The Oslo Opportunity, Part 2: Fears of an emerging “Eurabia”

I write often about Islamophobia in America, and while it is a massive and growing problem, it plagues Europe far more.  Let’s uncover why.

Unlike America, which was founded to embrace diversity, western European states each grew out of a common national identity.  Those living within the borders of a country generally shared a similar history, language, religion, and ethnic heritage.   After WWII, Europe embraced and spoke highly of tolerance, plurality, and freedom of expression, and liberal immigration policies allowed for increased numbers of North Africans, South Asians, and Arabs—many of whom are Muslim—to make Europe home.

The influx of brown-skinned people with unfamiliar customs and thick accents made native Europeans nervous, and the religiosity of these Muslims didn’t seem to fit into the increasing secular landscape of Europe.

In explaining why Muslims in Europe are viewed somewhat differently than those in America, we must look at the religious group’s standing economically. While in America Muslims are generally wealthier and work in professional careers, Muslims in Europe (who make up 4% of the continent’s population) are poorer and more marginalized, living in the more segregated ghettos and suburbs surrounding cities like Paris. In America, Christians see Muslims in respectable professions.  They may go to a Muslim doctor, someone they trust with their life and health.  In Europe, Muslims generally hold lower paying, less desirable jobs, and thus are looked down upon by the majority of society. (Sadly, we might compare the perception and treatment of European Muslims with Latino immigrants in America.)  Muslims in America are generally more ‘integrated’ (I normally don’t like this word) into society than European Muslims, and this clearly plays a role in the higher level of Islamophobia in Europe.

With citizens fearing a loss of national identity as European demographics change, right wing political parties have risen up to address these concerns, capitalizing on fear and promising to bring back Europe from “multiculturalism,” a value that even moderate and mainstream German PM Angela Merkel said has “utterly failed” in Europe.

Geert Wilders

Parties that once were fringe groups have now begun to win seats in Parliament.  The right wing Netherlands’ Party for Freedom won 15.5% of the vote (and thus make up 15.5% of Parliament) in the 2010 election.  The party’s leader, Geert Wilders, compared the Qur’an to Hilter’s Mein Kampf and has been open about the fact that he “hates Islam”, but “not Muslims.”  Though he didn’t coin the term ‘Eurabia,’ he has used it frequently to describe what he believes Europe will become if Muslim immigration is not adequately challenged.  He no doubt intends it to invoke images of suppressed women, harsh punishments, and a lack of freedom—images Westerners often associate with the Middle East or Saudi Arabia.

The power and influence of these far-right parties has translated into real policy changes in the region.  I’ll focus on one case I’m particularly familiar with—the Swiss minaret ban, which I wrote a term paper about this past spring.

In 2009, Swiss citizens voted in a referendum to ban the construction of minarets (the tall structures often attached to mosques from which the call to pray is traditionally sounded, but is rarely done in non-Muslim majority countries.)  The overwhelming vote was unsurprising given the massive propaganda campaign that was waged by supportive parties and political groups.

At train stations and bus terminals it was common to see this poster (below), which depicts missile-like minarets shooting up out of the Swiss flag and a burqa-clad women with sinister eyes. Many others posters, which showed weapon-like minarets pushing out traditional Swiss landmarks, could also be seen around the country.

"Stop. Consider a minaret ban."

Here’s a slideshow of all the posters, both pro-ban and anti-ban.

The politicians’ rhetoric that accompanied these posters was equally disturbing.  Knowing their constituents lacked much contact with Islam and Muslims, the politicians tried to shape their constituents’ views, often providing a distorted and negative portrayal (as is often done in the U.S. as well.) Those opposing the ban, who even included the Prime Minister and ruling party, focused on arguments about the right to religious freedom.  But those arguments, which relied on a critical and calm examination of the facts, could not convince those who were already steeped in fear of Islam.

Since the minaret ban, Islamophobia has become more institutionalized in Europe.  Other countries have proposed minaret bans (Austria, the Netherlands, Italy, and Belgium) and France and Belgium banned Muslims women from wearing the burqa in public and Italy hopes to do the same.  What’s particularly interesting about these campaigns to ban Islamic symbols is that they are addressing small, even insignificant

A niqabi woman outside Notre Dame

issues.  Switzerland only has four minarets nationwide, and few women wear the burqa in European countries.  Just as with the anti-sharia campaign in the U.S., the European movements are creating a large problem out of nothing at all.

