Islam in Europe- Multiculturalism and Appeasement

I picked up Bruce Bawer's "While Europe Slept- How Radical Islam Is Destroying The West From Within" this weekend- it is probably the first time I have willingly bought a book by a conservative about a conservative point of view. Bawer isn't a typical conservative, though, he is a gay New Yorker who wrote a book critical of Fundamentalist Christianity ("Stealing Jesus") that was very well received in liberal circles. "While Europe Slept" is critical of radical Islam in Europe and critical of European denial about the problem. Bawer says that he angered liberals with his critique of fundamentalist Islam and was accused of "changing", but he claims that he has done no such thing- both critiques are fair and consistent with the ideals of freedom he championed all along.

Here is how Random House summarized his book:

"As an American living in Europe since 1998, Bruce Bawer has seen this problem up close. Across the continent—in Amsterdam, Oslo, Copenhagen, Paris, Berlin, Madrid, and Stockholm—he encountered large, rapidly expanding Muslim enclaves in which women were oppressed and abused, homosexuals persecuted and killed, “infidels” threatened and vilified, Jews demonized and attacked, barbaric traditions (such as honor killing and forced marriage) widely practiced, and freedom of speech and religion firmly repudiated.

The European political and media establishment turned a blind eye to all this, selling out women, Jews, gays, and democratic principles generally—even criminalizing free speech—in order to pacify the radical Islamists and preserve the illusion of multicultural harmony. The few heroic figures who dared to criticize Muslim extremists and speak up for true liberal values were systematically slandered as fascist bigots. Witnessing the disgraceful reaction of Europe’s elites to 9/11, to the terrorist attacks on Madrid, Beslan, and London, and to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Bawer concluded that Europe was heading inexorably down a path to cultural suicide."

One of the first things I noticed myself reacting against in Bawer's book is his defense of George Bush and the Iraq war. He accuses the Europeans he lives among as failing to see the "real" threat as George Bush did. While Iraq could have been seen as posing a threat, mostly to Israel I imagine, Bawer creates this slight of hand wherein he tries to pass Iraq off as a fundamentalist state. I disagree. I will not belabor this point though, because I have had Iraq war fatigue for way too many years now, and I don't think his feelings about Bush or the Iraq war obscure the real point he was making in his book.

That point is that most of western Europe, in their fear of resurgence of fascism and in their quest for "multiculturalism" has entered into a practice of habitual reflexive appeasement of radical Islamists and have generally turned a blind eye to the belligerence that is coming from the radicalized sections of Muslim ghettos that are chipping away at liberal democratic ideals.

I have been hearing about appeasement in Europe for some time, but I was curious to see if there are specific examples of this appeasement codified in law. There are a few. Take for example the law in Sweden regarding minimum age for marriage. For ethnic Swedes that age is 18, but the requirement is waived for immigrants, allowing for families to arrange marriage for teenage daughters. In Germany an ethnic German citizen wishing to marry a foreigner and bring them to Germany must answer a long list of personal questions devised to detect if the couple are genuinely involved or merely have made an arrangement for immigration purposes. That requirement is waived for immigrants, many of whom arrange marriages for their kids with people from their country of origin (Bawer claims this is a purposeful act to prevent any kind of cultural assimilation into the European host country and that arranged marriages can go on like this for generations).

In both instances conservative Muslim ideals are upheld and the autonomy of women denied. Bawer makes a case that women in arranged marriages are often victims of rape, because they don't consent to the relationships arranged for them and have little to no recourse to refuse their husbands. He cites that four of five women in Oslo's domestic violence shelters are immigrant women. Human rights organizations report that women fleeing from arranged marriages complain of repeated sexual assaults on behalf of their "husbands".

Indeed, domestic violence shelters targeted at immigrant women are met with accusations of racism and hostility to "family values". He quotes a Brittish Muslim, Faisal Bodi, railing against the shelters in the Guardian, that the shelters "tear apart our families. Once a girl has walked in through that door they do their best to stop her ever returning to her family". Mr. Bodi argued that Muslim communities should be treated as an "organic whole", that sharia law should be seen as a "sharp sword that can cut through generational and cultural divide" and that the Muslim community should have autonomy in resolving conflicts over forced marriage. In short, English law should be subservient to sharia law.

Bawer seems to be resentful of the immigrants dependence on the social welfare state, citing that 40% of Muslim immigrants in Oslo are on the dole. While this may be entirely true, I didn't agree with the tone or the point he was trying to make in stating this observation which I interpreted to be something along the lines of "those ungrateful bastards suckle at the teat of the "infidel" state that they condemn". I object because many of those social security recipients may well prefer jobs but find themselves locked out due to racism or nativism. Luckily, a few chapters later Bawer admitted that it is nearly impossible for foreigners to find work in Norway. He found himself locked out of candidacy for a professorship even though he was far more qualified than the other candidates (in Norway you are entitled to see the resumes of the candidates you are up against when applying for a university position). He went on to list anecdotal reports from immigrants who complain of their difficulties in finding work, of being cheerfully encouraged to report to the social security office to get on the dole. One story was of an Indian friend who was an engineer and who spent two years applying for over 200 jobs. Finally, he changed his legal name to something more Scandinavian and miraculously landed a job in 2 weeks.

