First Cologne, Now Sweden: How Left-Wing Apologism Is Fueling Right-Wing Populism

First topic message reminder :

LONDON -- In recent days, how many of us gasped at photos of emaciated Syrians in the besieged town of Madaya? In light of this tragedy, the post-Cologne fence-building and anti-refugee postulating around Europe must surely be even more alarming. The Syrian humanitarian crisis remains as desperate as ever, but after Cologne's New Year's Eve mass sexual assaults, right-wing populist "refugees not welcome" sentiments seem to be gaining ground throughout Europe. Monday morning also brought allegations that Swedish police covered up group sexual assaults in Stockholm, too, because of fears of a right-wing backlash. In an increasingly globalized news culture, and particularly when it comes to EU countries like Germany, "their" concerns are frequently "our" concerns, too. All over Europe, merely condemning right-wingers as bigots will neither quell popular fears nor win the argument. Liberals must look in the mirror. And then we must make some concessions.

Since reports of the Cologne attacks emerged over a week ago, accusations of police and government cover-ups have flourished in a kind of perfect storm of liberal conspiracy narratives. Sadly, it's not hard to see why. Up to 1,000 men said to be "of North African and Arab appearance" conducted coordinated attacks on women and teenage girls -- surrounding them in groups, grabbing and groping them so hard they left bruises on their bodies -- but an initial police press release claimed the night had"passed off peacefully." Then, after revelations, days of insistence that there was no evidence for asylum seeker involvement followed, with Cologne Mayor Henriette Reker even branding any suggestion of refugee involvement "impermissible," an internal police report emerged last Thursday. German magazine Der Spiegel claims to have seen the report and said it revealed that some of the attackers asserted they were Syrian refugees. One reportedly told an officer: "You have to treat me kindly. Mrs. Merkel invited me." Another apparently ripped up residence papers in front of officers, shouting defiantly: "You can't do anything to me. I can get a new one tomorrow."

Perhaps because the police report appeared to give credence to a some-bad-apples-among-the-innocent-refugees narrative that we liberals often like to pretend has no bearing, for a whole day after it emerged in Germany, only the right-wing press in Britain deigned to publish it. In some cases even as late as Friday morning, there were left-leaning articles sticking with the "nobody really knows if migrants were involved" rhetoric. Perhaps purely because this is the sort of thing the xenophobes will jump on, many on the left seemed reluctant to touch it. Concern for minorities, or knee-jerk political tribalism at its finest?

When political correctness reaches the point in which people are -- never mind being afraid to express opinion -- afraid to report police memos, then we know sanity has been left behind. This sort of obfuscation is dangerous not just because it makes detection of the actual perpetrators more difficult, but also because it is driving otherwise reasonable people away from the left and all too often into the arms of right-wing populism. Now, German police have publicly confirmed that more than half those questioned so far are indeed asylum seekers, and the right is doing its victory dances. Scroll down any comment thread and amidst the growing calls to leave the EU, you'll find "Libtards" and "the left" named as the personae non gratae in this whole affair. And for American readers, understand, this is exactly the sort of thing that Trump and his cronies can seize on, a perfect "Europe is being cowed" cautionary tale. In the words of an anti-racist Cologne protester on Saturday: "It's not good to 'protect' us, it just makes the racism worse."

Frankly, we on the left must wake up and become more willing to describe the world as it is. To confront the fact, for example, that some dangerous undesirables will indeed have found their way into the EU amongst all the decent and deserving refugees. If not, we face the prospect of being ruled for the foreseeable future not only by those on the right who want to "stoke up anti-immigration rhetoric," but also who will happily dismantle our public services. Right-wing populism finds a perfect ideological punchbag in a woolly liberalism that often fails to stand up for liberal principles. In the case of Cologne, we've seen not just obfuscating, but also what might be called victim-blaming. Cologne Mayor Henriette Reker, for example, advised women on a "code of conduct" for public celebrations, including "keeping more than an arm's length away" from men, even reportedly warning against being in a "celebratory mood." Channel 4 News broadcast an interview with a Tunisian refugee who said with a straight face: "It is not the fault of the refugees -- the couple of refugees who were there, who might also be culprits. It's the fault of the laws and bureaucracy in Germany that say you have to wait six months or one year for the day when you can find a legal job." I'm sorry, what?

