was passed. The same journalists otherwise tend to be very concerned about the legal or "human rights" of Islamic terrorists, but apparently not of their own people.


The Equality and Anti-discrimination Ombud[3] Beate Gangås, a white lesbian feminist, before the municipal elections in 2007 warned all political parties against making "discriminatory" remarks regarding immigration policies, but called for actively reducing[4] the number of white, heterosexual men in politics. There was little real debate about immigration in the heavily left-leaning media that year, but an all the more passionate witch-hunt looking for racists, and by that I mean whites only. The left-wing coalition government, after a meeting with immigrant organisations, announced that racists, apparently meaning white natives only, should be "smoked out"[5] of all public sector jobs.


The same government in October 2008 funded[6] a conference in Oslo involving "dialogue" with a number of hardline sharia-sponsoring groups from the Middle East, including the Egyptian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. The section Fred og Forsoning ("Peace and Reconciliation") of the Foreign Ministry financed the research project "Fault Lines of Islamism" [pdf][7] led by Bjørn Olav Utvik of the University of Oslo. Gry Larsen from the Labour Party, representing the Ministry, was scheduled to meet with representatives of these groups. The left-wing government can thus meet with radical Islamic groups, but want to silence those among the natives who don't want Muslims with such views to settle in their country. No "dialogue" with them.


Two ambulance drivers in Oslo, both of them white native Norwegians, were in August 2007 involved in what became a massively hyped case supposedly involving "white racism." The ambulance had arrived to pick up an African man who was injured. As ambulance driver Erik Schjenken[8] months later explained, the man "pulled down his pants and urinated on my colleague's leg. My colleague was surprised, pulled away and called him a pig. That's when we viewed the man as a problem, and decided it was best if the police took him to the clinic." Ali Farah, the Somalian man in question, had more severe head injuries than the drivers assumed at that point. "We made a mistake, because we interpreted his urination as willful and a provocation, but NOT because we had racist or discriminatory motives," Schjenken wrote.


Based on weak suspicions of "racism," the mass media, leading intellectuals and politicians launched what can only be described as a witch-hunt against the two ambulance drivers. "This would never happen to a white man," said the prominent Norwegian-Pakistani lawyer Abid Q. Raja[9], representing Farah and his family. Author Anne Holt, who once served as Minister of Justice for the Labour Party, wrote an essay in newspaper Aftenposten which in my view amounted to a verbal execution of the drivers. Both of them were suspended from service and became the target of widespread, negative media coverage. They were later cleared after an investigation of the incident by the Norwegian Board of Health Supervision. However, the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud, or the Multicultural Inquisition as I like to call it, ruled that Farah was a victim of discrimination and that the ambulance personnel broke the anti-discrimination laws. As noted before, the anti-discrimination law states that natives are guilty of "discrimination" almost as soon as they are suspected of it.


It should be mentioned here that this African man was injured in the first place because he was beaten by another African man, from Ghana[10]. In Norway, a country straddling the Arctic Circle and with no colonial history, one African man beats another African man, and the result is that the white ambulance drivers, who have dedicated their lives to helping other people, become the targets of a lynch mob led by the country's media. Driver Erik Schjenken needed professional help as he was brought to the brink of suicide.


According to Hans Rustad from the major blog Document.no[11], the ideology of anti-racism in some cases resembles what we have seen from Communists regimes. The term "racist" is similar to being called a "class traitor" under Communism. The mere accusation is powerful enough to destroy lives. Rustad fears that anti-racism in some cases leads to lawlessness. Ambulance driver Schjenken was a well-regarded employee who had performed thousands of calls and saved many lives, yet because of one error of judgment, which in my view was understandable given the situation, his life was ruined. All because he had a politically incorrect skin colour while the other person was non-white.

What makes this even more absurd is that in Norway, as throughout the Western world, white-on-non-white violence is exceedingly rare. The vast majority of racism and racist violence comes from non-whites against whites, or between different groups of non-whites. In Oslo, young girls are raped; schoolchildren are threatened with death, robbed and assaulted. The police have warned against "an alarming rise in street violence" in urban areas across the country. This is directly caused by mass immigration, which is nevertheless still championed by the very same media who attacked these two ambulance drivers.


