Siden den hjemlige debatten de siste 3 ukene har fokusert på hvorvidt ordensmaktene skal ha få ha hva de vil på hodet har jeg bare veldig kort lyst på å ytre min meining om saken, siden de aller fleste ser ut til å ha gjort det. Altså: Om det er korrekt at noen gikk bak justisministerens rykk, da kan Astri Aas-Hansen bare pakke sammen. Staten er nøytral og egalitær. Politiet skal vite og tro. Dog, eksperimentet med å la 20 politibetjenter iført en variasjon av hijab, kefije og Fez beskytte den israelske ambassaden ved neste anledning. Satser på at Mossad i et slikt tilfelle stiller med egne mannskaper. Meg om det. La mennesker tro det de vil, men ovenfor loven er alle like.
However, let’s turn to the Progressive Party and Siv Jensen. The last days vendetta against the so-called hidden turning of Norway to Islam have, as usual, made several commentators to compare her statements as those sated in Germany in the late 1930s. The supporters of Jensen claims -in some way too popular debate forums with rather brown political colours- that it is the Government that are trapped in the history if they believe in “peace in our time” if they accepts demands of a minority. It’s quite fascinating the one-sided adaption of the WW2 scenario in such debates. I would rather compare this Progressive warning concerning the degree of Nordicness of Norway to some of the speeches of rev. Dr. Ian Paisley, as that’s a conflict a bit more realistic than that of Central Europe (even though the lust for Crusade seems to arise in some right-wing groupings).
However, let’s turn to the Progressive Party and Siv Jensen. The last days vendetta against the so-called hidden turning of Norway to Islam have, as usual, made several commentators to compare her statements as those sated in Germany in the late 1930s. The supporters of Jensen claims -in some way too popular debate forums with rather brown political colours- that it is the Government that are trapped in the history if they believe in “peace in our time” if they accepts demands of a minority. It’s quite fascinating the one-sided adaption of the WW2 scenario in such debates. I would rather compare this Progressive warning concerning the degree of Nordicness of Norway to some of the speeches of rev. Dr. Ian Paisley, as that’s a conflict a bit more realistic than that of Central Europe (even though the lust for Crusade seems to arise in some right-wing groupings).
The similarities between rev. Paisley and Jensen is that both have an defensive stand in their cultural views. Irish Tricolour or halaal diets in prisons you may say versus the symbols and identity of the majority. (Speaking in (Norther) Irish terms demands we should be delighted that the prisoners actually are eating at all).
In the same way Paisley campaigned against what he saw as “Rome Rule” in 1988 and his outburst against the Pope as Ant-Christ, the Progressives leader use the fear of Sharia Rule in some parts of Oslo, as a reference to Rosengård Ward, popular known as Hell’s Forecourt, in Malmö. Their answers to prevent this fall of their heritage, is use the national normative argument: A Norway with Norwegian law and Norwegian form of government, which nobody up here probably would argue against since law and government is the definition of a country. Much in the same way as rev. Paisley dictated that the peace process in the North in reality was a surrender process. In both statements it is indicated that any way of adjusting the society is a way of surrender. When it comes to this “No Surrender” mood, the symbolism is overwhelming in rev Paisley’s favour, as Norway of today is way to homogenius, and the minority way to divided to become a real threat to the national heritage.
However, as Jensen states the Progressives won’t permit any special demands from any individual grouping. At the same time the Progressive still demands the down closing of the Sami Parliament. And then, then things is starting to turn nasty as a native people are refused right already granted. That’s something that could have come from Paisley. So, if the Progressive manage to close down the Sami Parliament, as it is special treatment of a single group, it would be interesting to observe what will happen with the land in Finmark owned by the Sami Nation, if it is supposed to go back to a government who want to get rid of dead finances and unprofitable property. Privatization of that part of Sapmi within Norwegian borders? Just a thought. But, the Progressive fight against Islam are then only escalating fear and xenophobia. When “different” slowly turns to “dangerous” and attached to immigrants what would that tell about the majority that either can’t fight such ideas back, or promotes them? Following recent statistics 10 % of the population is immigrants in one or another way, but, the overwhelming single-sided focus on the Islamic (Middle East) part of the group overshadows the fact that nearly half of the group have their roots in Europe, Oceania, Latin America, North-, Central America and Africa. Secondly, half of the population who’s not a member of the Church of Norway have another Christian faith (properly Catholicism due to growing imigration from the new EU zone and Latin America), and the actual number of Islamic believers is decreasing. Can’t be much wrong in presuming that immigrants isn’t a members of CoN.
