Norwegian Massacre & Double Standards

The Norwegian massacre is like 9/11. In fact, it’s Norwegian 9/11, but the media’s reaction to it is totally different from their reaction to 9/11. Recently, Amy Goodman, DemocracyNow, had an interview with Glen Greenwald and asked him: “The lack of coverage over the weekend in the US was stunning, from Friday night, Saturday, Sunday, this story where so many young people were killed, massive terror attack, hugest terror attack in Norway in its history. Yet in this country, when you go to the networks, cable networks, known for covering a story for many hours at a time, this one almost fell from all the networks except the occasional headline” and Greenwald said: “Well, that was completely predictable. I mean, on Friday, when the attack actually took place, there was quite substantial and intense interest in what had taken place. Everybody was talking about it. There were complaints that -on Friday, that CNN wasnt running continuous coverage. But in general, there was a lot of media interest, because at the time people thought, based on what the New York Times and other media outlets had said, based on nothing, that this was the work of an Islamic -a radical Islamic group . And when it turns out to be something other than an Islamic group that was responsible, especially if it turns out to be a right-wing nationalist whos anti-Muslim in his views, that interest in this story was going to evaporate to virtual non-existence. And whats really amazing is, you know, every time theres an act of violence undertaken by someone whos Muslim, the commentary across the spectrum links his Muslim religion or political beliefs to the violence and tries to draw meaning from it, broader meaning. And yet, the minute that it turned out that the perpetrator wasnt Muslim, but instead was Christian fanatic, the exact opposite view arose, which is, “Oh, his views and associations arent relevant. Its not fair to attribute or to blame people who share his views or who inspired him with these acts.” And it got depicted as being this sort of individual crazy person with no broader political meaning, and media interest disappeared. Its exactly the opposite of how its treated when violence is undertaken by someone whos Muslim [or a man from Middle East]


GLENN GREENWALD also added: “You would think that in response to this attack, we would end up doing things like, for example, profiling Nordic males or tall, blond Americans, tall, blond, Nordic-looking people at airports, or would start to, for example, engage in surveillance on the communications of people who belong to right-wing groups in Europe, or you look at the people who inspire these attacks, people like Robert Spencer or Pamela Geller, people who engage in this sort of strident anti-Muslim [anti-immigration] commentary who inspired this individual . You know, we look at Islamic radicals who we allege inspire violence, such as Anwar al-Awlaki, and we target them for assassination -due-process-free killing -even though theyre American citizens. Of course, none of these measures are going to be invoked against right-wing ideologues who are anti-Muslim [anti-immigration] in nature. And you would expect that Peter Kings hearings, if he were really interested in the threat of violence or terrorism, would be expanded to include what we now know is a very real threat, and yet it isnt, which simply underscores that those hearings, like so many of these measures done in the name of terrorism, is really just a vehicle for demonizing [all] Muslims, restricting their rights, subjecting them to increased scrutiny.” He added: “This idea of equating Muslims with terrorism is an incredibly propagandistic and deceitful term. The idea is to suggest that Islam is some sort of existential threat … and it’s propagated with this myth that terrorism is an Islamic problem. And thats why the idea that the establishment media in the US and in political circles equates terrorism, as a matter of definition, with violence by Muslims is so problematic, because it promotes this lie that terrorism is [only] a function of Islamic ideology”.


But this shameful double standard is not the whole story. One of Silvio Berlusconi’s former ministers has defended the thinking of the Norwegian mass murderer ! As you know, Italy was the land of Fascists and Fascism. Apparently now the Neo-Fascists are very active in Italy. Interviewed on a popular radio show, Francesco Speroni, a leading member of the Northern League, the junior partner in Berlusconi’s conservative coalition, said: “Breivik’s ideas are in defenses of western civilization [!!].” The media reported: “Some Italian politicians, likme Mario Borghezio, who sits in the European parliament, are admirer of the writings of the late Italian journalist and author Oriana Fallaci, who popularised the term Eurabia to describe a future, supposedly Islamised Europe” Opposing Islamists and Muslim fanatics is some thing, but being a Christian fanatic or a chauvinist is another thing. Unfortunately many westerners who oppose the Islamists and Muslim fanatics, are Christian fanatics or chauvinists. It’s really ridiculous and shameful. A case of the pot calling the kettle black !!. In France, the National Front announced on Tuesday it had suspended a former local election candidate who made remarks on his blog that were interpreted as supportive of Breivik. The liberals and open-minded people should be very careful about the danger of religious fanatics and racists/chuavinists, as a whole. There is not any significant difference between Christian fanatics, Muslim fanatics, and Jew fanatics. Of course, it’s so obvious that the ordinary or moderate religious people, are not fanatic. Some think that when we say “Christian fanatics”, we means all Christians, or when we say “Muslim fanatics”, we means all Muslims, etc. It’s totally wrong. The ordinary or moderate religious people have their own personal opinions and their own personal traditions; It’s their choice, and no wise people have any problem with this matter. But the big problem begins when some religious people try to direct others to right direction! When they try to be “True or Real” followers of X and Y; “True or Real” supporters of X and Y. “True or Real” Muslim; “True or Real” Christian; or “True or Real” Jewm etc. These “Real” things are the most “unReal” things and the most dangerous things in the world !

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: