Email |  Print | RSS | Comment |  

 Email |  Print

Mon, July 25, 2011 | Arutz Sheva | By Prof. Phyllis Chesler

A Norwegian flag stands among the flowers in a memorial to the victims of the July 22nd terror attacks. (Photo: Reuters)

What Did the Norwegian Murderer Think?

The author strongly condemns the murder, but challenges the grieving Norwegian government and intelligentsia to do something effective about their own failed multi-cultural policies.

I condemn mass murder and the slaughter of unarmed civilian innocents.

Therefore, I condemn the shocking Norwegian-on-Norwegian, infidel-on-infidel, mainly Caucasian-on-Caucasian massacres carried out by Anders Behring Breivik — just as I have condemned the mass murders of Jewish, Israeli, Hindu, European, and American civilians carried out by Muslim Islamist terrorists.

Please note: Breivik may have feared and despised the refusal of first, second, and third generation Muslim-Norwegian immigrants to become Europeans, to embrace Enlightenment values — but he killed the children of those Norwegians who, in his opinion, were enabling Muslims to set up separatist and hostile enclaves in Norway.

Will this terrify the multi-culturalists as much as Islamism has? Will Breivik’s dastardly, dreadful action lead to policies which will finally begin to deal with issues such as female genital mutilation, polygamy, forced marriage, and honor killings on Norwegian soil? His constitutes only one terrorist attack and perhaps the first of its kind.

We must remember that in the name of Islam, Muslim Islamists have perpetrated thousands of terrorist attacks, both on their own people and on civilian infidels.

My esteemed colleague, Barry Rubin, writes that

“There have been over 10,000 Islamist terrorist attacks, many of them against Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and others. The number of such attacks against Muslims in the West or indeed in the world is perhaps one percent of that number.”

Also, historically, in the name of Islam, jihadists have colonized vast territories in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and India. They have persecuted, enslaved, exiled, or murdered the indigenous infidels who once lived there and either destroyed their holy sites or transformed them into grand and gracious mosques.

Nevertheless, Western political leaders, the media, and the professoriate have focused only on Western imperialism, racism, and historical slavery and have absolutely refused to focus on Muslim imperialism, racism and historical and contemporary slavery.

Meanwhile, the steady penetration of Islamic gender and religious apartheid continues apace in the West, especially in Europe, including in Norway.

The left-leaning multi-culturalists and “progressives” in Norway have refused to help endangered Muslim girls and women in their midst; the Norwegian government has refused to limit forced marriages to illiterate home country cousins, nor have they effectively intervened in matters of domestic violence when the perpetrator was Muslim as was his victims.

The fearless Hege Storhaug, has written an excellent book, now (2011) in English, on this very subject. It is titled “But The Greatest of These is Freedom. The Consequences of Immigration in Europe.” Together with Rita Karlsson, Storhaug runs Human Rights Service an online website and think tank.

The kinds of leftists and multi-culturalists whose children Breivik fiendishly chose to massacre, are the kinds of leftists who persuaded the Norwegian government to stop funding this excellent website. They were accused of being…”Islamophobic.” Storhaug and Karlsson are feminists, the sane kind. They want to extend the rights of freedom to every citizen of Europe and Norway but their own politically correct government and intelligentsia tried to defeat them by de-funding their efforts.

Storhaug paints a bleak but accurate picture.

The majority of Muslim immigrants to Norway are Pakistanis. In general, Muslim immigrants often outnumber native Norwegian children in school. She writes:

“In a typical classroom, a grand total of five Norwegian pupils may be expected to do the job of integrating no fewer than fifteen immigrant children — a virtually impossible task. Many grandchildren of immigrants start their first day of school without the slightest knowledge of the Norwegian language or Norwegian culture.”

Native Norwegians have learned to live cautiously. Gay couples dare not hold hands in public in parts of Oslo. Since the 2006 bombing of Norwegian embassies (due to a Norwegian publication of the Mohammed cartoons), Norwegians have not dared to “say anything critical or negative about Islam…such comments are reserved for safe, private conversations.”

