A Religious Strike in Norway

Last week-end, almost a thousand taxi drivers went on what could be called a religious strike in the Norwegian capital Oslo and neighboring municipality Bærum. Muslim taxi drivers parked their cars both on Friday evening and Monday morning as a protest against Wednesday's front page of the Norwegian tabloid paper Dagbladet. That day, the tabloid ran an article about some of the “dangerous” pages the website of the Norwegian security service PST links to, and illustrated that with a screen shot of a cartoon showing the prophet Muhammad as a pig trampling the Qur'an.

Let's not be naive: the tabloid Dagbladet knew very well that it would create a new controversy when it put the cartoon on its front page. By its very nature, this type of newspaper depends on shocking front pages. Just like its biggest competitor in the market, VG, you can't get Dagbladet delivered to your door every morning, but have to go out and buy it at a shop. Therefore, its front page usually carries a big fat title involving celebrities, sex and violence – if possible, all three of them together – but occasionally, politics or religion will do as well. Apparently, on 3 February, Dagbladet's best shot at getting as many copies as possible sold that day was to put the cartoon, which already caused a stir in the nineties of the previous century, on is front page.

Whether or not the 3 February edition of Dagbladet sold particularly well remains unclear, but it sure got plenty of attention. Attention is seldom a negative thing for a tabloid, but it may well be that Dagbladet got just a little bit more attention than it really wanted. On Friday evening, Muslim taxi drivers parked their cars in protest, and repeated their action once more on Monday morning. Some of the interviewed taxi drivers said they were Norwegian citizens, and therefore deserved respect. They also wanted to show how much power they have in today's society, and that Norway – in particular its capital Oslo – heavily depends on them. This is certainly true when it comes to low status service jobs like e.g. taxi driving and cleaning, where Muslim immigrants are heavily overrepresented. And they illustrated their point very effectively both on Friday and on Monday: both times their actions resulted in long queues near railway stations and other popular taxi stops. If they had involved all Muslim bus, train, subway and tramway drivers too, the Norwegian capital probably would probably have come to a complete standstill.

A question that could be asked is, whether this really was such a smart move by the taxi drivers. Certainly, when asked for their opinion, people in the long taxi queues expressed their sympathy for the taxi drivers, though certainly not all of them. I'm not sure what I would have said to an interviewer with a thousand angry taxi drivers in the background, if I was still planning to take a taxi later on. But during the last years, immigrant taxi drivers in Oslo have been hit by a series of scandals involving drivers running multiple licenses at the same time while still cashing in on welfare benefits. While they work multiple shifts in their taxis, huge luxurious houses – some qualify them as “castles” – were built in their home countries, usually Pakistan. Once they've managed to gather enough money, they leave the country before the Norwegian tax authorities find out what's going on. Needless to say, Norway has missed out on several millions of dollars of tax money money due to this sort of schemes. Remarkably, none of these scandals has ever resulted in a strike or protest whatsoever by immigrant taxi drivers.

Recently, another issue has been added to the controversies surrounding immigrant taxi drivers in Norway. As in many other Western European countries, there has been a lot of discussion in Norwegians press lately about niqabs and burqa appearing in the streets, and in general the control immigrant women from Muslim countries are subject too. As some of the participants in the still ongoing debate pointing out, this “moral policing” is often performed by Muslim taxi drivers, as many of them work during the evenings and nights and effectively can hold an overview over who's doing what where together with whom in their neighborhoods – and in effect the rest of Oslo too. I probably don't have to spell out to the reader exactly what the goal of this “moral policing” is, but it probably suffices to say that the picture drawn of taxi drivers in this controversy again wasn't a very pretty one. At least not as perceived by the vast majority of Norwegians, but this could of course be different in the eyes of the Muslim taxi drivers themselves. Anyway, not so many protests where heard, nor were there reports of strikes against the lack of respect.

I therefore doubt whether the Muslim taxi drivers, and by extension all immigrant taxi drivers, gained so much extra credit by their actions on Friday and Monday. In fact, as Per-Willy Amundsen, MP for the Progress Party (Fremskritsspartiet , Frp), the largest opposition party in the Norwegian parliament, pointed out, the strike was not only unacceptable, but also unconstitutional. Interviewed by commercial broadcaster TV2, he said that Dagbladet had the right to print the cartoon, and that the taxi driver's actions were in effect strikes against the freedom of press and opinion, which are guaranteed by the Norwegian constitution. He remarked that if these strikes should continue, they could have many consequences, e.g. with regards to the taxi licenses. It should be noted that the Progress Party shares power with the Conservative Party (Høyre), the other big opposition party in the Norwegian Parliament, in the municipal council of Oslo.