As was made apparent by the Swiss minaret referendum, anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiment has seeped into the mainstream, affecting ordinary citizens.  Especially with the rise of the Internet, right-wing extremists can communicate and hate groups can organize more easily than ever.  (Continued after YouTube video.)

(The statistics in the video are highly exaggerated.  This article from the BBC helps to shed light on its inaccuracies.)

In this caustic political and social climate, it’s not surprising that violence and hostility toward immigrants are common, as the AP summarized well: “They beat up black and Arab football fans, terrorize immigrant neighborhoods, smash Muslim and Jewish gravestones, preach hate and rally support online.”  Despite the lack of news coverage, these violent reactions to immigration have been occurring for years.

The Norway terror attacks don’t signal the emergence of a new problem, but rather put a spotlight on an issue that has been simmering on for years and only recently began to boil over. Breivik’s terrorism is only the latest and greatest in this sad trend.

In my next post, I’ll discuss the American personalities who influenced Anders Breivik and what that says about Islamophobia in the U.S.   

The Oslo Opportunity, Part 1: Talking about Terrorism

In the weeks since the terrorist attacks in Norway, I’ve read a lot of articles and op-eds attempting to flesh out their implications and identify the tensions that led to them.  Though the attacks were truly horrific, they present us with a much-needed opportunity to discuss a topic that is too often ignored in the post-9/11 world: the rise of right wing and anti-Muslim extremism.

The discussion resulting from the attacks has brought up some points that I’d like to further develop.  The discourse has also lacked in some respects, and I’d like to bring up some new thoughts for consideration as well.

In the next five posts, I’ll elaborate on the terminology of terrorism, Europe’s response to its increasing Muslim population, the role of American activists in shaping Islamophobia in Europe, FOX News’ hypocritical response to Breivik’s Christianty, and my optimism about the United States’ ability to avoid the widespread and entrenched prejudice—and now violence—we’ve seen in Europe.

Talking about terrorism

Anders Behring Breivik

In reports from the New York Times, NPR, and other well-respected news organizations, we’ve heard the suspected perpetrator, Anders Behring Breivik, referred to as the ‘attacker’ or ‘killer’ and his actions as ‘violent extremism.’  These classifications are clearly true, but we must also acknowledge that Breivik is also a ‘terrorist’ and that his actions are ‘terrorism.’  Given the ease with which the media and political commentators today jump to label violent attacks as ‘terrorism,’ it might seem surprising that they were much more wary of using the same terminology for the Norway event.

Why not call this attack what it is?  I think it’s because the word ‘terrorism’ has lost its original and intended meaning, and instead come to be understood as ‘violent Islamic extremism.’  I’d like to make the case as to why the Norway attacks are indeed terrorism, and why we must call it terrorism.

Here is the definition of ‘terrorism’ under U.S. law:

1) “premeditated, 2) politically- motivated 3) violence (or intimidation) 4) perpetrated against non-combatant targets 5) by subnational groups or clandestine agents”

For terrorists, high body counts are not their main concern.  More concerned about symbolism, their highest priority is to instill fear and destroy values and ideas.  Terrorism’s victims aren’t only those who die or are injured.  As Georgetown scholar Bruce Hoffman says, “designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target.”

It’s easy to think about how the 9/11 attacks fit into this definition.  So let’s look at the double Norway attacks to see how they fit the definition:

1) Breivik’s well-coordinated attack had been planning his attack for a long time—he even had a 1,500 page manifesto to “justify” it.
2) Concerned with the increased immigration of Muslims into Europe and his government’s failure to address the problem and willingness to submit to multiculturalism (his sentiment, not mine), he attacked a government building and a party camp for future political leaders.
3) After blowing up the building in downtown Oslo, he masqueraded as a police officer on Utoya island, offering comfort and safety before stalking through the woods and shore shooting teenagers.  His attacks claimed over 70 lives.
4) His victims were ordinary citizens—government workers and politically active young people.
5) He carried this attack out on his own, secretly planning it without law enforcement’s knowledge.

This is a plea to the media (and ordinary citizens) for consistency—we must call these attacks ‘terrorism.’  Doing otherwise is dangerous because it makes us take these attacks less seriously than attacks committed by Muslim terrorists.  No matter the ideology motivating them, terrorists and their actions should be treated with equal concern.

In my next post, I’ll talk about why Europe’s problem with Islamophobia is much bigger than in the U.S.