In Storhaug’s view, “marriage is at the heart of the immigration policy challenge, because marriage is the main route to Norway.” It is the way to immigrate and to obtain Norwegian citizenship as well. About 75 percent of all those who immigrate to Norway come through “so-called reunification with persons in Norway.” And, about 75 percent of the first-generation (and second-generation!) Pakistani-Norwegian immigrants “married in Pakistan.” And, between 30-60 percent of these marriages are between cousins. The cost to the European and Norwegian state is considerable. She refers to a British study which indicated

“a high rate of deformities among newborn babies of Pakistanis. The Pakistani population accounts for 3.4 percent of the country’s births, but fully 30 percent of the birth defects among newborns occur in children of parents with Pakistani origins.”

Honor killings of Muslim girls and women are epidemic in Europe as is polygamy. Storhaug mentions a pattern in which Norwegian-Pakistani men immigrate with multiple wives whom they subsequently divorce under Norwegian law after which they marry new wives and bring them over from Pakistan. Again, Norway serves as the “financial base” for such human rights violations.

Storhaug describes the customarily heartless way in which Muslim Pakistani women are treated by their families. For example:

“Mina was…given a ‘choice’ among three cousins [but] was pressured to choose a particular one — the one who had the weakest position on the marriage market, because he hadn’t been to school and was darker than most people in a region where dark skin is equated with low status and ugliness. This young man, according to Ahmed, was the one who most desperately needed a visa to the West. In the end, therefore, he was the one who got Mina — a human being reduced to the status of a living visa.”

Storhaug analyzes the normalized paranoia that characterizes many Pakistani Muslim families. There is no privacy — privacy, which might lead to forbidden thoughts or acts, is viewed suspiciously. The slightest disobedience might lead to a beating or an honor killing.

Storhaug cites a similar problem in Denmark where “fewer than half of the non-Western immigrants…had jobs. Non-Western immigrants accounted for about five percent of Denmark’s population, but received just under 40 percent of its social budget.” Storhaug quotes Poul C. Matthiessen, Danish professor of demography:

“[H]istorically, this is the first time that Denmark has experienced a wave of immigration by people who are explicitly antagonistic to Danish values and norms…all earlier immigrant groups…right up to the mid 1970s, had adjusted quickly to Danish norms and values. This included Dutch farmers in the 1500s, French Huguenots in the 1600s, Swedish and Polish workers in the 1800s, Jewish refugees from Russia around the year 1900, and Chileans in the 1970s.”

According to Storhaug,

”government officials who are supposed to help immigrant women enter the work force have instead formed an ‘unholy alliance’ with those women’s husbands. The husbands want the women to stay home, keep house, and raise children; and the employment counselors don’t want to harass the women by trying to push them into jobs, since their chances of finding employment are poor anyway. So instead they arrange for the women to take hobby-like courses in subjects like food preparation and needlework. Far from bringing them closer to the work force, these courses ensure that they won’t neglect their domestic duties. The government, in short, has made a compromise; it keeps Muslim women busy within their husbands’ strict boundaries and ignores their need to develop into skilled workers — and active citizens.”

Storhaug, like myself and a handful of other feminists, are all haunted by the Western feminist silence about Islamic gender apartheid in the West. She explains that silence succinctly and accurately.

“The feminists are obsessed with their own ethnic Norwegian causes: longer maternity leave, shorter work days for the same pay — in short, everything that can give them a better life, materially and socially. At the same time, many of the classical feminists appear to be old socialists blinded by the multicultural dream — a dream, alas, that has led them to accept the oppression of women in sizable segments of the population.”

Some radical Islamists and their enablers are now blaming the Israeli Mossad for Breivik’s actions. Others are blaming the anti-jihadist websites and thinkers whom Breivik apparently read. Will they now blame those feminists who have exposed the penetration of Islamic gender and religious apartheid into the West, especially into Norway?

Allow me to repeat myself: I condemn the mass murder of innocent and unarmed civilians no matter what the cause.

But I hereby challenge the grieving Norwegian government and intelligentsia to do something effective about their own failed multi-cultural policies and not use the tragic event as yet another opportunity to silence legitimate discourse and dissent.

About the author,

Prof. Phyllis Chesler is the author of fifteen books, including Women and Madness (Doubleday, 1972), The Death of Feminism: What’s Next in the Struggle for Women’s Freedom (Palgrave Macmillan, 2005) and most recently, The New Anti-Semitism. She is the co-founder of the Association for Women in Psychology and the National Women’s Health Network.