The religious strike by the taxi drivers wasn't the only protest against Dagbladet's printing of the cartoon. On Wednesday evening, what appears to be Turkish hackers brought down the website of the newspaper in a so-called DDoS attack. Eugene Brandal Laran from Dagbladet reported from his Twitter account that not only Dagbladet, but also its competitor VG, were hit by the attack.

Arfan Qadeer Bhatti, the first person in Norway that was brought to court on the suspicion of terrorism, called for a demonstration in the streets of Oslo for tomorrow, Friday 12 February. According to the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten, he had expressed hopes on his Facebook account that the demonstration could remain peaceful. Another person who expressed hopes that the printing of the cartoon would not result into any violence was imam Malana-hafiz Mehboob-ur-Rehman, even tough he feared the worse after an, according to him, “disappointing” meeting with Dagbladet's chief editor Lars Helle about the matter. During that meeting, the chief editor of the newspaper had refused to offer his apologies to the imam.

In these matters, I always find it difficult to know exactly what these men are hoping for and what they are fearing, and whether or not they're trying to sow thoughts in the heads of potential demonstrators. Last year, Oslo saw its most violent demonstration in twenty years when demonstrators smashed windows and damaged other properties in the center of the city as a reaction to Israel's Operation Cast Lead on the Gaza strip. New violence in the streets of the Norwegian capital can therefore not be ruled out. However, we have to assume that the two are honorable man, and that they're sincere in their feelings.

The cartoon that Dagbladet used on its front page resulted in mass demonstrations, the burning of flags, and probably a suicide attack back in 1997, when a Russian immigrant in Israel, the then 28 year old Tatiana Soskin, had put it up all over Hebron. She had to appear in court, and was later sentenced to two years in prison. Lars Helle seemed not to be aware of the fact that it was the very same cartoon that he had put on his front page that caused the mass demonstrations in Hebron in 1997.

Read more…

Pakistan's Ambassador: «Mohammed Cartoon is Terrorism»

Pakistan's ambassador to Norway Rab Nawaz Khan has formally submitted a complaint with the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs after the publication of a Mohammed cartoon in the newspaper Adresseavisen earlier this week. «Terrorism is carrying out an act that draws strong reactions. Muslims across the world are insulted by this cartoon, and therefore it is an act of terrorism,» the ambassador said in an interview with the Norwegian commercial television station TV2.

It seems like some Muslims just don't want to understand that an insulting cartoon can't be more than just that: an insulting cartoon. Saying that a cartoon in a Norwegian newspaper is the same thing as blowing up the Danish embassy in the capital of Pakistan only shows the distorted world view some of them have.

In the interview with TV2 Pakistan's ambassador says he is «concerned», since the publication of a cartoon in Adresseavisen may put the lives of Norwegian citizens all over the world in danger. Furthermore, he points out that a number of Norwegian companies have offices and commercial interests in Pakistan. At the same time he rejects the explanation by the editors of Adresseavisen that the cartoon doesn't show Mohammed but someone who poses as Mohammed. According to Arne Blix, chief editor of the newspaper, the cartoonist wanted to demonstrate that someone who commits terror in religious clothes in the name of religion is totally unbelievable, but it seems Pakistan's ambassador isn't able to grasp that statement at all.

Erna Solberg, leader of the opposition's Conservative Party (Høyre), said in a reaction that the ambassador is completely overreacting. According to her diplomats in Norway should study the Norwegian situation and the Norwegian freedom of expression more carefully, and the Norwegian government should not apologize for the publication of the cartoon. Instead the government should try to explain that there is freedom of the press in Norway, and that it is not a terrorist act to use it. The ambassador may of course dislike the cartoon, but he's wrong to say it's terrorism.

Read more…

«All Women Should Wear A Veil»

According to Mostafa Chendid of the Danish Islamic Society (Islamisk Trossamfund), not only Muslim women but other women too should wear a veil. Why? Because five up to ten percent of all men can't control themselves when they see a woman without a veil.

Mostafa Chendid is considered to be the successor of Ahmad Abu Laban, one of the imams who was involved in the affair around the notorious Danish cartoons. Ahmad Abu Laban was one of the leaders of the delegation that traveled around the Middle East and that had added three drawings to the original cartoons in its report to «give a clearer picture of the climate against Muslims in Denmark». Mostafa Chendid is doing well to become just as famous as his predecessor, and the interview that he recently gave to the Danish weekly newspaper Weekendavisen certainly isn't going to reduce the controversy around his person.