So, follow Siv Jensen’s analyze where any demands from a single grouping is not acceptable, what if the rising Catholic population starts campaigning against, for example, contraception, abortion and divorce, or catholic health personal demands to practice such issues? What demands of implementation of Catholic Social Thought? Masses in the prisons? Catholic priests in the army? Thing that’s vaguely differ from our tradition, but still isn’t “a Norwegian value” following the current era? The Progressives holds the Christian (Lutheran) values as fundamental, and in such moral issues the differences isn’t that large. So, would such issues which correlate with party values (to some degree) be seen as an attack on Norwegian Values and Laws? I would love to hear Jensen’s arguments against such. By the way, I started this with comparing Jensen and rev. Paisley. Just some minutes ago I stumbled over this quote, which mainly shows how fundamentality cold hearted, narrow-minded and religious limited rev. Paisley was back in the 1980s:
In the same way Paisley campaigned against what he saw as “Rome Rule” in 1988 and his outburst against the Pope as Ant-Christ, the Progressives leader use the fear of Sharia Rule in some parts of Oslo, as a reference to Rosengård Ward, popular known as Hell’s Forecourt, in Malmö. Their answers to prevent this fall of their heritage, is use the national normative argument: A Norway with Norwegian law and Norwegian form of government, which nobody up here probably would argue against since law and government is the definition of a country. Much in the same way as rev. Paisley dictated that the peace process in the North in reality was a surrender process. In both statements it is indicated that any way of adjusting the society is a way of surrender. When it comes to this “No Surrender” mood, the symbolism is overwhelming in rev Paisley’s favour, as Norway of today is way to homogenius, and the minority way to divided to become a real threat to the national heritage.
However, as Jensen states the Progressives won’t permit any special demands from any individual grouping. At the same time the Progressive still demands the down closing of the Sami Parliament. And then, then things is starting to turn nasty as a native people are refused right already granted. That’s something that could have come from Paisley. So, if the Progressive manage to close down the Sami Parliament, as it is special treatment of a single group, it would be interesting to observe what will happen with the land in Finmark owned by the Sami Nation, if it is supposed to go back to a government who want to get rid of dead finances and unprofitable property. Privatization of that part of Sapmi within Norwegian borders? Just a thought. But, the Progressive fight against Islam are then only escalating fear and xenophobia. When “different” slowly turns to “dangerous” and attached to immigrants what would that tell about the majority that either can’t fight such ideas back, or promotes them? Following recent statistics 10 % of the population is immigrants in one or another way, but, the overwhelming single-sided focus on the Islamic (Middle East) part of the group overshadows the fact that nearly half of the group have their roots in Europe, Oceania, Latin America, North-, Central America and Africa. Secondly, half of the population who’s not a member of the Church of Norway have another Christian faith (properly Catholicism due to growing imigration from the new EU zone and Latin America), and the actual number of Islamic believers is decreasing. Can’t be much wrong in presuming that immigrants isn’t a members of CoN.
So, follow Siv Jensen’s analyze where any demands from a single grouping is not acceptable, what if the rising Catholic population starts campaigning against, for example, contraception, abortion and divorce, or catholic health personal demands to practice such issues? What demands of implementation of Catholic Social Thought? Masses in the prisons? Catholic priests in the army? Thing that’s vaguely differ from our tradition, but still isn’t “a Norwegian value” following the current era? The Progressives holds the Christian (Lutheran) values as fundamental, and in such moral issues the differences isn’t that large. So, would such issues which correlate with party values (to some degree) be seen as an attack on Norwegian Values and Laws? I would love to hear Jensen’s arguments against such. By the way, I started this with comparing Jensen and rev. Paisley. Just some minutes ago I stumbled over this quote, which mainly shows how fundamentality cold hearted, narrow-minded and religious limited rev. Paisley was back in the 1980s:
Catholic homes caught fire because they were loaded with petrol bombs; Catholic churches were attacked and burned because they were arsenals and priests handed out sub-machine guns to parishioners.
Somebody remembering Jensen's passionate speech in Oslo in favour the Israeli Army Campaign in Gaza? That it was only Hamas people killed in action and Hamas safe places and houses bombed? Brother and Sister.
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar