More Danish controversy reading.
The Globe and Mail proves its worth with this article from Saturday's edition, "A Tale of Two Muslim Danes", by far the best thing I've read on the Jyllands-Posten controversy so far*:
Are these "cultural" Muslims really the majority? Almost certainly.
Denmark, a fairly typical European country in this respect, has an estimated 180,000 Muslims out of a population of five million. They are served by 80 to 100 mosques, with an estimated 15,000 worshippers. In other words, fewer than 10 per cent of Denmark's Muslims are even religiously observant. A similar majority of Western Europe's Muslims are believed to be secular — in France, only 5 per cent visit a mosque weekly. The rest presumably view Islam as a culture rather than a religion or a basis for politics.
...Some observers believe that the small and powerless nature of Muslim immigrant communities actually creates this harsh polarization...Arabs, however, began arriving only in the 1970s, through refugee programs. Those programs mostly ended, abruptly, in the 1990s. Denmark stopped all immigration in 2002, imposing Europe's most restrictive immigration laws.
The Arabs were desperately poor, usually illiterate, and often had left not because they wanted to join Europe but because they were forced to flee. Lacking a successful, assimilated elite who could create role models for harmonious membership in society, the orthodox religious extreme — never very large in number — became the leaders and figureheads of Arab Muslims. This not only gave Muslims few visible alternatives, but turned them into figures of fear and revulsion.
"Our newspapers for years have been absolutely full of headlines about the perceived threat to fundamental values of tolerance and freedom from these Muslims, even though they are almost invisible and have no power to change anything," said Garbi Schmidt, who, as director of the Research Programme on Ethnic Minorities at the Danish National Institute for Social Research, is one of Europe's leading authorities on Muslim immigrants.
Because their rank-and-file are so unknown and invisible to Europe's mainstream, people hear the only voice that is speaking loudly and clearly. In many countries, this is the radical, orthodox religious leaders, who often, like Mr. Abu Laban, resemble extremist politicians more than preachers. In places like Denmark, where Hitler's rampage left terrible memories, the hateful messages of people like Mr. Abu Laban, and their calls for censorship of the media and repression of women, strike a troubling chord.
That helps explain the freedom-of-speech debate that led the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten to publish the offensive Mohammed cartoons. To outsiders, it seemed a bit bizarre: Denmark's freedom of speech has never been challenged, and the country's Muslims, most of whom live in grubby neighbourhoods and work in shipping industries, and who have only three MPs in a Parliament of 179 seats, have never had the power to challenge it.
...With each cycle of conflict, to use that analogy, the Europeans became a bit more Viking, and the small group of Muslims became a bit more like the rampaging Moors of mythology. The effect, in the words of Ms. Shmidt, is "mental segregation." Most Muslims continue to identify themselves as members of society, but some take the rhetoric seriously and turn themselves into the fearful jihadists of the European imagination.
Fleming Rose, the cultural editor of the Jyllands-Posten, stated this clearly to a German newspaper this week, a day before he was forced to resign for planning further offensive publications. He was trying to defend the publication of the cartoons, a noble cause, but his words, in retrospect, look like the perfect recipe for the dirty bomb of European-Islamic relations.
"By making fun in this way, we've not only created Muslims [i.e. extremists], we've also created Danes," he said. "Humour, even offensive humour, brings people together. Because by making fun of people we're also including them in our society. It's not always easy for those concerned, but that's the price they've got to pay."
This is the threat: That frightened Europeans will continue to manufacture "Muslims," transforming promising young children of immigrants into closed-minded extremists. And that those orthodox Muslims will in turn create angry, closed-minded "Europeans."
Rose's words ring oh-so-harmoniously with Western Standard editor's Ezra Levant's comments, as quoted in the Toronto Star (and rightfully derided by Dave at the Galloping Beaver). Levant was confronted with criticism that reprinting the 12 original cartoons might endanger Canadian troops in Afghanistan:
"In Canada we have freedoms, and our soldiers' and diplomats' job is to protect those freedoms at home and expand those freedoms abroad," Levant said Tuesday.
"I think most of the soldiers get it."
"So when Gordon O'Connor or others say we've got to clamp down on freedom in Canada so our soldiers and diplomats have an easier go of it, I don't think that's what soldiers and diplomats are for."
Levant said terrorists in foreign countries should not be allowed to hold Canadian domestic freedoms hostage.
"If a terrorist is going to attack our troops in Afghanistan, he's going to do it whether . . . he has some fig leaf of an excuse or not. Cartoons don't kill people; terrorists kill people."
As Saunders' article makes clear, there are a lot more players in this drama than just the disembodied Free West and "the terrorists", and a lot more issues involved than our freedom to offend our neighbours without reprisals as we see fit. But it's a lot simpler for Levant and his ilk to reduce the whole story to this pro-freedom, against-freedom dichotomy, with brave libertarian editorialists (and soldiers, of course!) on one side and placard-waving crowds of swarthy young men shouting "Death to America" and torching the local McDonalds on the other. Afterall, simplification is at the heart of successful progaganda. But, contra the Bull Moose, it's sure as hell got nothing to do with any conception of "liberalism" I'm interested in.
One bright spot is that Canada's new PM has (belatedly) opted not to descend into his supporter's fever swamp:
"I regret the publication of this material in several media outlets... While we understand this issue is divisive, our government wishes that people be respectful of the beliefs of others. I commend the Canadian Muslim community for voicing its opinion peacefully, respectfully and democratically."
