Archive: https://archive.li/9S0WR Summary of article: Denmark's controversial program aims to dismantle 'parallel societies' primarily composed of non-Western immigrants. Denmark's government...
Denmark's controversial program aims to dismantle 'parallel societies' primarily composed of non-Western immigrants.
Denmark's government describes 'parallel societies' as "segregated enclaves where immigrants do not participate in the wider society or learn Danish, even as they benefit from the country’s generous welfare system."
More specifically:
The law mandates that in neighborhoods where at least half of the population is of non-Western origin or descent, and where at least two of the following characteristics exist — low income, low education, high unemployment or a high percentage of residents who have had criminal convictions — the share of social housing needs to be reduced to no more than 40 percent by 2030.
From the beginning, the program’s targeting of communities largely based on the presence of non-Western immigrants or their descendants has attracted widespread criticism.
Several court cases based on the accusation that the law amounts to ethnic discrimination have reached the Court of Justice of the European Union. Even the United Nations has weighed in, with a group of its human rights experts saying Denmark should halt the sale of properties to private investors until a ruling is made on the program’s legality.
Additional context — excerpt from an older article:
Access to social housing, some of which has been earmarked for demolition, has been shut off to “non-westerners”, defined as being people from outside the EU, eight associated European countries, the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
People born in Denmark but who have a single “non-western” parent have also been included in the category of people subject to the restrictions.
My thoughts:
This is genuinely appalling policymaking! If these were general changes to public housing or immigration policy, it would be less disastrous. However, it is fundamentally and inherently illiberal for a society to target such specific policy based solely andexplicitly on people's ancestral backgrounds!
To base policies by loosely categorising people as 'non-Western' under broadly defined criteria, Denmark's approach practically amounts to institutional racial/ethnic discrimination under the guise of policy. Literally counting people based on ethnic origin for the purposes of housing policy. Not citizenship, nor residency status — merely where their ancestors came from!
Imagine this anywhere else. Imagine if you were Sadiq Kahn, the current Mayor of London. If this law had existed in the UK, he would be considered 'non-western' simply because his parents were first-generation immigrants. Despite being a fully integrated British citizen, born and raised in the UK, with Britain as his home, hardly different from any other Brit, he would be grouped together in the same 'problematic' category as anyone else whose ancestors were born elsewhere. How on earth is this even remotely acceptable?
(Even more demonstrations of absurdity: such policies, if law in their respective countries, would apply to people such as Freddie Mercury, Queen band lead, Rishi Sunak, UK Prime Minister, or even freaking Obama, the former US president!)
*Edit: other commenters makes a good point, ethnic background isn't only the sole criteria, but definitely a crucial one.
I completely agree with you -- this is absolutely disgustingly racist policy, and it doesn't even try to be subtle about it. I desperately hope there's pushback from other EU countries and the...
I completely agree with you -- this is absolutely disgustingly racist policy, and it doesn't even try to be subtle about it. I desperately hope there's pushback from other EU countries and the Court of Justice because this is horrific policy.
Curious to see this law getting international coverage now. It was quite controversial here in Denmark but we haven't heard much about it in years. I think it is a ridiculous law that doesn't even...
Curious to see this law getting international coverage now. It was quite controversial here in Denmark but we haven't heard much about it in years.
I think it is a ridiculous law that doesn't even solve anything. But there seems to be some details that are not quite correct. At least from my understanding ethnicity is not the sole criteria but one of five and three criteria needs to be present for several years for this to take effect. I believe that is their excuse that it isn't "technically" targeting only based on race because in theory all housing areas could become affected. Though in practice it is very much targeted at areas with lots of resident from non-Western countries.
Also Danish here and yeah this is nowhere close to being news to me. Parties have been trying to solve this for at least 10 years, maybe 20. But glad it's getting coverage because even though...
Curious to see this law getting international coverage now. It was quite controversial here in Denmark but we haven't heard much about it in years.
Also Danish here and yeah this is nowhere close to being news to me. Parties have been trying to solve this for at least 10 years, maybe 20. But glad it's getting coverage because even though ethnicity is not the sole criteria, it is still institutional racism to have it as a criteria at all
Another Dane here. When I moved into my current apartment, the area I moved to was on the "ghetto-list", and I had to prove I had held a job for the last six months and had a clean criminal record...
