A network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues.

Double standards on anti-semitism

'' | 22.02.2004 14:22

No compulsory genital inspections for Jews, but an EU Commission member sees no problem in proposing it for Somali’s.

Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission, made a well-publicised declaration against anti-semitism last week, see...

http://www.europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=SPEECH/04/85|0|RAPID&lg=EN&display=

Prodi says the treatment of Jews in Europe is a litmus test for its civilisation. He praises the Jewish community for its multiple allegiances - to nation and Jewish community. He says that cultural diversity is Europe’s strength.

Prodi wants Jews to be respected. He wants their culture to be respected. He want Jews to live in a diverse Europe that welcomes them.

But two days later another member of the European Commission, Frits Bolkestein, had a totally different message. Not about the Jews, but about Moroccans, Turks, Ghanaians and other immigrant minorities in the Netherlands. Bolkestein was present at the launch of his party’s new hardline policy on immigration, which is directly and explicitly inspired by his own hardline policies, when he lead the VVD party 10 years ago. (Like most EU Commission members, Bolkestein is a former politician). The Dutch media spoke of the party’s ‘return to the Bolkestein line’. Download the VVD proposal here:

http://www.vvd.nl/nieuws/p_ni_li.asp?ItemID=40&ID=5135&hp=true

Compare the proposals by Bolkestein and his party for the treatment of for instance Somali’s, with the treatment of Jews in Europe. And think of what Prodi would say, about a party which proposed the same for Jews.

No acceptance of Somali culture: full cultural and political assimilation in the Netherlands.

Compulsory lessons in Dutch values for Somali children. Legal enforcement of Dutch values on Somali’s.

All Somali immigrants must assimilate to Dutch culture before leaving Somalia. If they arrive as a refugee, they must assimilate on arrival.

Complete assimilation into Dutch culture a condition for citizenship.

No subsidies for Somali groups or institutions.

Somali’s will be excluded from the social security system, and will not receive unemployment benefit, disability benefit, sickness benefit, health care, or pensions, for the first 10 years in the Netherlands.

If anyone marries a Somali, they must support that person for 10 years.

Somalis who marry a legal resident will not themselves be granted legal residence. If they divorce they will be expelled from the country.

Somali’s may not marry a Somali, unless they prove they have adequate housing for a family.

Somali refugees must live at a government-designated address for their first 5 years in the country.

The four largest cities (Amsterdam, Utrecht, Rotterdam, The Hague) can refuse to house Somali’s, in all or part of the city.

Similar proposals would apply to other non-EU immigrants. But Bolkestein’s most racist proposal is the compulsory genital inspections specifically for Somali girls (and probably also for Sudanese, Eritrean, and Egyptian girls). Parents who failed to bring their daughter to the annual genital inspection, would be jailed for up to 8 years.

Here is a member of the European Commission proposing something that not even Hitler introduced. How would the World Jewish Council react if a European Commissioner proposed annual genital inspections for Jews? How would the Israeli government react? How would President Bush react? How would the US media react? But in the face of the same proposal for Somali’s there is total silence.

Complaints about anti-semitism are pure hypocrisy, when the same people are complicit in the abuse and discrimination of immigrant minorities.

Comments

Hide the following 10 comments

Genital inspection

22.02.2004 15:32

They're talking about inspecting female children's genitals for signs of female genital mutilation, also known as "female circumcision", which is common in Somalia and some other countries. They don't inspect Jewish girls, because Jews don't do that, but Muslims, Animists and some Christians do.

Male circumcision is done by both Jews and Muslims, and while it's painful for a few days, does no lasting damage to the male. In fact in the 60s & 70s it was common practice in Christian & atheist families like mine to have boys circumcised at birth by the hospital doctor, because it was thought to be a good idea medically. Now doctors don't do that to boys anymore in Britain, though you can still legally have it done by a rabbi.

But "female circumcision" is nothing like that. It's basically ripping the girl's clitoris off, sometimes with just a sharpened piece of flint, and of course with no anesthetic. This does the most terrible physical and psychological damage to the girls.

More info here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm

Pete

This is rediculous

22.02.2004 16:31

Of course Prodi is a hypocrite. And he most probably is using the opportunity of promiting himself as a spokesperson against anti-semitism to gain political cudos. But insinuating, as this article does, that Jews have some sort of privileged status is absolute bullshit, and a classic tactic of anti-semitic (whether consious or not) propaganda. There should be no place for anti-semitic posts like this on indymedia. I think it should be hidden.

ghjg

No to racist hate

22.02.2004 17:33

What do you mean there should be no place for anti-semitic posts like this on indymedia. It hasn't just started, there has been continued anti-semitic posts on Indymedia since its inception, its just getting more and more vicious as time goes on. Yes, some of it can be put down Middle East passions boiling over, but a lot is just plain hate. The sad thing is the clear acceptance of this by Indymedia's administrator's. We should denounce all racists.

Adam

It is loosing its meaning.

22.02.2004 18:47

Anti-semitic, anti-semitic ooohhh anti-semitic and another anti-semitic, look that one too anti-semitic, she chose to be silent anti-semitic he smiled anti-semetic, he wrote something anti-semetic, he did not write anti-semetic, she listens and don's speak anti-semitic, she takes notes anti-semitic, he writes anti-semitic anti-semitic. and it goes on and on an on and on. I don't hate jews, I don't hate Israelis. But I dislike the cowardly too often used attack of anti-semitic. It has lost it's meaning. That for me is anti-semitic?

