Home 
Pengumuman Learning Lessons from Norway
Pengumuman Learning Lessons from Norway
Learning Lessons from Norway
Lisa Goldstein
July 26, 2011
The recent attacks in Norway by right-wing racist Anders Breivik are terrifying.
The recent attacks in Norway by right-wing racist Anders Breivik are terrifying. We respond to the brutality of this man quite viscerally, horrified that someone could trick young students into trusting him, and then shoot them at close range. His easy viciousness seems almost impossible to comprehend. My thoughts are with all of the loved ones who lost a family member or friend on Friday. I hope that my analysis does not imply that I minimize or discount the profound tragedy that occurred on July 22nd.
However, I think it would be doing a grave disservice to the struggle for racial justice if we failed to fully contextualize these attacks. And I’m not just talking about situating Breivik’s actions within the rise of the far right in Europe and the United States in the past few years. Yes, we can talk about the EDL, and whether Breivik had any personal connections to it; we can lament the increasing prominence of vitriolic and hateful politicians like Geert Wilders; we can say to ourselves: "with politicians like that in the world, this crazy is only taking it the next step further!"
But limiting ourselves to those conversations would be a mistake. It’s just too simple – too easy – to brush Breivik off as a right-wing nut job, as someone who’s fervently held beliefs are completely unintelligible to us. Framing his extremist views solely in that context is also dangerous, since it allows the rest of us (especially white and mainstream Americans, Canadians, Brits, and Europeans) to pat ourselves on the backs – because after all, "thatsort of overt racism and disregard for human life is just disgusting!"
Perhaps, in endeavouring to understand what’s happened, we’ve started by posing the wrong question. The easy query to ask may be "What could possibly drive this man to commit this kind of sadistic act of violence?" But this forecloses us from interrogating something more fundamental. Indeed, I wonder: is the kind of violence that Breivik engaged in even an aberration from the day-to-day? Maybe his violence is completely normal, and we’re just being exposed to it in a manner that touches us more deeply.
As we near the tenth anniversary of 9/11 and the "War on Terror", the violence our governments have perpetrated against Muslim populations – and the violence they have condoned – has reached incalculable proportions. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq are just the beginning. Let’s not forget the torture that American soldiers committed at Bagram, Abu Gharib and Guantanamo. Let’s not forget British complicity in rendition. Let’s not forget the thousands of completely innocent civilians killed by American drone strikes in Pakistan. Is it just me who has started skipping over the newspaper articles on suicide bombers and drone attacks? Not even the images startle me anymore. But that suffering is real, and just as senseless. Is it possible, then, that the crying, blood-stained faces we see in Norway simply force us to encounter the depravity of racial violence more directly?
Here’s the thing about physical violence committed by a state – it cannot occur on its own. It requires some kind of lubricant, a means through which the government can justify its use. Since 9/11, the United States, Britain, Germany, France and other Western nations have been able to pursue the War on Terror by recasting Muslims (both domestically and internationally) as the Other – as less than.
Muslims have been designated lesser citizens. In the past year, both Merkel and Cameron have openly declared the failure of multiculturalism. It is completely acceptable for them to say that Muslims have been reticent to integrate and embrace "our" national values. Muslim citizens no longer enjoy the same basic rights as the rest of us. Whether it is control orders in the United Kingdom, or entrapment by agent provocateurs in the United States, or any other of a host of infringements on civil liberties, Muslim citizens suspected of terrorism in the US and the UK have not been able to rely on their right to due process and a fair trial. Nor is it just individuals whose names have been tarred by unsubstantiated links to terrorism or extremism. Even being "too" visibly Muslim is a crime now. In November 2009, the Swiss voted by referendum to ban the construction of new minarets. Since this past April, anyone wearing the niqab or the burqa in public in France faces a fine of 150 euros or obligatory French citizenship classes. Ironically enough, just this past Saturday, Belgiumbecame the second European country to make it illegal to wear a full face veil in public. In a very literal sense, in the eyes of the law it is now incompatible to be both a European citizen and "too" Muslim.
In the eyes of many mainstream white folk in Europe and North America, Muslims have also become lesser humans. Which is why Dick Cheney – when defending the Bush administration’s decision to classify individuals captured in the War on Terror as enemy combatants – could comment: "they don’t deserve to be treated as prisoner of war, they don’t deserve the same safeguards as a normal American citizens going through the judicial process". According to Bush, Guantanamo detainees didn’t even "deserve" GenevaConvention protections against torture. What does it mean to be denied even the most fundamental human rights? Consider the words of SOAS professor and human rights scholar Costas Douzinas: "Human rights do not belong to humans and do not follow the dictates of humanity; they construct humans. A human being is someone who can successfully claim human rights".
Anders Breivik hoped his actions would instigate a Christian revolution in Norway to defend Europe from the looming dual threats of multiculturalism and Muslim domination. The victims on screen were (mostly) white Norwegian citizens. In our eyes, they were fullyhuman – not individuals with dubious allegiances to the state, or potential terror suspects. Their suffering happened in a context we understood. It wasn’t in a war-zone, or at Guantanamo, or in a dry, sandy desert where, you know, even American soldiers might go a bit crazy.
But even if touched us more deeply, Breivik’s violence isn’t an aberration. Of course, that doesn’t make it any less terrifying. However, if we want to begin to comprehend how someone could murder so callously, I think we need to consider what sort of value we place on life, especially Muslim life. It’s about the policies we sit around the dinner table discussing; it’s about the laws we vote for in our referendums; it’s about the wars that we support; it’s most certainly about the way we view visibly Muslim people in our community, on the bus, and at the airport. Breivik admitted to committing these heinous acts – but plans to plead not guilty, by insisting that they were "gruesome but necessary". What kinds of physical and symbolic violence against Muslims (including our own citizens) have we condoned on the basis that it was "necessary" for "freedom" and national security? If Breivik’s actions have given me clarity on anything, it is this: that dehumanizing one group of people in society ultimately makes all of our lives seem less valuable. Hatred begets hatred. By condoning the dehumanization of Muslims, we have put our own safety on the line.
To sum up: with regards to Islamaphobia and racial violence, none of us are innocent bystanders; I’m not Breivik, but I am a tax-paying American. Maybe realizing that my own safety and security is intertwined with the struggle for racial justice is what I need to strengthen my commitment to the cause.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|