Another Dane here. When I moved into my current apartment, the area I moved to was on the "ghetto-list", and I had to prove I had held a job for the last six months and had a clean criminal record before I could move in. I should maybe say that my family is Danish going back to at least mid 1600s, so it's not because of my skin colour.
Huh, I wonder if I would count as Western or not. I'm not white, but am American? Although I'm not Muslim so I'm guessing they wouldn't particularly care. Would native americans (or...
Access to social housing, some of which has been earmarked for demolition, has been shut off to “non-westerners”, defined as being people from outside the EU, eight associated European countries, the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
People born in Denmark but who have a single “non-western” parent have also been included in the category of people subject to the restrictions.
Huh, I wonder if I would count as Western or not. I'm not white, but am American? Although I'm not Muslim so I'm guessing they wouldn't particularly care. Would native americans (or australians/new zealanders) count as western?
From an American perspective, it's definitely pretty strange. Ethnic enclaves in many US cities have achieved fame, like the NY or SF Chinatown, and although they often were historically because of ghettos, are today celebrated for their cultural richness and history.
That being said, I do understand that Europe is dealing with immigration challenges that the US mostly doesn't deal with, on account of the ocean and all, but any policy that's targeting ethnicity just feels... wrong. In fact, while I'm not sure if it violates Danish law, this would almost certainly be illegal in the US, being discriminatory by proxy against protected classes.
In Northern Europe, ethnic enclaves are almost only infamous because of crime and some right-wingers even call these areas "no-go zones" because of it. Just want to add a little context to this,...
Ethnic enclaves in many US cities have achieved fame, like the NY or SF Chinatown, and although they often were historically because of ghettos, are today celebrated for their cultural richness and history.
In Northern Europe, ethnic enclaves are almost only infamous because of crime and some right-wingers even call these areas "no-go zones" because of it. Just want to add a little context to this, as a Dane.
As I understand it, the US treats immigration very differently from Denmark and elsewhere in Europe. While the US embraces cultural differences, Denmark wants to integrate any immigrant - something that becomes impossible when they self-segregate in ghettos (which I am aware is an outdated/problematic term in some countries but that is still what it's called here, legally) hence them calling it parallel societies.
This used to be a right-wing talking point and parties would get a lot of votes for being anti-immigration (or anti-brown, as I like to call it) but the Social Democrats adopted this policy as well and won elections because of it. They are not even seen as a leftist party anymore by the way, having had so many neo-liberal policies in the last 10 years, even lowering taxes for the rich. And now that they've gone into government last year with Moderaterne (centre) and Venstre (centre-right) that's the final nail in their coffin.
Anyway, this has been underway for many years and the overton window shifting the last few decades is the reason this is happening.
This could just be the ones that you notice. For example in London (which is technically in northern Europe but stretching it a bit, but I am fairly familiar with London so that biases my...
In Northern Europe, ethnic enclaves are almost only infamous because of crime and some right-wingers even call these areas "no-go zones" because of it. Just want to add a little context to this, as a Dane.
This could just be the ones that you notice. For example in London (which is technically in northern Europe but stretching it a bit, but I am fairly familiar with London so that biases my examples) there are some ethnic enclaves that people wouldn't really think of as ethnic enclaves (because they are composed mostly of wealthy ethnic minorities). Especially around the Hyde Park or South Kensington there are some Indian "ghettoes" composed of partners at Magic Circle law firms and business people (for context, houses cost upwards of £5 million in those areas).
Denmark is far less diverse than London, we do not have a Chinatown or anything anywhere close to it. Again, the policy of the state is to attempt to assimilate immigrants, not allow them to...
Denmark is far less diverse than London, we do not have a Chinatown or anything anywhere close to it. Again, the policy of the state is to attempt to assimilate immigrants, not allow them to self-segregate.
But you are right about the other thing which is also something that will get brought up a lot in these discussions here - that there are rich-people-ghettos. I went to school in one of these areas. Almost all my classmates had millionaire parents; doctors, CEO's, TV celebrities, politicians, dynastic families... My family was one of the only middle class ones. The entire municipality (then called Søllerød) and ones surrounding it is a lot wealthier than other parts of the country. Frederiksberg in Copenhagen would probably be equal to the examples you give, just that it's not ethnic minorities - I know somebody there who are selling their house at a whopping 58 million kroner (£6770000).
In my opinion, these rich people ghettos are just as problematic as ethnic ones. They may lack organized crime gangs, but they make up for it in money laundering and corruption.
That's nice that people at least discuss that. I await the day that Denmark enacts a policy under which rich people ghettoes will also be demolished with the rich redistributed across the country.
But you are right about the other thing which is also something that will get brought up a lot in these discussions here
That's nice that people at least discuss that. I await the day that Denmark enacts a policy under which rich people ghettoes will also be demolished with the rich redistributed across the country.
So essentially they're going to Kristallnacht neighborhoods where certain ethnicities hang out. Having one parent is enough to count, whereas if you speak Danish and make money and don't do crime,...
So essentially they're going to Kristallnacht neighborhoods where certain ethnicities hang out. Having one parent is enough to count, whereas if you speak Danish and make money and don't do crime, that doesn't matter. And Danish neighborhoods with those problems are fine too as long as they're white.
What exactly do they mean by "reduce" social housing to no more than 40%? Sell them to private developers for gentrification? Literally wrecking ball and broken glasss-ing them?
Vancouver and Toronto would be wiped off the map if this was a Canadian policy.
I wonder why they didn't hide the obviously discriminatory bits behind good old gentrification. Has that been going on for a while and just not churning people out fast enough?
I agree that it's hyperbolic to compare this to Kristallnacht, but it's absolutely naive to see something like this and come to the conclusion that "there is no risknof Denmark doing that". This...
This isn't good, but it is not that, and there is no risk of Denmark doing that.
I agree that it's hyperbolic to compare this to Kristallnacht, but it's absolutely naive to see something like this and come to the conclusion that "there is no risknof Denmark doing that". This type of policy is absolutely not as far away from that as you imply, and it's built on exactly the same fundamental ideas and principles as that. Part of why they need to fight against policies like this is because of how quickly they can progress into that.
This is obviously flagrantly racist, but it's also dangerous in lots of other ways It's interesting that Danish politicians feel that the solution to immigrants purportedly 'failing' to integrate...
This is obviously flagrantly racist, but it's also dangerous in lots of other ways
It's interesting that Danish politicians feel that the solution to immigrants purportedly 'failing' to integrate is to demolish their homes, uproot them from their friends and neighbours, and try to prevent them from accessing the state social safety net.
when the state starts classifying its citizens according to ethnicity (which has no biological basis – see e.g. Stephen J. Gould's The Mismeasure of Man) bad things happen (note that collecting the data on an individual level is very different from collecting the data in aggregate, e.g. a census vs putting it on everyone's passport)
this is contrary to the usual position I hear continental European politicians taking on racism, which is to claim that it doesn't exist, it's an American problem, anyone who talks about racism is trying to introduce ethnic divisions or "Americanise" Europe, and their hands are clean.
Why is the burden entirely on the immigrants to integrate? It's nice to accomodate other people and not just demand they become a carbon copy of you.
This is the opposite of that, with the intention being to go to enclaves of a particular ethnicity and force them to leave those neighborhoods and live in white majority neighborhoods.
This is the opposite of that, with the intention being to go to enclaves of a particular ethnicity and force them to leave those neighborhoods and live in white majority neighborhoods.
I don’t think so. I feel like the culture in Nordic countries is a bit “you must assimilate to our country’s norms and customs. . .by force if necessary.” Yeah the racists don’t want to live next...
I don’t think so. I feel like the culture in Nordic countries is a bit “you must assimilate to our country’s norms and customs. . .by force if necessary.” Yeah the racists don’t want to live next to them anyway, but the way with these things is people rarely think through all the implications of political positions they take. The political culture there is much bigger on the argument that they don’t assimilate as the justification for discrimination.
I remember there was a proposal there in the aughts that made the news here. They were going to make it part of the citizenship exam to make people watch footage of gay couples kissing and nude beaches and such as a pretty pointed “F U” to people from conservative Muslim cultures.
For one, it's objectively what's happening. Even in the article, the testimonials the Times reported were about having to pack up and move to neighborhoods dominated by "western" people. Secondly,...
For one, it's objectively what's happening. Even in the article, the testimonials the Times reported were about having to pack up and move to neighborhoods dominated by "western" people.
Secondly, I'm not sure why you think it's some kind of excuse or not racist? It can be construed as just as racist. The underlying ideology marks a strong semblance to problematic ideas during the age of colonization about white saviorism, that the brown barbarians from arabia and africa would by themselves only foment crime and poverty, but if you place them next to Good™ white people, they'll become nice, civilized europeans.