For instance[12], a 17-year-old Somalian was convicted of the rape of a young girl in Oslo. The court stated that the rape was unusually brutal and lasted for several hours. The man choked the girl for so long that the medical doctor who examined her said that she could have died. The girl suffers from severe psychological problems in the aftermath of the attack. The African youth was sentenced to four and half years in prison. This sentence included another rape, where his Norwegian-Moroccan friend raped a 13-year-old girl whilst the Somalian helped to threaten her and keep guard. She has naturally been traumatised from the incident.


Numerous natives have had their lives ruined by similar attacks, yet anti-white racism is rarely mentioned as a problem by the mainstream media. Whites are apparently fair game. The more vicious the rapes, muggings, and stabbings targeting whites in their own country get, the more aggressive and hysterical the witch-hunt on "white racism" becomes. French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut[13] has warned that "the lofty idea of 'the war on racism' is gradually turning into a hideously false ideology. And this anti-racism will be for the 21st century what Communism was for the 20th century: A source of violence."


Professor Sigurd Skirbekk[14] of the University of Oslo notes that "In 1994, the German periodical Focus pointed to opinion polls taken in Germany, France and England in which 55, 52 and 50 per cent, respectively, felt that their countries accepted too many immigrants. From Norway we have a representative study from 1987 which showed that 51% of the people felt that the country should accept fewer immigrants; 25% felt that politicians should stick to current practice, while only 8% wanted to accept more immigrants. A similar study in Sweden, made a couple of years later, showed that 54% of Swedes felt that too many people were immigrating to Sweden. In later studies the figures have varied somewhat; but there have always been more people who have favored a restrictive policy than those who favored liberalisation." Thus, according to Skirbekk, "the extent of recent immigration cannot be explained on the basis of popular opinion [my emphasis]."


Skirbekk wonders[15] whether there is a quasi-religious undercurrent to the anti-racist movement, and that it is quite literally the equivalent of the witch-hunts of previous ages:


"A number of researchers have come to see that certain issues in the migration debate has religious connotations. The Norwegian social anthropologist Inger Lise Lien, for instance, has written that 'racism' in the public immigration debate has become a word used to label the demons among us, the impure from whom all decent people should remain aloof. We have every reason to believe that the use of the term 'racist' in our day has many functional similarities with the use of the word 'heretic' three hundred years ago….It is presumably fully possible to join anti-racist movements with the sole motive of identifying with something that appears to be politically correct, or in order to be a part of a collective that entitles one to demonstrate and to harass splinter groups that no one cares to defend." But "behind the slogan 'crush the racists,' there might well be something more than a primitive desire to exercise violence. The battle also involves an element of being in a struggle for purity versus impurity. And since racism is something murky, anti-racism and the colourful community it purportedly represents, becomes an expression of what is pure."


The Norwegian left-wing author Torgrim Eggen[16] warns against "race wars" brought about by mass immigration yet continues to support it. Questioned about what we can do to avoid this scenario he states: "That's a very stupid question to ask to an author. This presupposes that I want everybody to be happy, have a good time and don't have any problems. If so, what do they want me to write about?"


I will give him credit for his honesty: This is the most frank admission I have seen of the fact that some people don't WANT society to be harmonious; they think it's boring. There is no worse fate for a self-professed intellectual than to live in a nation that is by and large prosperous, peaceful and well-functioning because nobody will care about his advice or follow his guidance, as is befitting a person of his intelligence.


During the Multicultural craze of the 1990s, Eggen in an essay entitled "The psychotic racism[17]" warned against turbulence caused by mass immigration. The solution to this was not to limit immigration, but to limit criticism of immigration. According to him, xenophobia and opposition to mass immigration should be viewed as a mental illness, and hence "the solution to this xenophobia is that you should distribute medication to those who are seriously affected. I have discussed this with professor of community medicine, Dr. Per Fugelli, and he liked the idea." Mr. Fugelli suggested putting anti psychotic drugs in the city's drinking water.


This may sound too extreme to be meant seriously, but Fugelli has continued to chastise those who are critical of national immigration policies. Eggen warned that arguments about how ordinary people are concerned over mass immigration shouldn't be accepted because this could lead to Fascism: "One should be on one's guard against people, especially politicians, who invoke xenophobia on behalf of others. And if certain people start their reasoning with phrases such as 'ordinary people feel that,' one shouldn't argue at all, one should hit [them]."


Thomas Hylland Eriksen, professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo, heads a multi-million project[18] sponsored by the state trying to envision how the new Multicultural society will work. He is a career multiculturalist and intellectual celebrity in his country, a frequent contributor to the public debate and lives, according to himself, in a boring, monocultural part of the city, insulated from the effects of cultural diversity. Hylland Eriksen has proclaimed the death of (Western) nations as if he derives pleasure from it, and has stated that the Nidaros Cathedral (Nidarosdomen), the most prominent church in the country, should no longer serve as a national symbol in our Multicultural society.


