Norway

I have to say I'm deeply shocked and surprised at this. My mental picture of Norway has just taken a severe hit.

----------

Norway's "Boycott" of Pro-Israel Speakers
by Alan M. Dershowitz
Hudson NY
March 31, 2011

I recently completed a "speaking tour" of Norwegian Universities on the topic of "international law as applied to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." The sponsors of the tour—a Norwegian pro-Israel group—offered to have me lecture without any charge to the three major universities in Bergen, Oslo and Trondheim. Norwegian universities, especially those outside of Oslo, tend to feel somewhat isolated from the more mainstream academic world, and they generally jump at any opportunity to invite lecturers from leading universities. Thus, when Professor Stephen Walt, co-author of The Israel Lobby—a much maligned critique of American support for Israel—came to Norway, he was immediately invited to present a lecture. Likewise, with Ilan Pappe—a strident demonizer of Israel—from Oxford. Many professors from less well-known universities have also been invited to present their anti-Israel perspectives.

My hosts expected, therefore, that their offer to have me present a somewhat different academic perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be eagerly accepted, since I have written half a dozen books on the subject presenting a centrist view in support of the two-state solution and against civilian settlements on the West Bank. Indeed, one of my books is entitled The Case For Peace, and former President Bill Clinton praised my blueprint for peace as "among the best in recent years." But each of the three universities categorically refused to invite me to give a lecture on that subject. The dean of the law faculty at Bergen University said he would be "honored" to have me present a lecture "on the O.J. Simpson case," as long as I was willing to promise not to mention Israel. The head of the Trondheim school was more direct:

"Israel and international law is a controversial and inflamed theme, which cannot be regarded as isolated and purely professional. Too much politics is invited in this."

But is it less "controversial" and "inflamed" when rabidly anti-Israel professors are invited to express their "politics?"

Apparently, a pro-Israel perspective is more controversial, inflamed and political than an anti-Israel perspective—at least at Trondheim. The University of Oslo simply said no without offering an excuse, leading one journalist to wonder whether the Norwegian universities believed that I am "not entirely house-trained."

Only once before have I been prevented from lecturing at universities in a country. The other country was Apartheid South Africa where the government insisted on "approving" the text of my proposed talks on human rights. I declined.

But despite the refusal of the faculties of Norway's three major universities to invite me to deliver lectures on Israel and international law, I delivered three lectures to packed auditoriums at each university. It turns out that the students wanted to hear me, despite their professors' efforts to keep my views from them. Student groups invited me. I came. And I received sustained applause both before and after my talks. Faculty members boycotted my talks and declined even to meet with me. I was recently told that free copies of the Norwegian translation of my book, The Case For Israel, were offered to several university libraries in Norway and that they declined to accept them.

It was then that I realized why all this was happening. At all of the Norwegian universities, there have been efforts to enact an academic and cultural boycott of Jewish Israeli academics. This boycott is directed against Israel's "occupation" of Palestinian land, but the occupation that the hundreds of signers referred to is not of the West Bank but rather of every single inch of Israel. Here is the first line of the petition: "Since 1948 the state of Israel has occupied Palestinian land…" Not surprisingly, the administrations of the universities have refused to go along with this form of academic collective punishment of all Jewish Israeli academics. So the formal demand for an academic and cultural boycott has failed. But in practice, it exists. Jewish pro-Israel speakers are subjected to a de facto boycott. Moreover, all Jews are presumed to be pro-Israel unless they have a long track record of anti-Israel rhetoric.

Read the words of the first signer of the academic boycott petition—an assistant professor of Trondheim named Trond Andresen as he writes about the "Jews"—not the Israelis!

"There is something immensely self-satisfied and self-centered at the tribal mentality that is so prevalent among Jews. [Not] only the religious but also a large proportion of the large secular group consider their own ethnic group as worth more than all other ethnic groups. [Jews] as a whole, are characterized by this mentality…it is no less legitimate to say such a thing about Jews in 2008-2009 than it was to make the same point about the Germans around 1938. [There is] a red carpet for the Jewish community…and a new round of squeezing and distorting the influence of the quite dry Holocaust lemon…."

This line of talk—directed at Jews not Israel or Israelis—is apparently acceptable among many in the elite of Norway. Consider former Prime Minister Kare Willock's reaction to President Obama's selection of Rahm Emanuel as his first Chief of Staff:

"It does not look too promising, he has chosen a chief of staff who is Jewish, and it is a matter of fact that many Americans look to the Bible rather than to the realities of today...."

Willock, of course, did not know anything about Emanuel's views. He based his criticism on the sole fact that Emanuel is a Jew.

