Terrorism » christianehoej.dk

Gotfredsens formørkelse

Aug 032011

Sorry, this post is in Danish only

Anders Brevik følte sin eksistens truet af den kulturløse multikulturalisme, skriver Sørine Gotfredsen i Berlingskes kronik d. 29.7. Derfor greb han til ”konkrete midler” for at ”udrydde ideologien om mennesket som et abstrakt væsen, der ikke er afgørende forbundet med kulturelle og religiøse rødder.”

Forkert, Gotfredsen. Brevik myrdede 77 konkrete mennesker. Nogle af dem børn ned til 14-15 år. Alle sammen mennesker med navne, med et liv. Men Brevik myrdede dem ikke fordi han kendte dem. For ham var de bare symboler på det han var imod. Brevik myrdede for et princip, for en ideologi.

Det er ikke tilhængerne af multikulturalismen, hvad det så end er, der reducerer mennesket til en abstraktion. Det er dig, og de helte du opremser i din kronik. For jer er mennesket ikke først og fremmest et individ, med tanker, evner og vilje, men alene et produkt af sin kultur. Og kulturen er for jer noget konstant og uforandeligt: siden år 1100 har der gået et jerntæppe mellem den gode kultur og den dårlige. Som en karikatur af Grundtvig vrænger i: først kristen, siden menneske.

Både som individer og som samfund har vi en kulturarv. Men det er ikke en støbeform, som alting skal presses ind i, eller en målestok som præster og imamer skal bruge til at dømme individer inde eller ude. De kulturelle rødder er en resurse vi kan gøre brug af i vores liv, og kulturen sættes i spil og forandres i mødet med erfaringen.

Den kristen-nationale monokultur, som du og ligesindede forsøger at stampe op af jorden, er derimod en abstrakt konstruktion. Den er ubrugelig og umuligt at orientere sig efter, i en verden som bliver stadig mere dynamisk, kompleks og global. De der forsøger, ender med at opbygge megalomane fjendebilleder. På den led er der en stærk parallel mellem jer og de islamiske fundamentalister.

Det er netop sådanne fjendebilleder, hvor verden opdeles i et absolut godt og et absolut ondt, mens mennesker reduceres til abstrakte bærere af det ene eller det andet, der legitimerer terrorismen. Selv skriver du ikke et eneste medfølende ord om ofrene, men konstaterer at Anders Breviks rationale står ”lysende tilbage”. Nej det gør ikke – det er lige så forkert og formørket som Sørine Gotfredsens.

(Oprindeligt bragt som debatindlæg i Berlingske Tidende d. 2.8. 2011)

Thoughts about Utøya

Politics 1 Response »

Jul 232011

Following the terrible shootings at Utøya and the bomb in Oslo, our thoughts must be with the friends and relatives of the dead and wounded and with the survivors, who presumably will forever be marked by what happened. However, also the Norwegian society will be marked by this tragedy for a long time to come, as will Denmark and other open societies.

Barely had the dust settled after the bomb in Oslo before the so-called terrorism expert Magnus Ranstorp of the Swedish Defence College said that it “probably” was Al-Qaeda who was responsible. At that time, all we knew was basically that a bomb had been detonated. But that was enough for the expert: a big bomb went off; ergo Islamists must have done it.

At the time of writing we know with certainty that it was a Norwegian with a strong right-wing and nationalist conviction, who carried out the massacre at Utøya. The Norwegian police also suspect him of being behind the bombing in Oslo. The man has taken part in various nationalist and xenophobic forums on the net. Evidence suggests that he is a lone, politically motivated madman, but it may not yet be ruled out that there was a coordinated action with several accomplices.

When “experts” and media (with Norwegian NRK as a positive exception) threw themselves into speculations on Islamic terror before anybody knew what really had happened, it says something about the present level of public debate. In fact, the terror carried out in Europe has many sources and motives. According to Europol less than one percent of terrorist episodes in the EU can be described as Islamist. It is true, that among the most spectacular and deadly attacks, we find the Islamist bombings in Madrid in 2004 and in London in 2005. But all in all, non-Islamist terrorists have probably claimed more European lives than Islamists.