It also is a means of power. By preventing a minority from ever being a even a local majority, you drastically reduce the amount of power they can have. It makes it difficult to construct a coherent identity in Danish society and create a self confidence in your own minority status.
Is that the underlying ideology, or the current motivations? The underlying ideology would seemingly be to impose culture change on immigrants and try to maintain existing culture (culture...
Exemplary
The underlying ideology marks a strong semblance to problematic ideas during the age of colonization about white saviorism, that the brown barbarians from arabia and africa would by themselves only foment crime and poverty, but if you place them next to Good™ white people, they'll become nice, civilized europeans.
Is that the underlying ideology, or the current motivations?
The underlying ideology would seemingly be to impose culture change on immigrants and try to maintain existing culture (culture existing at the time any policies that fit this ideology are implemented). In this way, it doesn't inherently make any distinction about who is more civilized or who is being saved, it's simply a matter of who has to change their ways or adapt to living with others. Thus the underlying ideology at its core is merely self interest. Of course the motivations being cited aren't simply about who has to change, but rather that there seems to be a perspective that the immigrants they're targeting with these policies are problematic in the ways you described. I think that's different than saying it's the "underlying ideology".
It also is a means of power. By preventing a minority from ever being a even a local majority, you drastically reduce the amount of power they can have. It makes it difficult to construct a coherent identity in Danish society and create a self confidence in your own minority status.
Power through culture, yes. But ultimately as long as land is something you can own/claim control of, and countries exist pretty much specifically to protect land for entire groups of people, then it is completely logical that people will use culture integration as a way to continue to protect that land. Any representation of groups that don't share similar cultural values could otherwise impose power over the land those people occupy, which is antithetical to the goal of their government. Within the concept of sovereign countries/governments, immigration isn't even something that is an entitlement. It's a compromise, because stagnant population growth of a country could be its downfall, so balancing what people who want to immigrate are willing to compromise on and what people who already exist in that country are willing to compromise on is the balancing act of maintaining a growing country and existing stakeholders. It's also a compromise of security as well, because you can either attempt to defend your land by force (if all land surrounding you becomes too contested then naturally the pressures of seeking land will come onto your land) or again, make compromises for access to that land.
I don't see the concept of how land is controlled to be changing anytime soon, so at a fundamental level, the underlying ideology does not seem to be racist, it seems to be self-interest. The motivations added on top of the underlying ideology can be racist however.
At a meta-discourse level I would say this is a kind of cheap shot comment that I would expect to find on Reddit. I asked a question and provided a reason for why what I believe might be correct....
At a meta-discourse level I would say this is a kind of cheap shot comment that I would expect to find on Reddit.
I asked a question and provided a reason for why what I believe might be correct. You then provide a counter-assertion but no explanation or reasoning, which doesn't really advance the discussion.
I'll try to answer. These policies are aimed almost exclusively at immigrants from Muslim countries. There have long been issues with crime, lack of education, social control, sexism, homophobia...
I'll try to answer.
Why is the burden entirely on the immigrants to integrate?
These policies are aimed almost exclusively at immigrants from Muslim countries. There have long been issues with crime, lack of education, social control, sexism, homophobia etc. Even going so far as to people from these neighbourhoods going to their local imam instead of police/courts to settle disputes. And for more current examples just last week in my city of Odense, people were burning the Israeli flag and a few days ago at a pro-Palestine march, there were chants to bomb Tel Aviv. There is also a lot of anti-LGBT sentiment among the Muslim population, arranged marriages, girls and women being nowhere close to equal...
So. Why would you not want to integrate? I mean you may be looking for opportunity or fleeing from poverty or war, but why go to a country with inherently different values from yours? Why move to a country when you want no part of that country's culture nor participate in any society except your own?
Having said all that, I feel I should mention that I still think this is a racist law and we (Denmark) no doubt have institutionally racist policies.
I don't really think that culture is as fixed as you make it out to be. If you look at most countries views and attitudes change over time. Immigrants bring new outlooks, new ways of doing things,...
So. Why would you not want to integrate? I mean you may be looking for opportunity or fleeing from poverty or war, but why go to a country with inherently different values from yours? Why move to a country when you want no part of that country's culture nor participate in any society except your own?