All Jews are apparently the same in this country that has done everything in its power to make life in Norway nearly impossible for Jews. Norway was apparently the first modern nation to prohibit the production of Kosher meat, while at the same time permitting Halal meat and encouraging the slaughter of seals, whales and other animals that are protected by international treaties. No wonder less than 1000 Jews live in Norway. No wonder the leader of the tiny and frightened Jewish community didn't get around to meet me during my visit to his country. (The Chabad rabbi did reach out to me and I had a wonderful visit with a group of Norwegian Jews at the Chabad house.) It reminded me of my visits to the Soviet Union in the bad old days.

The current foreign minister of Norway recently wrote an article in the New York Review of Books, justifying his contacts with Hamas, a terrorist group that demands the destruction of Israel. He said that the essential philosophy of Norway has always been to encourage "dialogue." But I'm afraid that that dialogue in Norway these days is entirely one-sided. Hamas and its supporters are invited into the dialogue, but supporters of Israel are excluded by an implicit, yet very real, boycott against pro-Israel views.

Israel - an apartheid state?

As the 7th Annual Israeli Apartheid Week kicks off, a thread to explore this analogy. I know that a number of South Africans are ImpDecers, so their views would be interesting.

I chuck a couple of morsels in as food for thought. First a series of anti-Apartheid Week posters from the Elders of Ziyon blog. Here's one as an example:



And secondly, here's Wikipedia's Israel and the apartheid analogy article introduction:

The State of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians has been compared by United Nations investigators, human rights groups and critics of Israeli policy to South Africa's treatment of non-whites during its apartheid era. Israel has also been accused of committing the crime of apartheid. The definition of the crime of apartheid includes acts that were never attributed to the South African regime. During the apartheid era, some South African officials and newspapers compared the two states and said that Israel also practiced apartheid. Critics of Israeli policy say that "a system of control" in the Israeli-occupied West Bank (including Jerusalem) including Jewish-only settlements, separate roads, military checkpoints, discriminatory marriage law, the West Bank barrier, use of Palestinians as cheap labour, Palestinian West Bank enclaves, inequities in infrastructure, legal rights, and access to land and resources between Palestinians and Israeli residents in the Israeli-occupied territories resembles some aspects of the South African apartheid regime, and that elements of Israel's occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law. Some commentators extend the analogy, or accusation, to include Arab citizens of Israel, describing their citizenship status as second-class.

Critics of the analogy argue that Israeli law guarantees Arab citizens of Israel the same rights as other Israeli citizens without distinction of race, creed or sex. They also note that Israel's Arab citizens can run in elections and become ministers in the Israeli government. Regarding the Israeli-occupied territories, some opponents of the analogy state that the West Bank and Gaza are not part of sovereign Israel and are governed by the Palestinian Authority, so cannot be compared to the internal policies of apartheid South Africa, and that restrictions are only imposed on those territories by Israel for reasons of security. Some opponents consider the analogy defamatory and reflecting a double standard when applied to Israel and not neighboring Arab countries, whose policies towards their own Palestinian minority has been described as racist and discriminatory. Some opponents of the analogy say it is a manifestation of anti-semitism.

AV - a new British voting system?

I'm undecided as of yet, but I love this Historians vs Businessmen angle:

---------

Historians brand proposals for AV voting reform 'a threat to democracy'
Daily Mail
11th March 2011

A group of leading historians have branded proposals for AV voting reform 'a threat to democracy' and urged the public to snub the change in the upcoming referendum.

They claimed moving away from the current first-past-the-post system would harm democratic principles and threaten the idea of 'equal votes'.

However, in a rival letter, 11 a group of 11 capitalists said introducing AV would be a 'victory for fairness' and good for business.

Anti-reform: Historian Dr David Starkey, left, and best-selling author Anthony Beevor signed the letter which described AV as 'a threat to democracy'

The historians, who include broadcaster David Starkey, best-selling author Anthony Beevor and the Regius Professor of History at Cambridge Richard Evans, claim, under AV, MPs could be elected to parliament even if they do not have the backing of the majority of their constituents.

The country will vote on the proposed reforms in the first UK-wide referendum since 1975 on May 5.

In a letter to The Times, the historians wrote: 'The principle that each person's vote is equal, regardless of wealth, gender, race or creed, is a principle to which generations of reformers have dedicated their lives.

'It is a principle upon which reform of our parliamentary democracy still stands.

'For the first time in centuries we face the unfair idea that one citizen's vote might be worth six times that of another. It will be a tragic consequence if those votes belong to supporters of extremist and non-serious parties.'

