Yup, it’s true. I’ve written about the hijab here and here. Even our beloved Danish friend, the one and only Halalhippie has. Now it might actually become a reality in the Danish parliament.
And you know what’s funny? It isn’t in the Turkish one. Ironic isn’t it?
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 18 comments… read them below or add one }
I’m afraid chances are slim: Asmaa Abdol-Hamid seems to be running the Red/Green Alliance [the remnants of the Communist party] out of parliament. Not because of her hijab but she started out with some _very_ clumsy remarks about homosexuality and death penalty.
It’s a pity, really. She’s a bright girl, would be a benefit to Danish politics. And the Communists are needed to balance out the extreme right.
What you might find interesting is we already have 3 male Muslims in parliament (one of them a party leader) and - apart from Asmaa - 3 female Muslim candidates… none of which wear that damn headscarf.
Allah forgive me, I hate that Hijab
re: the Turkish ban on Hijab: the founding father of Turkey, the honourable Kemal Atatûrk, decided that building a nation on a religious foundation (as it had been during the Ottoman empire) was not a very good idea. So Turkey is a secular state, constitutionally. Denmark is not. It’s a (nominal) Christian monarchy.
Sorry to rant like this. Recently it dawned on me that Denmark may or may not have Joooooz in parliament. I don’t know, and I like it that wasy: religion shouldn’t be an issue in politics.
“religion shouldn’t be an issue in politics” Ditto
Hehehe, points taken.
Due to a campain by islamist imams in Denmark the former communists in the red-green alliance will probably get enough votes from immigrants to stay in parliament. The old marxist party in alliance with islamists! The slogan has changed from “Religion is the opium of the people” to “The west is to be blamed for everything”. Thats kind of funny.
But all this pales in comparison with the crisis in Darfur.
Peter, if I’m not mistaken, you’re a Danish convert to Islam. No? I think I might be confusing you with another commenter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asmaa_Abdol-Hamid
Her view on Iraq:
“In July 2007, Asmaa Abdol-Hamid told tabloid newspaper B.T. that she supports the Iraqi resistance movement against the occupation forces and that “they have the right to live in a country where they can make their own decisions”.”
Apparently they do not, since the “resistance” is against the elected government. If she ends up in the Danish parliament, I wonder whether she would mind if somebody organised a “resistance” against her made up of foreign terrorists who blow up mosques (and churches) in Denmark?
She goes on to compare the “resistance” to the resistance against the Nazis, using the old “it’s not the dictator with the moustache who gases people who is the fascist” strategy of the modern left.
I find her stances utterly despicable. She has no respect for the voters of Iraq and little respect for those who died in the fight against fascism, in Denmark and in Iraq.
Why anybody would vote for her is beyond me. If I wanted a socialist society, why would I vote for someone who supports terrorists and rejects the idea of popular sovereignty?
Her party says that one of their goals is
“Spread social liberalism, empathy, and tolerance.”
If their support for terrorists who use children to blow up civilians is their social liberalism I am not surprised that their empathy apparently does not extend to Iraqis or Jews.
I wonder what they are like on the “tolerance” scale.
“I prefer to talk about social classes and look at people’s class background rather than their ethnic identity.”
She can start by applying that principle to Israel. The country was founded by socialists and in contrast to the “Palestinians” the Jewish people are not defined solely by ethnicity.
I am always amused when a “class background” communist defends the rights of “Palestinian” land owners against Jewish immigrants.
And I find it ironic when a “ethnic background is unimportant” socialist speaks of the “rights of the Palestinian people” while claiming that the Jews are not a people at all.
Find me an honest socialist, please. I want a socialist who REALLY believes that class background is more important than ethnicity.
This new fascism where old right-wing ideology is re-used with old left-wing slogans is ridiculous.
They probably subscribe to these definitions of “tolerance” and “diversity”, as many left-wingers do these days:
“tolerance”
noun
The ability or willingness to tolerate something that is not a living Jew in Palestine.
“diversity”
noun
Dominance by a non-white ethnicity or non-Christian religion. Strict observance of diversity is considered a step towards a colour-blind society.
http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=81628
(Should probably add “or an elected government in Iraq that is opposed to foreign terrorists” to the tolerance definition.)
Hi Drima,
There might be other Peters. I´m the not-religious-one.
My values have been challenged by the muslim immigrants, the cartoon crises etc.