Recently, two activists I know freshly returned from work with migrants and admitted sheepishly to me that their time on the front line had led them to consider -- briefly -- that perhaps Germany should close its borders. They told me that most of the migrants they had seen were not actually refugees. And then they looked at me as though they expected I would roundly accuse them of being Nazis. Unsurprising, since nuance and pragmatism are frequently becoming trickier in the ideological battle trenches of the digital era. Perhaps because of the constant demand for brevity in tweets and Internet comment pieces, a popular, and often false, thought association ensues: if you think this, then you must also think that. Suppressing debate and dissent within the left itself, this phenomenon has become a kind of digital McCarthyism. And it is driving people away from the very political associations that would protect their public services and democratic rights. Suggest last week that any asylum-seeker sex attackers be deported, for example, and sit back and wait for the Hitler comparisons to be pelted at you faster than you can say "no platform." Personally I am firmly left of the political center and share concerns about anti-refugee sentiment but -- and call me Mrs. Picky -- I draw the line at welcoming sex offenders into Blighty for toast and tea.

Last week it was revealed that 40,000 Syrians -- including many women and children -- trapped in Madaya because of Assad's war, were resorting to eating grass as they starved to death. One must ask: how is covering up for young men who seem determined to gleefully flout European norms and laws going to help those thousands of innocent would-be refugees who might otherwise be offered a haven were it not for the impending right-wing blowback against the worst excesses of liberal apologism? Merkel's seeking of greater powers of deportation for asylum seekers found guilty of, say, sexual assault, has been characterized by some on the left as "bowing to populist pressure." But is Merkel justified? In our reluctance to face up to the painful -- yet credible -- reports of migrant involvement in these horrific Cologne attacks, we have unwittingly given succor to those who would deny haven to any refugees at all


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bonny-brooks/cologne-sweden-assault-populism_b_8965118.html?utm_hp_ref=world

So basically Tommy wants a racist policy that stops anyone coming no matter if refugees.


Wow

This is the  21st century not the dark ages

Illegal immigrants must be stopped from arriving and removed if they do arrive.


If seeking a place of safety etc, then what's wrong with expecting their home continent of countries looking after them?

Its called have proper secutity checks, your method is barbaric and from the dark ages and why I do not take much you say seriously

What's wrong with expecting their home continental organisation of nations to provide a safe place for them!?

Becuase its an absurd argument, based not on any sense at all.
You are fundementally telling people where to feel safe and not where they would feel safe.

It is perfect sense!!!


If their home continent of nations can provide them with a safe place then they should be expected to do so and people expected to go there!!


Why not!?

No its only sense in the mind of someone who holds backward beliefs.
Here is a test for you

Ask Eddie whether she would like to live in a house of spiders as that is the house you are chosing for her and not the house she was to live in that is free of spiders.

Do you think Eddie will feel safe in this house you have chosen for her?

I dont think the problem is making eddie live in a house full of spiders ...more that she HAS a house...and someone wants to FILL it with spiders if you want the more accurate comparison.....

Lord Foul wrote:I dont think the problem is making eddie live in a house full of spiders ...more that she HAS a house...and someone wants to FILL it with spiders if you want the more accurate comparison.....

The point is still forcing people to go to areas where they would not feel safe

For example a Christian or homosexual fleeing the Middle east to be sent back tot he Middle East is not going to make them feel safe is it now Victor. The only place they would have sanctuary would be Israel

Ah, my mistake, I misunderstood what you were trying to say ...

As I beleive I have made clear...there ARE exceptions to whom we can and should extend a welcome...

what merkel did however was plain idiocy...

now sit back, pull up a chair and watch either

1 The collapse of germany into a Muslim state
or
2 the rise of the fouth reich

either of which will have been a direct result of the arrogance of the left....and should be recorded in the anals of history as a crime....

Lord Foul wrote:Ah, my mistake, I misunderstood what you were trying to say ...

As I beleive I have made clear...there ARE exceptions to whom we can and should extend a welcome...

what merkel did however was plain idiocy...

now sit back, pull up a chair and watch either

1 The collapse of germany into a Muslim state
or
2 the rise of the fouth reich  

either of which will have been a direct result of the arrogance of the left....and should be recorded in the anals of history as a crime....