Rose

To solve a problem - first define it ...

22.02.2004 19:52

So, if we take the problem to be the rise of anti-Jewish feelings, then yes these feelings should be questioned.

If, however, we take the problem to be the rise of opposition to israels policies, then no, this opposition should be encouraged.

The problem with the problem is the language:

Whereas the percieved meaning of 'anti-semitic' is taken to mean 'anti-jewish', its actual meaning is more revealing.

Semites are those groupings of people who speak one of the semitic laguages. These are not exclusively jewish people, but cover muslims and christians of the region as well.

So why is it that the term is used only to describe jewish people. Well for most it is an accident of history and nothing to do with an agenda. For others it is a convenience to be used as a kind of shorthand. We should not concern ourselves too much with these uses.

There is however a strain of usage that seeks to obtusify and mislead the perceptions of those hearing or using the word. As Korbisky pointed out in his general theory of semantics - the word is not the thing.

The debasement of meaning that accompanies the [over] use of this phrase has a very specific purpose and agenda. The claims of certain, lets call them jewish fundamentalists, rest on the notions that the jewish people are genetically different from non jewish people and that jewishness is something given, not taken (ie it is an 'accident' of birth - like the notion of 'race')

It is these claims, which are patently false & can be scientifically demonstrated to be so, that are the basis of the current 'jewish only' land grabbing policies of the 'anti-non-semites' to coin an ugly phrase.

To fall into the trap of legitimising the dual notions of 'special' and 'chosen' by allowing the term 'anti-semite' to represent anti-jewish feelings is the worst possible reaction to the disgusting spectre of intolerance.

I am neither anti a group of languages, anti the peoples that speak them or anti specific people who may or may not speak them based on their religion. What I am is anti ALL RELIGIOUS NONSENSE.

You, I or they are not special, not chosen and have no more a legitimate claim to exploit oppress rob or otherwise dehumanise others than those who claim any one of these rights by dint of what sky ghost their mum or dad told them was lording it over them.

I am anti jewish in the same sense that I am anti christian anti muslim and anti hindu.

I am pro people pro compassion pro peace and pro hope.

Religion and the human beings that indulge n it are our greatest threat.

There is no religion that can make a claim for special treatment becuase their sky ghost told them they were better than anyone else. Any notion, act or claim to the contrary is the enemy of freedom.

jackslucid
mail e-mail: jackslucid@hotmail.com

"Privileged status"

22.02.2004 20:11

According to the logic of the comment about privileged status, any criticism of the hypocrisy of Prodi is anti-semitic.

The reference to Jews is relevant because Prodi spoke about Jews. He specifically advocated tolerance and diversity, knowing full well that EU states don't grant that tolerance to poor African or Asian immigrants. Nor in most cases to East Europeans.

To put it bluntly: criticism of racism directed against group A with the intention of concealing the equally wrong and racist treatment of group B is itself racist. What the comment is suggesting, is that we should be silent on the treatment of group B, for fear of inciting jealously against group A.

dutch rules for new immigrants from Somalia

23.02.2004 16:53

Can anybody explain what Jews have to do with this business? For as far as I know there have always been Jewish communities in Europe and their culture is...guess...Europes culture. All of them do speak the language of the country they are living in and all of them respect European laws and customs.
If Somalians refuse to this, well then I propose they stay in somalia.
As for mutilating little girls so that they will never be able to enjoy making love, this is a crime against
humanity!
why not asking us to import or to tolerate cannibalism while you are at it.

Tia Laurens

Anti-semitism prevails on Indymedia

23.02.2004 21:17

> Can anybody explain what Jews have to do with this business?
I believe I can. Indymediots can't help themselves - everything is either Israel's fault or the Jews' fault. It doesn't matter what the subject is, at the end of the day it all boils down to Israel and the Jews.

Then they claim they're not anti-Semitic.

Feh. They're a laughing stock.

Jamie

And yet...

23.02.2004 21:26

...you keep coming back for more, Jamie. What is it about this laughing stock that makes you want to keep reading it? Does it bother you that Indymedia is up and running now in so many cities around the world? Do you need to comfort yourself by repeating out loud that you're right, and people who post on Indymedia are wrong?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Jonathan

is circumcision mutilation

24.02.2004 02:27

I will make a prediction.

Thirty years from now circumcision of male children will be classed as genital mutilation, and put in the same category of abuse as female gental mutilation is now.

Thirty years ago FGM was regarded as a private matter for the childs parents, justified by culture and religion, and sometimes by spurious health arguments.

That is exactly the position with male circumcision now.

I consider the foreskin to be an essential component of male sexual action and pleasure, meticulously designed by evolution to be fit for its purpose. To surgically remove it, in some cases by a crude process involving a final "rip" with the fingernails, is an abomination and abuse of the rights of these infants to make their own decisions about their bodies. They cannot and do not consent.

Have you seen the website with all the photographs of the horribly scarred. bent, twisted, deformed penises where it went wrong? For obvious reasons, their poor owners usually keep them well hidden.

I expect to see some of these unfortunate individuals taking out a class action in the US against their abusers sometime in the next few years.

The only reason there is no uproar is that the circumcised are brainwashed throughout their growing up with a powerful disinformation campaign to convince them they have received a benefit.

And no - I am NOT just talking about the "loss of cover" = "loss of sensitivity" argument.

freddie

UK Indymedia