France suffers the same problem, many African and Muslim immigrants living in ghettos there are on the dole, even though they are highly educated. This accounts in part for the popularity of Barack Obama among immigrants in France-a man named "Barack Obama" with brown skin would likely never make it to the presidency there. Here is where the second part of "appeasement" comes in. Appeasement can mean giving in to the unreasonable demands of tyrants, but it also means giving someone just enough of a payoff to get them out of your hair and to not have to really take them seriously. Such is relationship of the welfare state to Muslim immigrants in western Europe.

Bawer states his belief that the Norwegians, who would hate more than anything to be accused of being ungenerous or racist, love having bragging rights about their multicultural society. But what they mean when they talk proudly about their colorful society is a society with ethnic enclaves that never change. Bawer is incredulous when he hears Norwegians refer to "third generation immigrants" (?) and quotes a Pakistani-Norwegian comedian who says that her countrymen are often disappointed that she speaks without a least " a little bit" of an accent. In short, they want to have communities of Pakistanis in their cities, not communities of Norwegians of Pakistani heritage. Because of their attachment to exoticisizing the "other" they are unable to invite Muslim citizens to the table, include them as real Europeans, and hold them to the same expectations they have for their white countrymen.

Bawer hits the nail on the head when he states that, "As a rule, the establishment strives to overlook the fact that being a Muslim is a matter of holding certain beliefs and living (and dying) by them; it prefers instead to think of Muslim identity as having to do with cuisine, clothing, and skin color. Consequently there's an automatic tendency to view the likes of Krekar (a terrorist pampered by the Norwegian establishment) not as someone whose beliefs are a challenge to Western democracy but as an opportunity to prove one is not racist. To the extent that the establishment does acknowledge the reality of such phenomena as intolerance, sexual inequality, self-segregation, spousal abuse, and forced marriage within the immigrant community, it chooses to view them as aspects of cultural difference that simply must be accepted in a 'multicultural society'".

Bawer is able to demonstrate that this thinking leads to absurd instances in which liberal European professors, journalists, and politicians become apologists for the most reprehensible practices imaginable, from honor killings to fatwas against authors who exercise freedom of speech. It also has lead to an increase of "separate but equal" type of accommodations for Muslims, such as gender-segregated classes, swimming pool hours, cafeterias in colleges.

He quotes an Iraqi writer, Walid al-Kubaisi, who challenged the director of a Norwegian international cultural center. "The center hosted activities by various ethnic groups, providing each with its own separate space; when al-Kubaisi criticized this arrangement for encouraging a 'ghetto mentality' the director demurred, asserting his intention to showcase cultures and provide 'exotic atmosphere'.

'But isn't it more important', he inquired, ' for immigrants to learn about Norwegian culture and values than for foreigners to...provide you and other Norwegians with a little exotic atmosphere?'

"It isn't our job to teach them Norwegian culture,' he replied. 'They can decide about that for themselves, if they wish. Foreigners have a rich culture. You mustn't think that way. It causes lots of problems. We have our culture and you have your culture."

'No, I'm thinking for example about values such as freedom of expression and religion,' al-Kubaisi replied.

"Yes, of course these Norwegian values concern you Muslims also. We have religious freedom and this allows you Muslims to practice Islam freely....you can slaughter animals in the Muslim way in order to eat your Islamic meat,,,,you can make use of your freedom of expression to tell others about Islam and your fascinating culture, you can criticize Norwegian racists.....'

But what, al-Kubaisi asked, about the freedom of Muslims to criticize their own religion-or even convert? The director was displeased.

"You are a Muslim, Walid, and you must not lose your identity. If you become Norwegian we will not see you as you are. You must be yourself"

"But do you believe that I will lose my identity if I believe in freedom of expression?"

"Listen, this is something you decide for yourself. But your attitude causes a lot of problems. We want to create a multicultural society, and we don't want to dissolve these foreign cultures........."

I wish Bawer took more time to point out the fact that the greatest victims of Muslim extremism in western Europe are not ethnically European women or gay couples, though both groups have been subjected to increasing hate crimes. The greatest victims in all of this, of course, are moderate Muslims and many female Muslims who are being bullied into living a life dictated by Sharia law, even though they are supposedly living in Western liberal democracies.

In Germany and in the Netherlands there are women who supposedly live under enlightened human rights conventions and who are supposedly entitled to the freedoms democracy ensures, but who know nothing of those freedoms and aren't at liberty to take advantage of them. Bawer's book convinced me that the French government was correct in banning the headscarf in schools, I didn't realize previously that girls in French schools are being bullied by classmates into wearing hijab even if they don't want to, into declining gym class and art classes (no graven images, y'all) on religious grounds and being physically threatened by these neighborhood enforcers against Muslims who are living like French "infidels". If the headscarf weren't banned there, tyrants may begin threatening girls who refuse to wear a chador or a burqa. Sadly the situation leaves no room for personal autonomy, what schoolgirls wear is decided by either politicians or local extremists.

Bawer's book is mostly anecdotal and a tad bit hysterical. He is way more conservative than I am when it comes to foreign policy. Overall, though, he makes some good points and challenges us to re-examine what our values are and what multiculturalism should look like in a pluralist democratic society.