I don't really think that culture is as fixed as you make it out to be. If you look at most countries views and attitudes change over time. Immigrants bring new outlooks, new ways of doing things, etc. I like learning things from other people, and I think that at a societal level there's a great opportunity for mutual exchange here (rather than just in a single direction). All of Europe is going to need a lot of unskilled migrants to perform care work for an ageing population. Being able to accept other people and integrate them into society without forcibly assimilating them (which is unlikely to work) is a very powerful thing for any society.
There is also a lot of anti-LGBT sentiment among the Muslim population, arranged marriages, girls and women being nowhere close to equal...
Oh I agree completely on this, and it's a tricky issue because on the one hand there is a lot of bad-faith discourse about this both from racists but also sexist men of colour deflecting criticism by crying racism.
Purely from an effectiveness point of view – does it help to frame issues around LGBT+ rights as a "clash of civilisations" (i.e. a conflict between "civilised" western and "savage" muslim values) issue? I would imagine that it might in fact make these views more entrenched, and even push some muslims towards defending these beliefs out of a reflexive self-defense (because essentially it turns these issues into a football in a game of racial identity politics).
I think it's much more powerful to aknowledge that there is lots of discrimination everywhere in society and work to eliminate anti-LGBT+ discrimination that way.
I guess we'll disagree about how fixed culture is because I do believe that to a very large extent, people will stick with people who look like themselves - be it faith based, color of one's skin,...
I guess we'll disagree about how fixed culture is because I do believe that to a very large extent, people will stick with people who look like themselves - be it faith based, color of one's skin, heritage, country of origin, sexuality, gender, etc.
I think it's much more powerful to aknowledge that there is lots of discrimination everywhere in society and work to eliminate anti-LGBT+ discrimination that way.
You're not wrong. However when discrimination is faith-based, as it is in many of these areas, then it will be a very tough uphill battle. I mean just think about how many centuries it has taken for the most progressive countries in the world - western ones - to become accepting of gay people. In the great perspective of history, it has only been a blink of an eye and while Nordic countries are largely accepting nowadays, that's only gay and lesbians. Trans people are still heavily discriminated (I would know) in many parts of their lives.
Most people are by themselves very accepting and tolerant of their neighbours, however I do think my country is pretty racist overall. Though I feel it's also important to make a distinction between race and culture. I would point to discussions about the Quran book burning ban as another good example of a significant culture clash in my country (this post for further reading if you want). I'm a young queer white ethnically Danish woman, but I've known a lot of immigrants, especially third generation ones. My impression, anyway, is that very few people are actually "I hate brown people" racist. Their problem is with Islam, fundamentalism, and the extremely conservative culture it brings with it. Denmark has been secular for many decades and I think similar issues would arise if it was about any other fundamentalist religious group
Mirroring this sentiment from Germany. We also have had discussions about parallel societies, though similar solutions seem unviable in our political climate currently. Most people don't mind e.g....
My impression, anyway, is that very few people are actually "I hate brown people" racist. Their problem is with Islam, fundamentalism, and the extremely conservative culture it brings with it. Denmark has been secular for many decades and I think similar issues would arise if it was about any other fundamentalist religious group
Mirroring this sentiment from Germany. We also have had discussions about parallel societies, though similar solutions seem unviable in our political climate currently.
Most people don't mind e.g. turks who at least make an effort to assimilate in terms of core values. Ya know, those in the constitution. Official language, rule of law, religious freedom. The constitution has no opinion on Schnitzel vs. Döner.
But if your daughters are held back from class trips or PE class because they couldn't "dress modestly", whatever that means when applied to a ten year old, or when you vote for Erdogan while enjoying a constitutional order that's strongly opposed to dictators like him, that's when even centrists and center-left starts thinking of this as a problem.
Danish Turks vote Erdogan as well. And even more alarming is that statistically speaking, the original migrants who came to work in the 1970's are a lot more liberal than their children and...
Danish Turks vote Erdogan as well. And even more alarming is that statistically speaking, the original migrants who came to work in the 1970's are a lot more liberal than their children and grandchildren who for some reason largely haven't liberalized in the same way as previous generations
Their cultures were also assimilated into American culture at large. It certainly takes time to accomplish but the only way to assimilate a large group of outsiders without erasing their culture...
