On Saturday night in Oslo, Norway, a 42-year-old man of Iranian origin opened fire at a gay bar while screaming, "Allahu Akhbar!". Two people are dead and over a dozen wounded.
As Norway tries to come to grips with this attack during a week of gay pride celebrations, Jonas Gardell, a Swedish columnist in the Swedish newspaper, Expressen, has his own theory about what happened in neighboring Norway. Nowhere in the article is mentioned the report that the attacker is a Muslim immigrant from Iran who had a previous criminal record and was previously diagnosed as mentally ill. Nowhere is there any mention of the reference to "Allahu Akhbar". Nowhere is there any mention of Islam's well-known hostility to homosexuality. There is a mention of the infamous 2016 Orlando attack on the Pulse (gay) nightclub, but no mention of who carried it out-a Muslim extremist.
The connection that the writer wants us to make is this week's US Supreme Court decision striking down Roe vs. Wade, a hate crime, according to the Swedish writer.
The op-ed in question is linked below. I am translating only that portion that refers to the Supreme Court decision.
https://www.expressen.se/kultur/jonas-gardell/nattens-attack-visar--det-brutala-hatet-mot-oss/
"The evening's attack shows how brutal the hate against us still is.
In my eyes, we must connect this hate crime with the hate crime that the USA's highest court subjected America's women to yesterday.
Only hours earlier, 6 conservative justices decided that abortion rights were being revoked since the right to an abortion is not mentioned in the original constitution dating back to the late 18th century, and now abortion bans are being introduced at a frantic pace in a number of US states. The State- read men- once again, is taking over the right to decide over women's bodies.
Many are warning that the US Supreme Court, with the same argument, is ready to tear up same-sex marriage and enable a ban against homosexuality in the USA.
How clear it is for me on this Midsummer day of grief and anger in Paradise that the hate of the Oslo killer and the hate of the Supreme Court are similar to each other.
Hate comes from the same source."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To connect the US Supreme Court decision, which merely refers the abortion question back to the states, is outrageous. Regardless of where you stand on Roe vs Wade, saving the lives of an untold number of babies is not a hate crime. To liken it to a man who pulls out a gun and shoots people dead is an outrage.
Was this an act of homophobia by the Oslo shooter based on religious belief? It appears so, but we await further information from the authorities. No matter who did it or what the motivation, it is to be condemned just as decent people everywhere condemned the Orlando attack and the previous Norway attack by Anders Breivik, who killed 72 people in 2011 because he was angry over massive Islamic migration into Norway. It was wrong. It was evil.
I may not agree on every stance taken by organized gay lobbies, but I do not want to see them harmed. It does no service to the gay community worldwide to ignore or mask the true motive for a particular killing. What happened in Oslo has nothing to do with the US Supreme Court or abortion rights. If it is to have any meaning, it must be followed by a full and open discussion of why it happened. If this was a case of a man lashing out at a gay target because of what he perceived his religious teaching to be, that must be acknowledged. That is not to demonize every Muslim living in Norway because not every Muslim in Norway is inclined to shoot up a gay bar while (allegedly) shouting, "Allahu Akhbar". But it must be discussed both within and outside the gay and Muslim communities.
It does no good to cry about evil if you are not willing to identify the perpetrators. Just like women and the Jewish community, it does no good to complain about sexism, misogyny, and anti-Semitism, if you are not willing to identify all the perpetrators no matter who they are. The gay community needs to stand up and decry hate from every source-including when it comes from Muslim extremists.
Pinning this on the Supreme Court is indeed dumb for all the reasons you mentioned.
ReplyDeleteBut stop saying that this is about "saving the lives of an untold number of babies" because that's pure propaganda.
The overwhelming majority of abortions take place within the first trimester. That means, that at best, a fetus has been aborted. That's not a "baby" by any stretch of the imagination. If somebody came up to you and said, "Want to hold my baby?" and then handed you a fetus, you would scream (and probably not even be able to identify the species - much less think of it as a "baby".)
What this is doing is removing a woman's bodily autonomy. In no other circumstance does another person's life take precedence over another person's autonomy - even when that person is completely independent and separate from everyone else. The government can't force you to give blood, donate a kidney, etc. even to your own flesh and blood. But they can force a woman to go through a potentially life-threatening ordeal.
That's what it is. There is absolutely no reason to think that abortions will stop or the rate will go down - even if it's outlawed nationwide. Countries that have fewer abortion restrictions have the lowest number of them. Countries with more restrictions have more of them.
This will save absolutely zero babies. What will we get? Women who commit suicide. Women who die in botched, amateur abortion attempts (which is what we had before Roe V. Wade).
You should also take note that many of these states that are set to outlaw abortions offer absolutely NO protections for women whose lives are in danger or who have been raped. Even when rape is given the exception, it is such a hard thing to prove. Imagine some poor sixteen-year-old who's been raped by a relative but nobody believes her. (This happens a lot more often than we like to think.) Now she'll have to carry that baby to term and her entire life will be affected by it.
There's nothing "pro-life" about the "pro-life" movement. Now we're going to wind up with more homeless and poor people to be rejected by society. Thinking that making abortions illegal doesn't go beyond "saving the life of a baby" is very myopic reasoning that relies more on catchphrases than anything true.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think a fetus eventually becomes, a dinosaur? If a fetus or a baby that could survive outside the womb is not aborted, then a life is saved, or not?
I know there is no perfect solution to this and I don't want to see back alley abortions.
By the way, the decision did not make abortions illegal. It just goes back to the states to decide. A woman can always go to a nearby state and have the abortion. Or is that asking too much?
What does a fetus eventually become?
ReplyDeleteWell, what does each sperm eventually become? Should we regulate male masturbation now? Think of the BILLIONS of babies (just as accurate as calling a fetus a baby) we'd save! How about mandatory vasectomies for every non-married man? Oh, would that infringe upon your bodily autonomy or something? But all the babies, Fouse! All the babies!
And are you trying to tell me that a first-trimester fetus can survive outside the womb? Might I suggest a biology book? Again, this accounts for 90% of abortions, so this is the issue at hand. If you want to get into the conversation of late-term abortions (which are really only done to save the mother's life or when the baby isn't going to survive anyway) then we can do that.
A woman can always go to a nearby state for an abortion? Oh, sure, how easy. Just drop everything, hop in a car (assuming you have one), and drive for hundreds upon hundreds of miles. That's ridiculous. Yes, it's asking too much, and only makes sense if you don't take the two minutes to think through all of the possible problems. It's not the state's right to force a woman to go through a full-term pregnancy. I thought you "conservatives" were all about limiting government? What's more limiting than telling them to stay the hell out of it entirely?
"It just goes back to the states to decide."
ReplyDeleteUnless Rebublicans outlaw/restrict abortions across the entire nation with Federal Laws.
"A woman can always go to a nearby state and have the abortion. Or is that asking too much?"
Only if the woman has the financial means to do so. Many/Most women who have abortions tend to be poorer, and may not be able to afford the cost of traveling to and from another State and staying in a hotel for a few days.
Rebublicans can also possibly criminalize the crossing of State lines for getting an abortion, aswell as other penalties. In Texas for example, an anti-abortion activist can sue an Uber driver who drives a woman to a clinic to get an abortion.
The above two comments think it is unreasonable for a woman to travel to another state to have an abortion because they are probably poor and cannot afford it. Sounds like the same argument against voter ID. Some people are too poor to get a picture ID. (Georgia offered to provide picture Ids for free).
ReplyDeleteThe possibility that one state might criminalize a woman for crossing state lines to get an abortion is an interesting question, and I would not favor such a law. Crossing state lines to do something illegal generally falls under federal statutes, and last I checked, the FEds are not interested in prosecuting someone for doing something that is illegal in one state but not another. And no, there is no federal law banning abortions. That is not what the decision by the SC did.
And Israel is not an apartheid state
"And Israel is not an apartheid state"
ReplyDeleteRespected Human Rights Organizations like Ammnesty International and Human Rights Watch would Disagree with you.