In my view the main conflict is not between muslims and the rest of us. Its between those who commit themselves to the values of a liberal democracy and those who put their religious dogma first. Asmaa Abdol-Hamid´s case is interesting, because she is redefining her traditional background to some extend. Unfortunately she comes up with a new interpretation of Islam, that makes her odd with the rest of us. For example: She questions the danish constitution. She has to sign it, if she gets elected, but she has reservations based on her religion. Unfortunately she is backed by the leading imams. Fortunately there are several muslim MPs, who are widely respected.
In general I´m trying to understand this “cultural meeting” on my local level as well as on the international.
I know my english sucks.
Andrew, interesting background on Asmaa.
Peter, your English is fine man. Don’t worry about it.
“In general I´m trying to understand this “cultural meeting” on my local level as well as on the international.”
Aren’t we all?
Peter: you’re “trying to understand this “cultural meeting” on my local level as well as on the international.” Couldn’t've said it better myself.
Good to have a fellow Dane around:
Now I might vote for her if she presented herself as a:
Communist
Egalitarian
Feminist
Woman
Immigrant
Palestinian
Muslim
- in that order, unfortunately she comes thru to me in pretty much the reverse order.
What do you think of this, Peter ?
Andrew, her views may look provocative to you. Lefties in the old days would side with the PFLP et al. because they were the underdogs. Not really being anti Israel/anti Jewish. It’s just a knee-jerk reaction, ALWAYS on the side of the oppressed, no matter the logic.
And she compares the Iraqui insurgence to anti-Nazi resistance. Fair enough, a right-wing Lutheran cleric Danish MP compared her hijab to a swastika.
Extremist rhetorics Dansih-style
I can’t help but admire that girl; she’s a walking mine-sweeper. Causing buried stuff to blow up wherever she walks.
Halalhippie,
Lefties in the old days would side with the socialist Zionists and middle-eastern Jews, who were and ARE an oppressed minority in the region, AGAINST the Arab majority landowners.
There is nothing about supporting the underdogs in the left’s support for the Arab fascists. It is anti-Semitism.
The left are almost never on the side of the oppressed, and if they are, then only because the “oppressor” is Jewish or American.
Look at the left’s position on issues:
Iraq - The left support the terrorists who blow up mosques and children. They are against the elected government and despise the normal Iraqis who just want peace in their land. The left are simply anti-American, no matter the cost. The plight of the Kurdish minority and their happiness over being liberates means nothing to the left.
Israel - The left support the terrorists who want to destroy the country, the ONLY country in the world that has organised and voluntary non-family based communes that actually work. In the mean time, Israel is trying to cope with an influx of Sudanese refugees after having coped already with an influx of a million Jewish refugees from Arab dictatorships. Todays left show no sympathy for the Jewish refugees and no international organisation helped them.
Afghanistan - The left oppose the de-Talibanisation of the country and openly support the terrorists and fundamentalists who will, once they can, force women to be second-class (rather third-class) citizens again.
Look at any international conflict and you will find the western modern left firmly on the side of violence, oppression, the majority, nationalism and racism, and chauvinism. And they will be firmly opposed to communism, minority rights, mixed ethnic groups, and women’s rights.
No, my friend. The left of old were different and they are dead. Today’s left are people who, looking at a conflict between an American president and a nationalist dictator with a moustache who gases people, will refer to the American president as “like Hitler”. And they look at the conflict between a state that houses millions of Jewish refugees from Europe and the Arab world and a group founded by the nephew of Hitler’s closest Arab friend and SS recruiter, and see a revival of nationalsocialism on the Jewish side.
And that conflict between what they believe and what words they use to describe the belief defines their ideology.
I would have less of a problem with the modern left if they openly admitted that they support throwing the Jews into the sea, rather than claim that supporting the terrorists is supporting a struggle against oppression.
Nasser was honest enough, why cannot his admirers be more like him?
Gee, Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” is sold openly in Arab countries and some “Palestinians” are known to name their children after Hitler. If the Arabs the left support are honest enough to show their true colours, why cannot the western left?
(I know there are old-style left-wingers left. But they are not many. And that little Danish fascist with the Hijab is NOT one of them.)
Halalhippie,
I agree, Asmaa is impressive. She is assertive, strong, and not afraid of picking up a fight with some of the imams who “dont want a woman to decide over a man”. But I would never dream of voting for her or a party, that puts her on the voting paper.
To me Asmaa represents a broader phenomenon: 2. and 3. generation of muslims, who have lived their entire life in Denmark. They are caught in a crisis of identity between the background of their parents and the country where they live. Now they abandon the traditional religious values of their parents and turn to pure Islam, which is not supposed to be loaded with cultural traits. In their persuit they turn to communities and advises from nutty bearded men on the net.