Earlier he had already succeeded to draw attention to himself by saying to Jyllands-Posten (that's right: the newspaper with the cartoons) that not only Muslim women, but all other women too, should wear a veil, on... International Women's Day. Of course, this resulted in a lot of reactions, and as a matter of fact his remarks in Jyllands-Posten were the direct reason for the interview with Weekendavisen, where he repeated them once more and commented on them. He said for example that wearing the veil is a woman's duty to God, because that's what's written in the Koran. However, that doesn't mean that he thinks that a woman with a veil is a better person than a woman without a veil.

According to him the veil also serves as a signal: women with a veil are «not for sale». Moreover, the veil protects against rapes, he says: in the US for example, every half minute a woman is raped, and according to him that's because women continuously tempt men by going onto the streets without a veil. Maybe not all men have a problem to control themselves when they see a woman without a veil, and perhaps there's only a problem with five to ten per cent of the men, but he says that's nevertheless enough for all women to wear the veil.

When asked whether men shouldn't cover themselves too, so they don't seduce women either, the imam basically evaded the question. But maybe the journalist should have gone even further and asked if it wouldn't be much simpler if the men would stay inside and weren't allowed to go out unless accompanied by their wife or a female family member. After all, it's the men that are the problem, not the women, and to me it seems rather bizarre that women should walk around with a veil because men can't control themselves. No doubt, it there wouldn't have been a prophet but a prophetess, Mostafa Chendid never would have set a step outside his door! Maybe it would have been better for Islam's image too if he wouldn't do that anyway.

Read more…

Notker Wolf on European Islamization

Notker Wolf, the Abbot Primate of the Benedictine Order, in an interview with the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag about the islamization of Germany and Europe:

Welt am Sonntag: What do you think about the influence of Islam on the western world?
Notker Wolf: There are certainly some groups that have set out the islamization of Europe as their goal. I think that's in itself a serious thing. In Germany the Turkish association Ditib recently demanded that the «Word on Friday» be broadcast on public television. I only ask myself: How can it be that these people demand all rights in Germany for them self, while at the same time Christians are gravely discriminated in Turkey? Why aren't we, Christians, allowed a theological faculty in Turkey? Why aren't we allowed to have any church property there? Meanwhile, the mayor of Munich even breaks building regulations to approve a mosque, just to win the votes of the Turks. That is unbelievable! Tolerance is good, but it doesn't mean we should surrender.

It goes without saying that the mayor of Munich, Christian Ude belongs to the social-democratic SPD, but I mention it anyway.

Read more…

Muslim Policewoman Refused to Shake Hands

Just three months after Alexander Basha's request to be transferred to another section of the police so he wouldn't have to guard Israel's embassy in London, a new police row is in the making in Great Britain: a Muslim policewoman refused to shake hands with Sir Ian Blair, head of the Metropolitan Police Service, because it was against her religious beliefs. Apparently Sir Ian Blair wasn't very amused.

The case is very clear for the policewoman though: she is a woman, and Sir Ian Blair is neither close family nor her husband, and therefore she refuses to touch him. In order not to spoil the ceremony for the others, the policewoman was granted her request, though Sir Ian Blair questioned whether it could be valid at all. The other question that pops up is how she'll be able to carry out her duties if she doesn't allow herself to have any physical contact with men.

A spokeswoman for the police has already said that the woman, described as a «non-Asian Muslim» and wearing a hijab-uniform on the ceremony, will have to do her job properly if she wants to stay with the force. Furthermore, the Metropolitan Police Service has started an inquiry into what really happened and what the consequences will be. It's clear though that this sets yet another precedent, but perhaps next time they'll be better prepared when they're suddenly confronted once again with multicultural society during a ceremony.

In the meantime several Muslim leaders have already taken up the defense of the policewoman. Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission is one of them. He confirms that women should try to avoid all physical contact with men, whenever possible. However, in the context of their job, this should not lead to any problems. According to him the problem is rather one of cultural and religious ignorance and misunderstanding.
In fact, the woman confirmed that she'll put her duty as a policewoman before her religion, but it remains to be seen what will happen the day she'll have to arrest a man. Massoud Shadjareh added to his comments that shaking hands doesn't make or break a relationship, but if this is true, he should have explained too exactly what would be the problem if the woman had shaken hands with Sir Ian Blair. But I guess that just proves my cultural and religious ignorance.

Read more…