Bruce Bawer's book While Europe Slept is an important and so far one of the best contributions to the highly unsatisfying debate in Europe on what some might euphemistically call the “Non-Western Immigrant Problem.”
But it leaves a lot of questions unanswered, and for lack of some facts, I’m struggling to fully endorse one view or another.
In his book, Bruce describes the deeply dysfunctional and ultimately destructive interplay between two misguided groups: extremist, ethnocentric immigrants who disdain the host societies they benefit from in several ways; and the elitist, cynically naïve politicians, academics, and journalists who set the tone in the very same host countries.
The latter I recognize, know both viscerally and intellectually. They dominate the editorial offices of the Norwegian press, polemicize endlessly over coffee cups in run-down cafeterias across the country, and proclaim themselves “experts” in this subject matter or that, thereby inspiring appeals to authority. They are dangerous fools.
As far as I can tell, much less is known about the former. While it easy to see that some Moslems are prone to very bad behavior, it isn’t clear what the extent of the radicalism is, or – and this is the uncomfortable question – whether it is an inevitable byproduct of Islam itself.
Freedom of conscience is one of the things that define liberal democracies. A society that forces its citizens to hold certain religious beliefs, or none at all, is not free by any measure.
Yet this freedom has its underlying tensions.
First and foremost, it must reconcile two incompatible points of view. For a non-believer, religion is an entirely human construct, an invention that at best should be judged by the benefits it provides, and at worst a source of dangerous delusion for its adherents, a source of collective psychosis. For a believer, religion is something immutable that transcends time, space, and human preferences. Non-believers will reserve the right to impose upon religion when the religious cause harm; believers will reserve the right to impose religion upon non-believers if it serves the Greater Cause they believe in.
As a result, freedom of conscience is never absolute. No liberal democracy will accept human sacrifice, ritual rape, or child abuse as a matter of religious freedom. And an implicit tenet of religious freedom is that those who benefit from religious freedom must also protect it for others.
This latter point is not historically self-evident. We tend to assume, for example, that the Mayflower pilgrims were seeking religious freedom in the New World. They weren’t – in fact, they imposed a religious tyranny in New England. They simply wanted to replace one theocracy with another, not abolish theocracy altogether.
Bruce describes a tendency among Norwegians known as “snillisme” – literally “niceism” – a mindset that naively believes that if you are nice to people, they will inevitably be nice back. It’s a mentality that has guided Norwegian public policy toward the bigotry of low expectations. Its premise is: “If we show forbearance and patience with these strange, brown-skinned people, they will eventually become like us because they will perceive the superiority of our ways. The bad things they do are a result of things they can’t help – first and foremost their (inferior) cultural background, but also that we aren’t yet nice enough.”
It only gets more complex from here. Many non-Western immigrants are willing to buy the role of victims – Norwegians are racist, don’t understand other cultures and religions, keep the immigrants down, all of which explain why immigrants are downtrodden, and also why they are entitled to favorable treatment from Norwegian society. Any Norwegian that criticizes immigrant groups, their convictions or their practices, offends the immigrants, making it all worse. No, no, no, say the well-meaning Norwegians, of course we respect your cultural backgrounds, and of course we defend your right to cultural self-expression, and of course your religious sensibilities are sacrosanct. Anything else would, after all, be racist.
The irony of the secondary effects is tragic. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of thought are accepted in Norway only so far as they don’t offend certain groups, and to question their sensibilities is only to offend them further. It is as if one group has attained the exclusive right never to be offended in Norway.
And so my questions about “radical Islam” remain unanswered. When Daniel Pipes says that the solution to radical Islam is moderate Islam, I have to agree in principle, but I can’t pretend to fully understand either.
But perhaps that isn’t necessary. Perhaps what must happen is that Norwegian (and European) society should simply assert and strengthen their core principles. It should be abundantly clear that in Norway, there is no excuse for violence, no excuse for inciting violence, no excuse for abusing children and women, no excuse for criminal behavior. Further, it should be affirmed that the state takes an active interest in educating its citizens to become productive and politically aware, and that becoming a citizen is a privilege that must be earned and not an entitlement.
Most of the laws for this are already on the books – what is needed is the political will to strengthen such laws and enforce them. Some specifics include (but are by no means limited to):
- Coerced marriages are considered null and void inNorway. Allegations of such marriages will be investigated.
- Spousal abuse, including sexual assault, is a punishable offense and grounds for immediate divorce.
- All Norwegian children must receive an education that includes a full curriculum of secular studies such as Norwegian language, story, civics, mathematics, etc. Failure to provide a child with such education is a punishable offense.
- Citizenship applications will only be granted if the applicant demonstrates knowledge of Norwegian language and society.
- Ethnic and religious motivations are an aggravating, not extenuating, factor for property and violent crimes.
- Non-Norwegian residents admitted for other reasons than political asylum can enjoy public assistance for a limited period of time before being cut off or deported.
- Violent crimes perpetrated against Norwegian citizens anywhere are a violation of Norwegian law, and Norwegian authorities will demand extradition of suspects of any nationality.
- Any religious institution that receives government funds must submit to periodic audits for compliance with laws related to sedition and incitement to continue to get funding.
- Non-Norwegian residents found guilty of felonies are subject to deportation at the discretion of the government.
No doubt such reforms will be met with charges of racism, but it would be hard to argue the merits of such charges. They do not single out any group of countries, they do not restrict freedom of religion, they do not limit cultural expression. They merely set very clear expectations of what it means to live in Norway.
Having said all this, I also wish there was more research on the extent of the problem, e.g., looking into issues such as:
- What are prevailing attitudes among immigrants toward the host country, assimilation, values, reciprocity, etc.?
- What is the long-term effect of living in Norway among different groups? Do they assimilate, do their children assimilate, etc.?
- What are attitudes among the host population to the new residents and citizens? Just how bigoted are Norwegians, actually?
Comments