The UN strengthens the Islamists’ agenda – and the Norwegian media is silent
None of the established media in Norway is specified at the UN General Assembly, which has agreed on an international day against such Islamophobia. In Denmark, the newspaper Berlingske launches a frontal attack on both the decision and the concept of Islamophobia.
We have previously mentioned that the UN General Assembly has decided that March 15 will be an “international day to combat Islamophobia”. The date has been chosen because it was on this day in 2019 that an armed Australian entered two mosques in New Zealand and opened fire on helpless Muslim worshipers. 51 were killed and 40 wounded. But we were also critical of the UN decision, and thus asked: Why is one mosque massacre so much worse for the UN than countless massacres in churches?
The case prompted a reader of rights.no to ask this question to our ordinary public information channel, the heavily state-funded NRK. But at NRK, at «NRK Hjelp», there was little help to be found. The answer can only be categorized as rude, frivolous and absurd. Since then, it has been silent from the same NRK, which can obviously do what they want without reacting.
Responding to the “news” from the UN, no other of the established media has done either. This is probably due to the fact that they have no objections to the UN’s international day to fight Islamophobia ‘.
Then things are different in Denmark.
Pseudo-scientific rubber concept
In yesterday’s editorial from Danish Berlingske, it is stated that the decision on such a day strengthens the Islamists’ agenda. The preamble leaves no doubt as to where Berlingske stands:
The UN General Assembly has adopted an annual mark of opposition to Islamophobia. But the term Islamophobia is a pseudo-scientific rubber term that serves solely to protect Islamist forces from criticism.
Which Norwegian media had dared to say something similar?
The editorial opens with a reference to the Pakistani woman Aneeqa Ateeq (26) who was sentenced to death in January after sending an alleged “blasphemous” text message and caricature of Muhammad to become known via WhatsApp. A court in Rawalpindi found Ateeq guilty, gave her 20 years in prison and ordered her “hung in the neck until she dies”. But that was not a theme at the UN. Berlingske says ironically:
This kind of disrespect for Islamic taboos will be condemned by the Islamic organization OIC as “Islamophobic” – as an expression of both morbid and racist discrimination against Muslims.
The reference to Pakistani Aneeqa Ateeq is not accidental, because it was precisely on the initiative of Pakistan that the UN decision on this international day came. Behind the dissolution is the Islamic organization OIC, which tells a number of dubious regimes such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other countries that regularly execute their own citizens for blasphemy.
Unfortunately, the UN seems to be the only one in a political agenda led by Islamist forces. In other words, the hypocrisy is deafening, says Berlingske.
Criticism of the concept
The newspaper attacks the very concept of Islamophobia, which is also “invented” by the OIC, and calls it “both a meaningless and manipulative concept, which seeks to sicken criticism of Islam as an expression of irrational anxiety or other mental disorders”. For there is none believe who are entitled to any special respect or who can shield themselves from even reduced utterances, that is people which has moral demands for respect for its fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, religious freedom and freedom of assembly, it is said.
Does this mean that there is no hatred and racism directed at Muslims? No. But respect for Muslims does not increase by enclosing believers in a sheltered crawl space where their taboos, ideas and values cannot be challenged.
There are several who have begun to criticize the concept of Islamophobia and that was up for debate in the UN General Assembly. The French UN Ambassador Nicolas de Rivière opposed the use of terms due to a lack of internationally accepted definition in international law. “Such a wording gives the impression that it is the faith itself that is protected and not the believers,” de Rivère explained to the UN General Assembly. He further claimed that the concept seems divisive in the work against religious intolerance, because one focuses on only one religion and excludes all others, without taking into account the freedom to believe or not to believe – or to change religions. But de Rivières apparently spoke to an unwise assembly, which is not without reason referred to by several as a supper council. In addition, in a UN system that Norway is pouring money into.
Indulgence
Berlingske believes that the world community runs a great risk when the UN General Assembly agrees to replace respect for the rights of the individual Muslim with “respect for an overall set of seemingly immovable religious values and taboos”. It may end up that the religious feelings and ideas of religious communities set limits to freedom of expression, says Berlingske in a diplomatic tone, knowing that only Islamic representatives, not least the OIC, operate like this. Men of course; others learn, they experience indulgence.
Here, the Muhammadan cartoon crisis was a useful experience. It showed us that reactionary forces within Islam do not hesitate to categorize “breaking religious taboos as racist for the sake of their own political gain,” Berlingske points out. But it also showed us that the world community is giving in and that threats and violence are working. For where did the Islamic critique go after the Muhammad cartoon crisis? It was completely gone. Anyone who criticizes Islam is made to persona non grata – not least in Norway, well helped by both politicians and the established media.
Meanwhile, countries such as Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Iran, Iraq, Palestine and a number of others continue to grossly violate human rights with accusations of blasphemy, not to mention how Christians, atheists and other non-Muslims are treated. Why should the world community accept this for a long time?
In a public statement, the Secretary-General of the OCI, Hussein Brahmin Taha, welcomed the decision of the UN General Assembly on an “international day to combat Islamophobia”. He stressed that this was an important step in the “necessary international fight against incitement to hatred, discrimination and religiously motivated acts of violence”. Maybe the OIC should help set Aneeqa Ateeq free in its fight against hatred, discrimination and religiously motivated acts of violence?