*I also heartily recommend Gregory Djerejian's thought-provoking conservative takes (this post, the one above and the one below it) on the controversy at Belgravia dispatch.
Are these "cultural" Muslims really the majority? Almost certainly.
Denmark, a fairly typical European country in this respect, has an estimated 180,000 Muslims out of a population of five million. They are served by 80 to 100 mosques, with an estimated 15,000 worshippers. In other words, fewer than 10 per cent of Denmark's Muslims are even religiously observant. A similar majority of Western Europe's Muslims are believed to be secular — in France, only 5 per cent visit a mosque weekly. The rest presumably view Islam as a culture rather than a religion or a basis for politics.
...Some observers believe that the small and powerless nature of Muslim immigrant communities actually creates this harsh polarization...Arabs, however, began arriving only in the 1970s, through refugee programs. Those programs mostly ended, abruptly, in the 1990s. Denmark stopped all immigration in 2002, imposing Europe's most restrictive immigration laws.
The Arabs were desperately poor, usually illiterate, and often had left not because they wanted to join Europe but because they were forced to flee. Lacking a successful, assimilated elite who could create role models for harmonious membership in society, the orthodox religious extreme — never very large in number — became the leaders and figureheads of Arab Muslims. This not only gave Muslims few visible alternatives, but turned them into figures of fear and revulsion.
"Our newspapers for years have been absolutely full of headlines about the perceived threat to fundamental values of tolerance and freedom from these Muslims, even though they are almost invisible and have no power to change anything," said Garbi Schmidt, who, as director of the Research Programme on Ethnic Minorities at the Danish National Institute for Social Research, is one of Europe's leading authorities on Muslim immigrants.
Because their rank-and-file are so unknown and invisible to Europe's mainstream, people hear the only voice that is speaking loudly and clearly. In many countries, this is the radical, orthodox religious leaders, who often, like Mr. Abu Laban, resemble extremist politicians more than preachers. In places like Denmark, where Hitler's rampage left terrible memories, the hateful messages of people like Mr. Abu Laban, and their calls for censorship of the media and repression of women, strike a troubling chord.
That helps explain the freedom-of-speech debate that led the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten to publish the offensive Mohammed cartoons. To outsiders, it seemed a bit bizarre: Denmark's freedom of speech has never been challenged, and the country's Muslims, most of whom live in grubby neighbourhoods and work in shipping industries, and who have only three MPs in a Parliament of 179 seats, have never had the power to challenge it.
...With each cycle of conflict, to use that analogy, the Europeans became a bit more Viking, and the small group of Muslims became a bit more like the rampaging Moors of mythology. The effect, in the words of Ms. Shmidt, is "mental segregation." Most Muslims continue to identify themselves as members of society, but some take the rhetoric seriously and turn themselves into the fearful jihadists of the European imagination.
Fleming Rose, the cultural editor of the Jyllands-Posten, stated this clearly to a German newspaper this week, a day before he was forced to resign for planning further offensive publications. He was trying to defend the publication of the cartoons, a noble cause, but his words, in retrospect, look like the perfect recipe for the dirty bomb of European-Islamic relations.
"By making fun in this way, we've not only created Muslims [i.e. extremists], we've also created Danes," he said. "Humour, even offensive humour, brings people together. Because by making fun of people we're also including them in our society. It's not always easy for those concerned, but that's the price they've got to pay."
This is the threat: That frightened Europeans will continue to manufacture "Muslims," transforming promising young children of immigrants into closed-minded extremists. And that those orthodox Muslims will in turn create angry, closed-minded "Europeans."
Rose's words ring oh-so-harmoniously with Western Standard editor's Ezra Levant's comments, as quoted in the Toronto Star (and rightfully derided by Dave at the Galloping Beaver). Levant was confronted with criticism that reprinting the 12 original cartoons might endanger Canadian troops in Afghanistan:
"In Canada we have freedoms, and our soldiers' and diplomats' job is to protect those freedoms at home and expand those freedoms abroad," Levant said Tuesday.
"I think most of the soldiers get it."
"So when Gordon O'Connor or others say we've got to clamp down on freedom in Canada so our soldiers and diplomats have an easier go of it, I don't think that's what soldiers and diplomats are for."
Levant said terrorists in foreign countries should not be allowed to hold Canadian domestic freedoms hostage.
"If a terrorist is going to attack our troops in Afghanistan, he's going to do it whether . . . he has some fig leaf of an excuse or not. Cartoons don't kill people; terrorists kill people."
As Saunders' article makes clear, there are a lot more players in this drama than just the disembodied Free West and "the terrorists", and a lot more issues involved than our freedom to offend our neighbours without reprisals as we see fit. But it's a lot simpler for Levant and his ilk to reduce the whole story to this pro-freedom, against-freedom dichotomy, with brave libertarian editorialists (and soldiers, of course!) on one side and placard-waving crowds of swarthy young men shouting "Death to America" and torching the local McDonalds on the other. Afterall, simplification is at the heart of successful progaganda. But, contra the Bull Moose, it's sure as hell got nothing to do with any conception of "liberalism" I'm interested in.
One bright spot is that Canada's new PM has (belatedly) opted not to descend into his supporter's fever swamp:
"I regret the publication of this material in several media outlets... While we understand this issue is divisive, our government wishes that people be respectful of the beliefs of others. I commend the Canadian Muslim community for voicing its opinion peacefully, respectfully and democratically."
*I also heartily recommend Gregory Djerejian's thought-provoking conservative takes (this post, the one above and the one below it) on the controversy at Belgravia dispatch.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home