oyvindstrommen.be traktningar

Onkel Henning læser avis (Uncle Henning reads the newspaper) is one of the more interesting Danish blogs around. In a recent post Henning Holm comments on an article in Information. Henning makes some points that deserve a much wider audience than the Danish or Scandinavia blog readers, and I warned him that I would steal some of his points for use on this English-language blog.

The article in Information was a critical response from Frederik Stjernfeldt on Swedish journalist Stefan Jonsson’s analysis of the Danish debate on immigration. Jonsson’s main point was that the Danes have become obsessed with Islam. Stjernfeldt writes:

“The false understanding of constant cultural essences has become one of the premisses of the debate”. This is one of the critical comments on the Danish debate from Stefan Jonsson. Here, I think he is completely correct. Of course, it concerns Islam, and the idea of Islam as a constant cultural essence it thriving both on the right-wing – where Islam is routinely seen as a culture with no hope for improvement, quickly associated with terrorism – and on the left-wing – where Islam is, just as routinely, seen as made up by poor, innocent victims alone, people whose picturesque culture must be protected.

Many on the left would not like to admit it, but this description is more than a caricature. Some left-wingers are drawn from their (often justified) criticism against Western powers (i.e. the United States) to support of anyone who fights against these same powers. Those who struggle against the perceived “imperialist hegemony” are then automatically understood as having noble intentions, simply because they are the enemy of the enemy. In this way, the West is made into an essence and understood as necessarily ‘evil’.

When right-wingers ask ‘do you want Saddam back, then?’ they are mostly discussing against strawmen built by themselves. But amongst that army of strawmen, some real people on the left have also found refugee. Henning Holm mentions Carsten Kofoed. I could think of others, too.

Another aspect, which I see as more important, is the fact that many of Europe’s progressive left-wing parties have shun away from discussing problems surrounding immigration and immigrant communities. Some feminist groups are quick to protest against the opening of a new sex store, connecting sex stores with the porn industry, but are slow to fight against brutal suppression of immigrant women. Some left-wingers, and people on the liberal right, are quick to criticise Christian homophobia, but slow to criticise Muslim homophobia. Seen in that light, the growth of various populist right and even neo-fascist parties is not difficult to explain. They are seen as the only one standing up for Western values; when in fact, they oppose central tenets of a Western democracy.

But then, how should the left wing and the liberal right address these problems? I have stolen Henning Holm’s list and slightly adopted it:

1. Fight against stupid anti-Americanism based on monolithic thinking, just as you would fight against stupid Islamophobia based on the same.

2. Do not set lower standards for immigrants or minorities than for anyone else. This is racism reverted. If someone is spouting Jew-hatred or homophobia, they should be confronted, regardless of their ethnic, cultural or religious background. Also, do not excuse someone’s despicable actions or attitudes because they are in agreement with you on other areas.

3. Do not let the socalled far right define the debate. Opposition to stricter rules on family reunions is not the same as support of forced marriages. Confronting the views of the far right is good, but critique coupled with alternative suggestions to solve actual problems is better.

4. The “big debate” on Islam should be modularised. It is pointless to discuss the Taliban in the same context as youth crime in European ghettos, and stupid to discuss female genital mutilation in the same setting as the Iraq war. The main challenges of integration have little to do with 1960s Egyptian radicalism and even less to do with Ottoman policy in Southern Bulgaria.

5. The debate should be deislamified. The problem with forced marriages is not that they take place in Islamic cultures, but that people are married against their will. The problem with female genital mutilation is not that the tradition is practiced in some Muslim countries, but that the tradition is practiced at all. The problem with al Qa’ida is not that they pray to Allah, but that they are involved in terrorism. These problems should be seen in the most relevant context(s), which often does not include the religious one.

Tags: Eurofascisme, In English, Islam og Midtausten, Politikk