On a bright sunny Thursday afternoon April 15th 2010, a hundred people rallied against the construction of an Iranian-sponsored mosque on Vibevej, Copenhagen. The rally was held on the square in front of the Copenhagen town hall, where the proposed project was to be approved by the local government.
Protesters carrying the real Iranian flag with the Imperial lion.
The rally was organized by "Fællesinitiativet "Nej til Irans prestige projekt: Stormoské"" ("Common initiative against the Iranian grand mosque prestige project!), organized through Facebook, along with with Iranian dissident groups Frit Iran and Iran Frihed.
A bit of background
Now, common sense would dictate that since the Iranian regime is a brutal dictatorship, awash in anti-semitism, anti-Western rhetoric, seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, openly funding major terrorist organisations and treating its own citizens in the cruellest ways, we should use whatever means we have at our disposal to stunt the growth of this regime and its paid agents.
Last summer, when the plans for the mosque in question were first announced, it was very quickly discovered that the allegedly 'private' sponsors of the project were in reality agents of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), who increasingly are considered the real power-holders in Iran (US government report). Their extensive brutality against the Iranian population is well documented (one report here), and Iranian refugees have fled their country for the exact reason of escaping their barbaric ways.
A Christian carrying a poster of the Christ crucified was an interesting reminder of the contrast to the Islamic concept of martyr, the Shaheed.
Permitting the IRGC to establish a base in Denmark under religious pretence can be expected to radicalise Muslims, endanger refugees, and in general create insecurity, division and strife in the Danish society, along the lines of what is proceeding apace in Great Britain (The hijacking of British Islam (PDF here)). Further, it would constitute an insult to those who have fled to Denmark in order to escape their agents.
When Danish newspapers reported that the mosque was sponsored by the IRGC (as reported in Jyllands-Posten), commenters such as Ralf Pittelkow, Iranian-born Professor Mehdi Mozaffari and others were quick to warn against this particular project. While mosques elsewhere (as documented in Great Britain) are known to be attracting radical, racist and in particular anti-semitic preachers, the reports of IRGC involvement sparked particular furore. This included a controversial poster campaign by Danish Peoples Party, and a planned demonstration to be held by SIAD, but banned by Danish authorities due to the risk of the demonstrators being assaulted by Muslims and/or left-wing extremists.
Iranian dissidents and Danes standing for a common cause
The demonstation started at 4:30 PM. Posters and slogans were distributed, and coordinating speaker Farrokh Jafari introduced the event, with practicalities as well as a clear rejection of being associated with the Danish Peoples' Party. Being a card-carrying member of said party, I found it rather amusing, for what he was effectively saying was that they could not permit themselves to admit that DPP was right in these issues, and the socialists, whom they usually work with, wrong.
The particular problem here was that even though the local parliament of Copenhagen was to approve of the plans, they were bound by rules that they could only disapprove of the plans on technical grounds, like noise standards, parking place allocations and the like, or on basis of the architecture being unfit for the surroundings. Voting against the project based on the ideology and methods of IRGC was technically ruled out.
A somewhat abstract demand for 'Freedom and equality'. Note the embedded image of the Iranian singer Neda, killed by the IRGC.
Thus, the Danish Peoples' Party and the Conservatives claimed that they voted against it on technical grounds, while Venstre was abstaining. The socialist parties (Socialdemokratiet, Socialistisk Folkeparti, Enhedslisten) along with the centrist Radikale Venstre had said in advance they would vote in favour of the plans. The rally was a last-ditch effort to make them change their opinions. It was attended mostly by Iranians, Muslims and non-Muslims, with a healthy participation by native Danes. Not one headscarf was in sight.
The second speaker, Jaleh Tavakoli, is a member of local government for the small hard left party Enhedslisten. She is Iranian-born and also known for having been kicked out of an Islamist meeting in February 2010, due to her insisting on sitting next to her husband. She decleared her unconditional sympathy to the cause of the demonstrators and the plight of the Iranian people - then proceeded to explain why she would not vote against the proposal. While her words of sympathy drew approval from the crowd, her failure to vote 'No' didn't.
Jaleh Tavakoli spoke in Copenhagen, but her words of support were not entirely convincing, as she ultimately didn't vote against the mosque.
