When racism hails

Then we're off again. With the perpetual racism debate. The excuse this time is the Gaza war. Or rather, the debate about who believes what about who is responsible for the war in the Middle East. During and after the tabloid debate program, on TV 2 on Wednesday 14. January, journalist and author Mona Levin accused former prime minister Kåre Willoch (H) of "racism and hatred of Jews". She called the Israel critic "racist."

The direct reason must have been his statements on the radio program Dagsnytt 18 on 30. December. Then Willoch said that Barack Obama's appointment of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, referred to as "Jew," probably would not make US foreign policy more Israel-critical.

The reactions afterwards show that the criticism of Levin and Willoch largely follows the usual pattern of Norwegian Israel debate: Those who are critical of the Palestinians are most critical of Willoch. Those who are critical of Israel's policy are most critical of Levin.

It is obvious that Willoch had one unfortunate word in the live radio debate, in that he did not point out Emanuel's Zionist background instead of the Jewish one. Neither is it true that Obama's Muslim background, by his father or middle name Hussein, is any indicator of his real politics towards Israel or Muslim-dominated countries. Willoch knows this, otherwise he does not say so, and he quickly clarified the inaccurate statement.

It is therefore pointless to call Willoch racist. Another question is whether the notion of racist is meaningful at all in today's Norwegian debate. It probably isn't. The one reason why the frequent racial slur is problematic lies in the fact that "races" as such do not exist. There is a misunderstanding from the 1800th century, reinforced during the Nazi era in the 1930s and 40s, that there are "human races" with different genetic or cultural characteristics.

The big DNA studies (Human Genome Project) in the 2000s has also shown that there is no scientific basis for the classification of people based on skin color. In this sense neither "racism" nor "anti-racism" exists. What exists in the case is a delusion that there are different types of people, and that some of them should be better than others. The fundamental problem lies in not in the ranking idea itself, but in the more basic assumption that, even in today's Norwegian language and debate, there are in fact different "human races".

It is probably too complicated to have to eradicate the racial and racist concept from the Norwegian language first. So far, we may well say that there are so-called racist acts or statements. Or, more precisely, actions and statements that are discriminatory, derogatory or illegal.

VG's first page

And in that sense, Levin also had a point, at least if we understand her Willoch outbreak as a frustration with attitudes in today's Norway. Considering the country's shameful history towards the Jewish minority, and today's limited recognition of the state's abuse, Levin is right to respond when she experiences problematic statements. For we see repeatedly that most Norwegians do not react when Jews, Africans or Muslims are mentioned in derogatory order. This is why it seems necessary to speak to media people and media critics with such a background in order to be a watchdog against majority-based media.

But the main problem is not spontaneous and un-nuanced statements from either Willoch or Levin. The challenge also lies in how such inconsiderate "racist" accusations are abused by the media: VG uses the top of his front page to let Willoch say that he is "not RACIST", as if someone believed it before reading the sentence. Willoch and Levin ended up so involuntarily in a media drama game where they themselves were only pieces, while hanging out as if they were the governing actors.

We saw something similar in the famous case between ambulance driver Erik Schjenken and Sofienbergparken victim Ali Farah. Schjenken and Farah closed the case by giving each other a hug before the acquittal ruling was handed down in Oslo District Court on December 4.

After they both got to speak – Schjenken over eight editorial pages in A-magazine October 3, Farah over three chronicles in Ny Tid the week after – they managed to acknowledge each other's situation. It seemed as if they realized that they had both become victims or pieces in a larger media dramaturgical play. They hugged each other. Which qualifies for the award for this year's Atonement 2008. This is how they both, if nothing else, overcame their outer demons.

However, there are others who are still struggling with their inner demons, and who thus remain the greatest moral losers. In an attempt to stand out in the Farah / Schjenken debate, Morgenbladet is now running its own campaign to label others as racists, not unlike what Willoch is exposed to. Commentator Marit Slotnæs mentions Farah on 9 January as "racist" because of his chronicle statement, while Ny Tid then "stands behind racist statements" – despite the fact that in the debate space in all newspapers print texts one may not agree with Since also Aftenposten's Israel-critical Jostein Garder Chronicle drawn in as a problem by Morgenbladet's debate editor, the accusations can probably be understood as poorly concealed envy after one has even failed to drop important voices.

When Morgenbladet's editor Alf van der Hagen not only stands "100 percent" behind his commentator's racist stigma, but has also launched an advertising campaign where Farah's and Ny Tid's alleged racism is used as a selling point, the Norwegian press has reached a new low.

The interesting thing is how another provocative text in Ny Tid this autumn, "Throw away the hijab!", Did not provoke reactions among such commentators. At the time, the majority of journalists did not shout about racism or discriminatory statements, despite the fact that many Muslim women reacted strongly, albeit by writing factual posts. This is how we see how the Norwegian social debate has been turned upside down in a surprisingly short time: In the 1990s, it would have been absurd to predict that a depressed Somali family father, abandoned by ambulance staff, could be branded a racist, or that someone would take racist charges against Willoch seriously.

The losers of society

But in media-Norway in 2009, it is not Arne Myrdal and neo-Nazis who are labeled as racists, but rather Somali men, Israeli critics and those who dare to bring their statements to the square.

Thus, in today's new media order, van der Hagen and Slotnæs can get away with scary wording like this: «If we take what Ali Farah writes seriously, the rational response the next time we pass a bunch of Somali men will be to go in a bow outside.»

This one sentence qualifies to be the most degrading that has been in the editorial commentary in the Norwegian press for a long time. It is one thing to be critical of Farah's argument, it is also the case in Ny Tid's editorial office, but it is quite another to interpret the text as an expression of what most Somalis stand for. And something even worse is it then, after an opinion statement and by referring to a "rational response", to encourage the Norwegian people to walk in an arc outside Somali men in the parks.

It is hardly conceivable that VG would put on the quoted sentence from Morgenbladet – far less be proud of it and advertise it – until the quality check is too good. The biggest threat to free speech does not necessarily come from the biggest tabloid newspapers. Opposition voices are just as much threatened by smaller, growth-oriented publications with weaker press coverage. Unfortunately, this is something that is easily overlooked if the media criticism is only directed at those with the largest circulation.

In the short run, the new media community's racist pistons probably stand out as the biggest losers. But in the long run, it is the Norwegian public who suffers the greatest loss.

From Ny Tids paper edition 23 January 2009.