Heretics' almanac

What we can learn from the Valla debacle

It got more headlines than poor Dumbledore's "outing," at least in Norway: Gerd-Liv Valla's new book, called Prosessen ("the Process"), about the events that led to her resignation as head of the Norwegian confederation of labor unions, LO. (A side scandal has also come up that she wrote much of this book while she was on sick leave, since Norwegians aren't allowed to work while on sick leave. But she only spoke into a tape recorder; there was a ghost writer. So now there's soon going to be a debate as two what constitutes "work" for sick leave purposes).

Valla is unkind to most of her former colleagues and fellow party members, from what I can tell. Norway's prime minister comes across as a bit of a wimp, etc. It's hard to keep up with these personalities, especially since this issue has close to zero relevance for anyone except the principals.

Happy May 17th

Today, May 17th, is Norway's Constitution Day. As the date of the signing of the Norwegian constitution in Eidsvoll in 1814 - it commemorates a critical milestone in Norwegian history. But it has also become a rite of spring, a festive, colorful day after a monochromatic winter. May 17th in 1945 followed just a few days after liberation, reinforcing its significance.

But Norwegian independence is a notion that is undergoing change. Whereas the framers of the original constitution wished to establish a state for people of a common ethnicity (going so far as to exclude Jews and monastic orders from Norway as a constitutional matter and making Lutheranism the official religion), Norway is rapidly evolving into something else. Economically, Norway is becoming increasingly dependent on trading partners. The population is growing more diverse, not just ethnically but in every other way.

The premise of religious tolerance

The increasingly (to me) annoying linguist Sylfest Lomheim recently fielded a question about the use of the term "honor killings" ("æresdrap") on the Språkteigen podcast. A listener wondered whether using the term "honor" didn't constitute an implicit acceptance of these kinds of killings, and that we should start calling them "shame killings" ("skamsdrap") instead. Not sure if that term is any better; I'd prefer calling them "murder" ("mord") and be done with it.

In any event, Lomheim agreed, pointing out that according to "our values" there is nothing honorable about such killings.

Which brings me to an article Bruce Bawer recently wrote in the Norwegian online journal Human Rights Service, in which he discusses the rhetorical concept "us vs. the others," which many left-leaning Norwegian writers have used to condemn his and others' views on the threat fundamentalists pose to Europe.

Rapes in central Oslo

Since New Year's eve, there have been a series of sexual assaults in central areas of Oslo, and this is getting much-deserved attention. The March 8th events included a "Take Back the Night" element, and much is being written and discussed among politicians, health professionals, etc.

It would appear that most of these assaults are perpetrated by immigrant youth. For obvious and good reasons, opinion leaders are careful not to make too much out of that fact, but you can be certain public opinion is very mindful of it.

Much has been written about the prevalence of misogyny in some of the societies that have exported people to Norway, and it's by no means an exhausted issue. But I think it's safe to assume that rapists know full well that what they're doing illegal. And it's also safe to assume that none of the perps in these cases care whether their assaults are right, wrong, legal, or illegal. All they care about is whether they're likely to get caught, and if they are, how they will be punished. This what psychopaths are like, no matter what country they come from.

Immigration and the welfare state

A friend and former classmate of mine - and one of the smartest people I know - wrote to me in response to my reflections on immigration and pointed out that:

• The Norwegian welfare system has a lot of structural problems - for example, that people work too hard when they have small children and then burn out too soon; or that anyone who has been out on disability for a long time will have difficulty finding new work.
• The debate on the prevalence of crime, welfare fraud, etc., among immigrants is polluted by abuse of statistics - very few of regularly cited numbers are adjusted for economic and demographic factors that might even things out.

In other words, we should be careful about the data we use to draw conclusions about immigrant behavior and attitudes when it comes the Norwegian welfare system.

More on immigrants in Norway

Bruce Bawer, the American writer based in Oslo, has a new entry on his blog on immigration issues in Norway.

This is one of those problems that most Norwegians, and especially mainstream politicians, avert their eyes from. It's just too painful to speculate out loud about the questions it raises: is the Norwegian social welfare and penal system, the open society, etc. being exploited by people who don't respect it, don't want to contribute to it, but want all its benefits? And who happen to have dark skin and speak with an accent?

I avert my eyes, too. I hate xenophobic tendencies, and some of the verbiage among Norwegians is scary to listen to, i.e. talk of outsiders who don't want to fit in, keep to themselves, etc.

The naive cynicism in the Norwegian political elite

Hilde Henriksen Waage has been anointed as Norway's most prominent expert on the "Middle East conflict," and so Norwegian media accept her views as something close to gospel. For her own part, she has been complaining about the murderous tendencies of the pro-Israeli groups in Norway, encouraging Jostein Gaarder to go undercover after his op-ed this summer.

It isn't clear to me why anybody would believe Waage is the least bit objective, except of course for her own assertions that she is. Her most important "contribution" to the body of knowledge around the issue is that she believes that Norwegian diplomats were manipulated into promoting Israel's interests at the expense of the Palestinians during the Oslo process. You know, the one that led to Barak making several offers to Arafat that would have established a Palestinian state, Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital, and so on.

What/who is a Norwegian?

The op-ed editor in Aftenposten, Knut Olav Åmås, is obviously provoked by Sylfest Lomheim's interpretation that "nordmann" - approximately translated as "Norwegian" (noun) means someone who is ethnically Norwegian, and that the term "Negro" (neger) is appropriate in normal Norwegian (language) usage.

Åmås overarching point is that the Norwegian Language Council, as it is, tries to be, or whatever, shouldn't just feel responsible describing Norwegian language and usage, but also for critiquing it. In other words, who is a Norwegian isn't just a linguistic issue, it's a political one.

The Norwegian collective psyche suffers from a serious "us vs. the others" neurosis. When NRK - the Norwegian broadcasting corporation - routinely talks about Jews/Moslems/etc. as opposed to "Norwegians," it's obvious that Norwegians, as it were, can't reconcile themselves with the fact that belonging to a nationality doesn't mean minimal compliance to some kind of ethnic standards.

What does "tolerate" really mean?

Per Edgar Kokkvold, the secretary general of Norway's press association supports Norwegian TV2's decision to display the Mohamad cartoons, saying that "this the Moslems have to tolerate."

If by "tolerate," he means that they should abstain from burning down embassies and issuing death threats, then of course they should tolerate it. I expect most Moslems would agree with this.

If by "tolerate," he means that they should not voice any objections or complaints about it, he's absolutely wrong. Of course they have the right to invoke their free speech to protest something they find offensive. If some of them want to ban the cartoons or punish the publishers, I'll disagree; if they object and use their free speech, I'll defend their right to do so.

Aftenposten's right to speak yet never be offended

The Norwegian press is commemorating the anniversary of the Mohammad cartoon debacle, with a lot of self-righteous pontificating about freedom of speech, etc. I write self-righteous because it would appear that most newspaper editors feel that "freedom of speech" means that they have the right to print whatever they want without being criticized or condemned. To criticize speech in Norway is - absurdly - an assault on the speech.

For most Norwegians, I suspect freedom of speech means "anything that I don't find annoying, offensive, or disagreeable."

You'd be hard pressed to find a more principled proponent of free speech than me. I think Nazis, racists, homophobes, antisemites, Holocaust deniers, and other despicable characters have every right to air their contemptuous convictions. I don't think it's an absolute right - it shouldn't be derived from people being hurt, and it shouldn't incite crime, for example. But if people want to let everyone know how just vile they are, I don't think a law should stop them, though hopefully decency might, in some cases.