Amnesty International's Report on Israeli Apartheid:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apartheid-against-palestinians-a-cruel-system-of-domination-and-a-crime-against-humanity/
Human Rights Watch's Report on Insraeli Apartheid:
https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution
Get Educated on the Topic.
Do you think that making abortion illegal nationwide isn't the next step on the Republican agenda? Isn't that what you all want? "Save the babies" and all that?
ReplyDeleteI don't know. Why don't you ask a Republican. I am independent. And yes, it is about saving babies. What do you think they are trying to save, drowning kittens?
ReplyDelete"I'm surprised you didn't quote the UN."
ReplyDeleteWhats wrong with the UN??? They are far from perfect, but they still do a lot of good work in this world.
"If Israel is an apartheid state, why do they have Arab Muslims in the Knesset?"
Because a small number of Arabs/Muslims are Legal Residents of Israel, and even a smaller number are Citizens.
"Do they outlaw mixed marriages?"
Absolutely. In Israel non-Jews cannot marry Jews. Israel even forbids those Jews who cannot prove they have Jewish mothers from marrying those Jews who do have Jewish mothers. See the recent case of the Israeli Olympic gymnast who could not marry his Jewish fiance since the gymnast's mother is Christian:
https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2021/08/israeli-gold-medalist-artem-dolgopyat-cant-get-married-own-country
Why are they the only democracy in the ME?
A country can't really be considered a Democracy when it doesnt allow Millions of its Indigenous people (Palestinians) to be citizens and vote. I would also bet Turkey is currently a more Democratic country that Israel.
"For that matter, why don't you protest against all Israel's neighbors? Where are their Jews? They drove them all out in 1948, hundreds of thousands of them."
Im not sure that is true. Most Sephardic Jews in Israel came from either pre-Ayatollah Iran or secular Morocco, two countries whose governments were not known to be anti-Jewish. Even if a small number of Jews were driven away from other Mid-East countries, the Jews have only themselves to blame. For example, in 1954 Jews living in Egypt conspired with Israel to commit terrorist attacks in Egypt to benefit Israeli interests:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair
Like I said before, Get Educated on the Topic.
The UN is a collection of some 180 countries, the overwhelming majority of which are corrupt dictatorships. The UN regularly condemns Israel and has established Palestinians as an eternal refugee group.
ReplyDeleteThe Palestinians are not indigenous to Israel. Three thousand years ago, Jerusalem was the capital of Israel. Even after the 2nd temple and the diaspora, some Jews continually lived in the region.
If you referred to a "Palestinian" in the early 20th century, you could be referring to a Jewish resident or an Arab resident.
It is pretty clear to me that your real problem is Jews as people. Thus, I don't care to continue this conversation with you nor give you a platform to spout your anti-Semitism.
Palestine has never been a nation. It is a region, much like New England. It was only in the 1960s under Arafat that the Arabs in the region starting calling themselves Palestinian.
Again with the "saving babies".
ReplyDeleteA baby can live independently of the mother. You, as a male, can take care of a baby. If a woman holding a baby died, you could pick up that baby and care for it.
A fetus, which is what is aborted 90% of the time, can not live independently of the mother. If a woman with a fetus in her dies, there isn't a thing that you can do about it. The fetus is not a separate individual.
But even with separate individuals, we do not give them precedence over somebody else's bodily autonomy. You cannot be forced to give blood, donate a kidney, etc. to save another's life - even your own child's.
But you seem to think it's okay to force a woman to carry a baby to term, which is much more invasive and potentially life-threatening than either of those two procedures? And to save the life of a being that isn't even a completely independent person?
Calling them "babies" is pure propaganda to elicit an emotional response. You could call them "teenagers" or even "senior citizens" and it would be no less biologically incorrect.
But even if I grant you that they're babies (even though they're not) this will result in saving absolutely none of them. Abortions will still happen. Women will commit suicide or die in botched abortion attempts. Abortion wasn't invented with Roe V Wade. The country was not the better for it when women couldn't make their own decisions, and it won't be better for it now.