Its up to Islam to adapt to the modern world. The theological discussion is nonsense to me. But some kind of reform in accordance with the values of a liberal democracy is urgent. And that is not, what is happening on the ground at the moment.
Danes seem to have gained a reputation as “xenofobic racists”. I dont think it holds true. What Danes are challenging is Islam, when it represents itself as a totalitarian ideology.
I dont want to see Islam as the problem. But currently I dont see it contributing to solving the challenges of integration either.
UPDATE: Election over, no change of government.
The Red/Green Alliance barely made it into parliament. 4 seats… but not “her”.
mwahaha
A small comfort: Õzlan Cekic, a woman of Turkish origin got a seat for the Socialist People’s Party.
She doesn’t wear a hijab, but she’s _much_ prettier.
Halalhippie,
Sounds good. I can never quite grasp the hutzpa of those red/green fascists. They continue the traditions of the Nazis but simply rename the principles of theideology.
Anti-Semitism becomes anti-Zionism (both are, in the middle east, about getting rid of the Jews in the region)
Hitler’s willing helpers become the opponents of the fascists.
Wealthy land owners who sold their land to Jews become the new proletariat and deserve claiming their land back from the evil capitalists.
And the 6 million Jews trying to survive the war started against them by 300 million Arab nationalists become the new fascists.
All quite neat and much much nicer than the old evils of the Nazis.
Just rename it. That’ll do.
Meet the modern “socialists”.
Thd old evil with newer marketing.
Andrew, you kinda make me feel uneasy about voting “left-of-center”. I never saw myself as a staunch Marxist/Islamofascist.
In the good old days of the Cold War, it was cheap to protest against the evil US ™ - and Israel by proxy. The IS/PA conflict was viewed as the underdog - Palestine (not the entire Arab world, couldn’t care less) against the big US-supported Israeli army.
“Blame the West/USA for everything” , yeah true
The way you present things, it looks about as rational as ME politics in general.
One point, though. I don’t remember _ever_ hearing anti-semitic/Jewish rhetorics. The Danish far left only hates Jews inasmuch as they are capitalists.
But I’m on thin ice here; not a politically minded person, not updated on Marxist doctrine.
And yes, it looks weird to see a hijabee among old-school communists.
“One point, though. I don’t remember _ever_ hearing anti-semitic/Jewish rhetorics.”
That’s my point. You won’t hear it. They don’t have the rhetoric, they only have the substance.
Today’s socialists do not say that they are against Jews, but they WILL try to contribute to Israel’s destruction.
They will not say that Israel is a Jewish state and hence different, but they will condemn Israel for crimes it hasn’t committed or crimes all other countries also commit (often against Israel).
They will not say that they distrust Jews, but they will say that when Israel announced after the 1967 war that it would give back all the land captured in exchange for peace, Israel was lying.
They will not claim that killing Jews is OK, but they will condemn Israel for defending itself.
They will not say that wars against Israel are right while other wars are wrong, but they will not protest Lebanese attacks on Israel but will protest Israel striking back.
Protesting against the US is always cheap. That’s why so many people do it. The US government does not imprison you if you protest, it does not shoot you, and its supporters do not beat you up.
Try wearing a kippa and protest against Lebanon with an Israeli flag on your shirt and you will learn what fear is and what it means to stand against the establishment.
The left THINK they are anti-establishment, but they never have to fear it.
The left do not know persecution and they do not know what their (nominal) ancestors died for.
I once walked up to two left-wing protesters on the street here in Dublin. When I mentioned a synagogue, they asked me why I like killing Palestinian children so much. (By “Palestinian” he meant “non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, the racist.) When I left they wished me quick death in the McDonalds I was just entering.
THAT is the left for you. I know of no conservatives who behave like that. A left-winger among conservatives is safe, a Jew or conservative among left-wingers is not. And that’s the problem.
Halalhippie,
Don’t get me wrong. Do vote left, for all it’s worth. Just make sure that you DO indeed vote left, if you know what I mean.
Just ask the candidate about what he thinks about the kibbutzim. If he likes the concept and is enthusiastic about how well they work (or can work), he is a real socialist. If he starts telling you about the evil that is a life Jew in Palestine, he is certainly more interested in Arab nationalism than in socialism (for some reason).
If you vote for that guy, you don’t get a socialist government, you get a government that will try to be someone’s enemy.
That was not, traditionally, what the left was about.
Leave a Comment