No worries mate, this will interest you, all the parts highlighted are links to other sources:






Erik Tillman is an Associate Professor of Political Science at DePaul University and one of my colleagues on the Academic Board of Trustees at Vocal Europe.

We seem to have differences concerning the significance of the migration crisis currently playing itself out in Germany and Sweden, among other western European countries.

In a piece entitled, Is the Refugee Crisis Fueling a Radical-Right Surge in Europe?, Tillman claims:

the refugee crisis is helping to push those voters attracted to the radical right—individuals who value security and social cohesion over individual autonomy and universal rights—to vote for those parties. (Emphasis mine.)

My question is whether or not the current refugee crisis will incline European voters who are already attracted to the "radical right" to vote for right-leaning political parties, as Tillman implies, or are we seeing a reasonable and growing concern among native Europeans about the political sensibilities and behavior of many of the Arab-Muslim immigrants pouring into their countries?


Tillman, for his part, took exception with my statement, within Arab Migrants, Jews, and the “Radical-Right” in Europe:

One thing that we know with certainty is that the great majority of Middle Eastern immigrants into Europe do not hold liberal values, i.e., the values of minority rights, gender equality, free speech, freedom of religion, and Gay rights.

Tillman points out:

But what do we “know with certainty” about the values of Muslim immigrants in the West? Because it is difficult and expensive to conduct survey research on a minority population, there is not a great deal of evidence.

He notes:

it is not a monolithic religious community, and significant differences exist between Muslims of different branches.

Islam numbers around 1.5 billion people from virtually every corner of the world... with the possible exception of Japan... so, yes, it is exceedingly diverse.


Tillman concludes:

many European Muslims display lower levels of prejudice closer to those of European Christians. This fact should remind us that individual personality traits that predispose one to prejudice exist across all religions and societies.

I absolutely agree.


Nonetheless, the data clearly shows levels of anti-Semitism throughout North Africa and the Middle East topping out over the 90th percentile according to Anti-Defamation League world statistics. The current genocide of Christians within that part of the world is staggering, and entirely under-reported, as Raymond Ibrahim, a scholar of Coptic descent, can easily attest. The rights of women and Gay people are regularly trampled throughout the Arab-Muslim Middle East and few in the West seems to care.


It is a matter of fundamental common sense, therefore, that traditionally oppressed groups within Europe, such as the GBLT community or the Jewish minority, not to mention women, should have a heads-up concerning the political nature of this Islamic influx.


Tillman takes a helpful step in that direction by breaking down some of the differences between Islamic groups. For example, he notes that there are significant differences in outlook between Sunni Muslims and the more liberal-minded Alevi Muslims. However, Alevi Muslims only represent between fifteen and twenty million people throughout the world, which means that they represent only a tiny percentage of the world Muslim population.


In any case, my question above stands.


Are the Europeans who will be voting for right-wing political parties likely to do so, as Tillman suggests, because they were already attracted to the "radical right" or will they do so out of a moderate and reasonable concern over how this mass migration will alter the nature of Europe?


The question is important because if the answer is the former they can easily be dismissed as radical right-wing bigots. However if the answer to the question is the latter then their politics will have significantly greater weight among opinion makers, policy makers, and the general public going forward.

I think, from people I have talked to, it is the latter, since many who would have voted centrist right , and even centrist left are now finding hard right policies on this subject persuasive....

which I find quite concerning.

I am NO friend of the hard right and do not want them in power for a great number of reasons...they are across a whole range of issues, no better than what they profess to despise.

Lord Foul wrote:I think, from people I have talked to, it is the latter, since many who would have voted centrist right , and even centrist left are now finding hard right policies on this subject persuasive....

which I find quite concerning.

I am NO friend of the hard right and do not want them in power for a great number of reasons...they are across a whole range of issues, no better than what they profess to despise.

Completely agree with you and share your sentiments

I really think the left fail to see how they are being instrumental in pushing people to the far right, but the telling point on there is are they even asking groups like women who are a target to some of these  migrants what they think?

Politicians are supposed to be enacting the will of the people!!!


http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-immigration-survey-idUKBREA0600F20140107