Local elections are coming up in the fall, and the Norwegian Centre Against Ethnic Discrimination (SMED), (a government-appointed organization that provides legal aid in discrimination cases) is circulating a petition it has asked all the political parties to sign. Among meaningless statements on democracy and freedom of speech, (meaningless because obvious), signatories and their parties will be held to promises like this:

[Signatories are required to] 3. Not publicize, or encourage others to publicize, or in any way to give their support to any material, be it flyers or posters, which would likely provoke skepticism and conflict between people of different ethnic origins, color or religious affiliation. 4. Ensure that in contact with voters, including vote gathering door-to-door or by phone, there will not be expressed or taken actions that would encourage aggression against ethnic or religious groups, or prejudices based on ethnic origins, nationality or religion.

Interpreted broadly, as of course it will be, this would prevent discussion on barbaric or backwards practices common in some immigrant communities, like female genital mutilation and forced marriage. Progress Party leader Carl I. Hagen refuses to sign, and is the only party leader not to agree with the petition. In his reply, he writes:

The Progress Party would like to make clear that the expression "the multicultural society" in some connections is used in a to us unacceptable form of naive and self-denying cultural relativism.

To Dagbladet he adds:

- We have come further in the Christian, western culture than in some Muslim countries. In some cultures, female genital mutilation is practically a standard.

He makes clear that he does not refer to all Muslim countries. [..]

Another argument for Hagen is that he disagrees with SMED that "there must not be any room in our democratic process for anyone who openly or in the hidden encourages racistic violence, prejudices or discrimination." This, Hagen believs, would be an unfortunate limitation on freedom of speech.

SMED's petition is an obvious trap aimed at the Progress Party. If it had signed, it would, as the only party to openly discuss the problems of immigration, be accused of violating its promise. The fact that it refuses to sign will, similarly, be used as proof of its underlying racist tendencies. After all, who but a racist would disagree with a declaration against racism?

Item number 3, quote, "Not publicize, or encourage others
to publicize, or in any way to give their support to any
material, be it flyers or posters, which would likely provoke
skepticism and conflict between people of different ethnic
origins, color or religious affiliation," would seem to bar
any critical statement about any government on earth including
the norwegian government.

Most governments on earth are either obviously associated
with an ethnic group or if the state is multi-ethnic
perceived to be more closely associated with some ethnic groups
than others. In addition many would define a nationality
as an ethnic group.

In particular any political party signing this would violate it
if it criticized the U.S. government or any act of the U.S.
government.

Beyond this it seems to me it's a violation of the agreement
to even report on a negative event in another country or Norway.
For example if it should be discovered tomorrow that there's
a concentration camp in Iran, then reporting such might "provoke
skepticism" about the people of Iran or if it should be discovered
tomorrow that a political party in France was engaged in
anti-semitic acts reporting such would "provoke" negative
feelings about people in France and thus would violate the
agreement.

The tactical shrewdness and bullying of the spirit of Stalinist propaganda never went away.

Who but a racist would sell "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" at a UN anti-racism conference? What are the odds of actually enforcing the petitions when it comes to suppressing anti-American hate speech? As usual, the hypocrisy of socialists knows no limits.

SMED...SMED, rings a bel..., oh yea, SMED = SMERSH. Hasta be the same outfit, just with better PR.

In England the so-called new labour government has stated that it will come down heavily on any news paper article spreading "racist" anti-refugee propaganda. Words such as "illegal immigrants" and "unwanted arrivals" have been singled out as being "Racist" and spreading discontent. After all how can any sane reasonable nonbigotted person think that arriving illegally and without papers in a foreign country, whilst refusing to identify your country of origin is some how an illegal act??
Tell me Bjorn, is there any other rightwingers in the whole of Norway (apart from you) ???

David: If you're thinking of parties, there's the centre-right Conservative Party, (which has picked up quite a bit of social democracy, and is currently part of the governing coalition), and further to the right the "populist" Progress Party, which I identify closer with, though it can't be classified on the right in all issues. Try a google, I've written about it fairly often.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&q=+site:www.bearstrong.net+bj%C3%B8rn+st%C3%A6rk+progress+party

THANK GOD for england,i despair at the growing number of racist and backward
Aussies and Boers coming into our progressive and multicultural country .

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/306