The letter, which was organised by historian Chris Skidmore, who is also a Conservative MP, added: 'The cause of reform, so long fought for, cannot afford to have the fundamentally fair and historic principle of majority voting cast aside.

'Nor should we sacrifice the principle which generations of men and women have sought: that each being equal, every member of our society should cast an equal vote.'

The historians borrow Winston Churchill's argument that AV allows democracy to be decided by 'the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates'.

But in a rival letter, published in the Daily Telegraph, an alliance of businessmen argued there were three 'powerful' reason to vote for AV.

The group, which included the chairman of Aviva, Lord Sharman and head of Home Retail Group, Terry Dudd, said the system would 'force politicians to work harder to achieve more than 50 per cent of the vote'.

They also argued parties would be forced to pay attention to the 'vast majority' of people during campaigns and politicians giving them 'greater legitimacy'.

The letter said: 'A vote for change on 5 May would be a victory for fairness, a break with a system of the past and a foundation for greater political stability.

'It would be good for the country and good for business.'

A number of groups have been set up both in favour of and against AV.

The formation of the No to AV, yes to PR group was announced yesterday, with No to AV already campaigning for a number of weeks.

Campaign group Yes To Fairer Votes is supporting AV.

Eurabia

Muslim extremist who burned poppies receives £50 fine
Telegraph
08 March 2011

A Muslim extremist who burned replica poppies on the anniversary of Armistice Day was fined just £50 after being found guilty of a public order offence.

Emdadur Choudhury, 26, a member of Muslims Against Crusades (MAC), was found guilty of a "calculated and deliberate" insult to the dead and those who mourn them when he burned two large plastic poppies during a two-minute silence on November 11, last year District Judge Howard Riddle said.

Members of MAC were heard chanting "British soldiers burn in hell" before the poppy-burning incident near the Royal Albert Hall in west London, Belmarsh Magistrates heard.

-----------

Law in Austria: Guilty for Questioning Islam
Hudson NY
by A. Millar
March 8, 2011

The European "elite" has increasingly asserted that any questioning of Islam is criminal.

A few weeks ago Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was fined 480 Euros for the "denigration of religious teachings of a legally recognized religion in Austria." In a three-part seminar Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff had referred to Islam's prophet Mohammed's marriage to Aisha. According to generally-accepted Islamic textual tradition, Aisha was six at the time of the marriage, which was consummated when she was nine. Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff asked rhetorically "if this does not constitute pedophilia, what does?"

Defending the doctrines, beliefs, and figures of various "legally recognized" religions is liable to have unanticipated consequences. As Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff observes, "the judge didn't deny that Mohammed had sex with a nine year old. It is actually now proven in court that Mohammed had sex with a nine year-old." However, she says, "it's just that I am not allowed to say that he was a pedophile." Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff is not allowed to, because, in the words of the judge, as she passed sentence, "pedophilia is a sexual preference which solely or mainly is directed towards children. Nevertheless, it does not apply to Mohammad. He was still married to Aisha when she was 18."

The fine – representing a sentence of 120 days – is deceptively low. It was reduced to the minimum allowed to take into account that Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff has no income. It is usually waived for first time offenders, however, the presiding judge claimed Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff was a "repeat offender" because she had, in her judgment, referred to Mohammed being a pedophile more than once.

Mrs. Sabaditsch-Wolff says she is stunned by the verdict, and determined to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary. "I was actually asking a question," she says, "and for that I was convicted."

-----------

Note: Eurabia is a political neologism that refers to the premise that the Muslim population in Europe will become a majority within a few generations due to continued immigration and high birth rates. Regardless of the demographic trend, Islamism as an ideology is undoubtedly growing in strength in Europe, as these articles show.

"Court tells christian couple their views on homosexuality are incompatible with fostering children"

This strikes me as being a significant and important court ruling. Does it show that, as Oliver Kamm states linking to the Guardian article below, that religious convictions don't entitle you to exemption under the law or is it unreasonable of the state to demand the couple go against their beliefs whether we agree with them or not?

Here is Andrew Brown in the Guardian.

"The Christian Insitute and similar bodies have mounted a series of court cases over the alleged persecution of Christians in the last five years. Almost all have been based around the claim that Christians are entitled to discriminate against gay people. Each one has ended in defeat. From the cross worn by Nadia Eweida to the attempts to allow religious exemption to the registrants of civil marriage, or the owners of B&Bs, the cases have been pitched as matters of high principle, and the judges have responded with increasing asperity. None, I think, has been so brutal as Lord Justice Munby in his judgment on the case of Owen and Eunice Johns, a couple of Sheffield pentecostalists who were turned down as foster carers because they would not accept homosexuality."

And for an alternative view-point Peter Hitchens on his blog.