Part of what characterizes terrorists, regardless of ideological leanings, is according to research, a sense of being the chosen one: one who has realized the injustice others has not yet seen, and who – not the least – are willing to take the consequences of this insight. Judging from the little we know, this was apparently true of the offender in Norway too. On the Internet, he has stated that Norway was under siege by multiculturalism and cultural Marxism, and that a politician like former prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland was “a murderer of the nation”. According to the press rumour he started shooting at Utøya by declaring that “now began the purge”.

Looking closer at the statements which the offender has made, one will unfortunately recognize a great part from the Danish public debate. Not only from obscure web-sites of the extreme right, but also from mainstream media and even from the debate in Parliament. It should be a wakeup call for those politicians and others who have led the way in creating an “us-against-them” atmosphere in the debate. Of course there must be room for a free and open debate, including topics such as integration and immigration. But if you are touting an entire ethnic group as the nation’s enemies and political opponents as traitors, then you must realise that you are contributing to create a climate debate, confirming more extreme types in their twisted ideas.

Danish media and politicians should also consider whether their current view of radicalism and extremism may have been rightly focused. In 2009 the government launched an action plan to combat radicalization. It was quite broad in its analysis, and suggested a number of positive initiatives. But characteristically, the realisation was placed under the auspices of the Ministry of Integration and in the public debate it was clearly seen as an initiative directed specifically against Islamist radicalism and young people with immigrant backgrounds. Since yesterday, there is reason to put much more focus on fighting right wing and nationalist extremism, also in Denmark.

The tragedy in Norway has shown us that even in Scandinavia, we can breed terrorism from our own midst. Paradoxically, however, with his choice of target the perpetrator has also pointed us to the absolute contrast to terrorism and the best weapon against it: young people, engaged in an open and free debate about politics and their country’s development. The more open and inclusive the political system, the more enlightened and tolerant the public debate, the less breeding ground for terrorism. The best way to commemorate the victims in Norway will be to work for this.

Odd photographers beware!

Photography, Politics 1 Response »

Aug 012008

Are you a photographer? Are you a bit odd? If so, you might consider staying away from London, UK, for the time being. As seen on the poster, local authorities have launched a campaign to make citizens report any “odd photographers”. Such persons might be terrorists on a surveillance mission…

Fotopia.no tells the story (in Norwegian). They also show a recent example of what the British authorities consider to be an odd photographer.

Straffet uden dom

Politics No Responses »

Feb 132008

Tre mænd i Århus har – måske – planlagt at myrde en bladtegner. Heldigvis blev mordet – måske – forhindret af politiets indgriben. Når der står måske i de to foregående sætninger, så er det fordi vi indtil videre kun har Politiets Efterretningstjenestes ord for, at det forholder sig sådan.

Normalt ville folk, der er mistænkt for at planlægge et mord, blivet sigtet og stillet for en domstol, som så ville tage stilling til sagens beviser. Det vil imidlertid ikke komme til at ske i den foreliggende sag. Til TV-avisen i aften forklarede en repræsentant for PET, at man ikke ønskede sagen for en domstol, fordi man så måske kunne komme til at røbe noget om tjenestens arbejdsmetoder.

Det betyder imidlertid ikke, at de tre anholdte så bliver sat på fri fod. De to af dem er nemlig ikke danske statsborgere. De bliver nu administrativt udvist af Danmark, hvor de har boet 7-8 år og har familie. En ganske hård straf.

Måske har PET ret og de tre mistænkte er skyldige. Måske har PET blot fundet en fjer, som man af politiske årsager har blæst op til tre høns. Det er sådan set ikke afgørende. Det afgørende er, at det slet ikke burde være PET (med justitministeren som gummistempel) som uden bevisførelse kan dømme folk til udvisning. Det burde være en sag for domstolene. Hvis PET har et problem mht. at afsløre deres arbejdsmetoder, så kan man jo føre retssagen for lukkede døre.

Religiøs fanatisme er ikke min kop the. Og naturligvis skal politiet slå til mod mulige kriminelle. Men i et retssamfund skelner man altså skarpt mellem den dømmende og den udøvende magt. Man går også ud fra at folk er uskyldige indtil det modsatte er bevist. Og man dømmer ikke uden beviser.

I den såkaldte kamp mod terror er vi ved at sætte grundlæggende retsprincipper over styr. Dansk Folkeparti har allerede krævet nye, strammere anti-terrorlove. Men jo mere vi sælger ud af det vi burde forsvare, jo mere går vi i virkeligheden fundamentalismens ærinde.