Mr. Eriksen has clashed with Ole-Jørgen Anfindsen, who runs the bilingual quality website HonestThinking.org and warns against the effects of uncontrolled mass immigration. According to[19] Hylland Eriksen, "Cosmopolites insist on a world comprising of more colours than black and white. In such a world, the problems presented by Ole-Jørgen Anfindsen are not just petty, but irrelevant."


What are the problems presented by Mr. Anfindsen? Well, he has published numbers indicating that if the current immigration continues, native Norwegians will be a minority in their own country within a couple of generations. Given the fact that ethnic groups who become minorities in their own lands usually have a hard time, and always get persecuted when the newcomers are Muslims, one would assume that this would be interesting information. But for self-proclaimed "Multicultural cosmopolites," it is "petty and irrelevant" to even consider that this could represent a problem. Eriksen calls Anfindsen "stupid and ignorant," and hints that "Maybe Anfindsen's agenda is inspired by a kind of perverted Christianity (he has a Christian background)."


"He has a Christian background." Is that supposed to be an insult and disqualify a person from worrying about whether his grandchildren will be persecuted? Mr. Eriksen, like other Western multiculturalists, worries about Islamophobia but is more than willing to mock Christianity. A newspaper essay co-authored by Eriksen states that: "Is he [Anfindsen] asking us to once again repeat the obvious in that the murder of Theo van Gogh, various acts of terrorism and death threats against newspaper editors have nothing to do with Islam?"


Nothing to do with Islam? Really?


Mohammed Bouyeri[20], born in Amsterdam of Moroccan parents, killed Theo van Gogh as he was cycling in Amsterdam on Nov. 2, 2004, shooting and stabbing before slashing his throat and pinning a note to his body with a knife. "I did what I did purely out my beliefs," he told judges while clutching a Koran[21]. "I want you to know that I acted out of conviction and not that I took his life because he was Dutch or because I was Moroccan," but because he believed van Gogh insulted Islam in his film criticising the treatment of Muslim women.


So a peaceful Christian man is accused of having a dark, secret agenda, while a Muslim murderer who brags about his Islamic motivations has nothing to do with Islam? A Serbian doctor from the former Yugoslavia, where a Multicultural society recently collapsed in a horrific civil war, warned against the effects of unchecked mass immigration. Thomas Hylland Eriksen responded by chastising her for her "lack of visions[22]."


Apparently, your worth as an intellectual is measured in how grandiose your ideas are. The greater your visions, the more dazzling your intellect is and thus the greater prestige should be awarded to you. Whether those visions actually correspond to reality and human nature is of secondary importance. In fact, many a self-proclaimed intellectual will be downright offended by the petty considerations of his more pedestrian fellow citizens, concerned with what effects his ideas will have in real life. The fact that some people could get hurt from his ideas doesn't discourage him. Truly great advances for mankind can only be accomplished though sacrifices, preferably made by others than himself.


Those who champion mass immigration take no self-criticism for the violence their policies have brought. On the contrary, they want more immigration. Following the release of a UN population report[23] in 2007 which indicated a global population increase of several billion people over the coming decades, Marie Simonsen, the political editor of Norwegian left-wing newspaper Dagbladet, which has spent decades denouncing the right-wing Progress Party for their "racist" policies of limiting mass immigration, wrote that it should be considered a universal human right for people everywhere to migrate wherever they want to. This would mean virtually certain annihilation for a tiny, wealthy and naive Scandinavian nation. Ms. Simonsen thus endorsed the gradual eradication of her own people, no doubt congratulating herself for her tolerance. Not a single word of protest was voiced by any other journalist to this statement.


"Human rights" was a concept originally intended to ensure liberty. Now it's used to eradicate an entire civilisation, in the name of tolerance and diversity, and the natives are specifically banned from protesting against this.


























20. http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/007124.php




24. http://40.452.-3.709plusf58:LEzpkor737874243928ГЛ


Последнее изменение этой страницы: 2016-04-07; Нарушение авторского права страницы

infopedia.su Все материалы представленные на сайте исключительно с целью ознакомления читателями и не преследуют коммерческих целей или нарушение авторских прав. Обратная связь - (0.037 с.)