A Norwegian feminist group literally awarded a bell to Denmark’s anti-immigration minister

Evidence

In November of 2003, Human Rights Service, a Norwegian feminist organization fighting for immigrant women’s rights, announced that it had awarded the ‘Cow Bell of the Year’ to the Danish minister of integration, Bertel Haarder, for his efforts to tighten immigration laws as a means of limiting forced marriages in Denmark. (The logic of such initiatives is that young people, primarily of Muslim origin, are being forced into marriage with spouses from their parents’ countries of origin, spouses who then enter Denmark under the policy of family reunification.) The Danish government, Human Rights Service noted, had done more than any other European government to secure women’s rights. Interestingly, because Human Rights Service wished to acknowledge the connection between Mr Haarder’s efforts in the area of women’s rights and the creation of ‘a better functioning multiethnic society,’ the actual award given was not a cow bell but a camel bell, a change meant to signal that Human Rights Service worked in solidarity with Muslim women and wished, perhaps, to be culturally sensitive. — Sherene Razack, Casting Out, 256 (#expands, via linked claim)

Human Rights Service represents only one feminist voice on the issue of forced marriages and it is certain that their views are contested both within Norway and elsewhere. In March 2004 the organization found itself in a storm of controversy when Muslim girls who had tried to access services accused the organization of having pressured them to take part in a documentary on forced marriage as a condition of getting help. The girls further alleged that Human Rights Service had exaggerated their stories and provided them with the scripts of what to say, as well as sending them on ‘missions’ to find girls who had stories of forced marriages to tell. A Norwegian journalist formally complained to the Ministry of Children and Family Services, which partially funds H.R.S., that the organization ‘lured’ Muslim girls by offering them money. — Sherene Razack, Casting Out, 257 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Although several European states have sought to regulate the conduct of Muslim migrant communities through laws condemning various practices, including female genital mutilation, the wearing of the veil, and forced marriages, I choose in this chapter to explore recent Norwegian initiatives in the area of forced marriages. Unlike other European countries such as France, Norway does not have a long history of hostile encounters with Muslim populations and appears to be less openly anti-immigrant than are some other countries in the region. Norway provides an interesting context for exploring how notions such as integration and culture clash in fact conceal the same anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim agendas evident in European states considered to be further right and more openly racist. I suggest, then, that although Norway is more moderate than countries such as Denmark, Norwegian responses have been nonetheless racist, ‘culturalizing’ violence against women as an attribute of Muslim peoples and using the opportunity to justify a number of initiatives that have more to do with teaching ‘them’ how to behave than having any meaningful anti-violence objective. — Sherene Razack, Casting Out, 252 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: A Norwegian feminist group awarded a Danish anti-immigration minister for restricting forced marriages — Sherene Razack, Casting Out: The Eviction of Muslims
, 256; Norway considered Denmark’s 23-year family reunification rule to combat forced marriage — Sherene Razack, Casting Out: The Eviction of Muslims
, 312; Norway’s moderate framing conceals anti-Muslim agendas similar to Denmark’s — Sherene Razack, Casting Out: The Eviction of Muslims
, 252 (+2 more)

Broader Connections