On the surface, it is a mystery why people voted into parliament with a clear opinion about such projects chose to not resist it when the opportunity surfaces. Word in the crowd was that her real reason was unstated: She would have been expelled by Enhedslisten if she had gone against the project. This is a situation where even the best of idealists give in and prefer 'influence' over principle. She may have the notion that making a compromise now improves her chances of doing the Right Thing later. I, for my part, do not share that conviction. And am further wondering why the hard left, usually extremely sceptical about religion, has such a romantic notion of everything Islam?
Next on the speaker's list was Lars Alsan Rasmussen, also member of the Copenhagen local parliament. As Jaleh Tavakoli had done, Lars also declared his unwavering support of the cause of the demonstrators, his personal opposition to the mosque project - and then proceeded to explain why he would now go inside and vote in favour of it, as he was technically obliged to do so. That drew contempt from the crowd.
He might of course be fined for voting against the rules, if he resists the project for other reasons than purely technical issues. But then, when we elect somebody to stand for principles, should he not do so in spite of running a personal risk in the process? Would not voting against, even faced with the risk of sanctions, have given him an opportunity to explain his cause and make a splash in the media? We will never know, for he obliged to the rules and voted in favour of the mosque.
"Vantro" ("Infidel") was a quiet protest against Islamic bigotry.
The fourth and last speaker was Firoozeh Bazrafkan, an Iranian-born artist who is known in particular for her exhibition Vantro ("Infidel"), where she had counted and reproduced the 347 occurrences of the word 'infidel' in the Quran, in order to illustrate the systematic bigotry of the book. She is not a Muslim and warned against permitting erection of grand mosques in our cities. They belong in the Middle East, not in the West.
The demonstration was done and over in slightly over half an hour, with the organizers inviting everyone with time at hand to come into the city hall and oversee the meeting where the mosque project was to be approved, in an orderly fashion, of course.
A protest in vain?
In a way, this demonstration was an exercise in futility. For years on end, the Left has taken every opportunity to stigmatize public protests against mosques, Islamic fundamentalism and the dangers of immigration as 'intolerant', 'hateful', 'racist', 'bigoted', 'extremist' etc. Now that Iranian refugees stage a protest, the Left excuses itself behind technicalities and refuse to take a risk on behalf of the very persons whose interests they always claimed to protest.
Further, a valuable chance to stop a dangerous project was lost. At the very least, the members of the Copenhagen local parliament could - should - have requested further details concerning the ownership and sponsoring of the project. It is well known that the site where the mosque is to be built was purchased by the Iranian ambassador to Denmark back in 2001, and thus already proven beyond doubt that the project is blessed and supported by the brutal Iranian regime.
Practical resistance to the project could have been executed with much greater skill. It would have been reasonable to request from the backers that they respect democracy and pluralism, reject racism and terrorism, for instance through signing the Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding and adhering to it. Denmark has freedom of religion, but only with in the framework of our Constitution. Which does stipulate that this freedom is conditional, granted only if nothing is taught that violates 'decency and the public order', as the text states.
The politicians we elect into office are there not only to administer democracy, but also to protect it. In this case, they could have done so through the due diligence of scrutiny, openness and reasonable requests for documentation. Such demands can be met openly by people who have nothing to hide, after which their project can proceed. Backers with sinister intentions, on the other hand, tend to back when faced with demands for openness and respect for democracy. This is doable and has been successful in halting fundamentalist mosque projects elsewhere.
It is an interesting aside that Muslim immigrants in the West rarely bother to fund mosque projects. If they considered such projects valuable and important, they would find the resources and proceed. Instead, we routinely see backers from the Middle East, Iranians, Saudis and others, who wish to promote fundamentalist Islam in the West, not benefit the Muslims there.
Was it worth it?
All told, it was a nice day in company of friends, standing for a good cause. This is becoming increasingly important, as the gap between citizens and politicians widens, and we need to call them back to reason, and to their duty of protecting democracy, even at the expense of occasionally putting themselves at some level of personal risk. Thus, in spite of not achieving the goal of the day, I will be present at the next such rally.
SOURCE: EuropeNews.dk