Their cultures were also assimilated into American culture at large. It certainly takes time to accomplish but the only way to assimilate a large group of outsiders without erasing their culture is to bring it into your own culture, as well.
Yeah? I never said their neighborhoods were demolished (although I suspect the tenements were demolished in large waves). I just said the rest of the culture accepted them (eventually). It's hard...
Yeah? I never said their neighborhoods were demolished (although I suspect the tenements were demolished in large waves). I just said the rest of the culture accepted them (eventually). It's hard to assimilate when you're not welcomed into society.
First: This is awful. Tearing apart communities of support is a brutal way of encouraging integration. This is a clearly racist law. Second: Making sure that most neighborhoods have a mix of...
First: This is awful. Tearing apart communities of support is a brutal way of encouraging integration. This is a clearly racist law.
Second: Making sure that most neighborhoods have a mix of housing quality and price is an important way to encourage understanding and community among people of all economic and cultural backgrounds, whereas making sure that all the poorest people live in a poor neighborhood is bad for society.
So I absolutely get why it's being done, and the action in general is within the realm of currently accepted best practices, but the racialized targeting is ludicrous. There should be no more than 40% social housing in any neighborhood, and if that means that nicer neighborhoods need more social housing built then that's a cost the more well off should pay to help newcomers actually integrate.
This is fucked up. Instead of attempting to bridge the cultural gap, they'll just scatter the people? Cut off their support? This won't help anything, it's explicitly punishing people for being...
This is fucked up. Instead of attempting to bridge the cultural gap, they'll just scatter the people? Cut off their support? This won't help anything, it's explicitly punishing people for being different. While communities deemed "problematic to the state" might get dissolved, it'll just lead to way more friction down the road.
Thank you for saying this, I totally agree. Also the continental European perspective on racism tends to be a very "bury head in sand" kind. When people bring up cases of racism in continental...
Thank you for saying this, I totally agree.
Also the continental European perspective on racism tends to be a very "bury head in sand" kind. When people bring up cases of racism in continental Europe the usual response is that said people are "creating" and trying to stoke divisions by talking about divisions that are already there. Essentially the continental European perspective is to create this Kafkaesque situation where on the one hand it's clear that there is lots of racism and individuals and the state carry out racist policies (dressed up as "integration" policies or similar), but they also insist that they aren't carrying out racist policies and there is no racism.
One can also see this in the refusal of continental European countries to collect aggregated data on ethnicities – if we don't know how many ethnic minorities there in in Europe it's easy to pretend that they don't exist, and if we don't have any data on their economic position it's easy to pretend that there isn't any discrimination on perceived racial characteristics. The Germans will say things like "well last time we did this we used it to run a genocide" (as described in Edwin Black's IBM and the Holocaust) which is very unconvincing because we know a lot of techniques for anonymising data and therefore we don't need a database of (person, ethnicity) pairs.
Why are you going "Europe" "Europe" "Europe" about something only Denmark is doing? Like what is your point exactly? "Ha, those Europeans are just as racist as us"?
Why are you going "Europe" "Europe" "Europe" about something only Denmark is doing? Like what is your point exactly? "Ha, those Europeans are just as racist as us"?
Denmark is the only one doing this particular law now but they absolutely won't be if it isn't struck down by the EU courts, and the rhetoric used to pass this law is ABSOLUTELY common throughout...
Denmark is the only one doing this particular law now but they absolutely won't be if it isn't struck down by the EU courts, and the rhetoric used to pass this law is ABSOLUTELY common throughout any European country with high immigration.
It is extremely common for white Europeans online to act like racism is a uniquely American phenomenon and that everything is totally different here. Just find any reddit thread about Dutch Christmas blackface and you'll see plenty. But it's undeniable that racism/ethnic discrimination abounds in Europe, and the only real difference with Denmark here is that they're the ones who put it explicitly in the law first.
Hmmm, reading this policy as it's written sounds... Awful? Normally you get 'good intentioned sounding policy used for horrible ends' but this sounds like 'a good idea someone had twisted into the...
Hmmm, reading this policy as it's written sounds... Awful? Normally you get 'good intentioned sounding policy used for horrible ends' but this sounds like 'a good idea someone had twisted into the worst it can be.'
Like, I'm confused. I get the idea of assimilation is bigger in EU countries but I guess I'd need an EU perspective on this. Does it read 'better' in Dutch? Because I get the idea of this policy, I guess, but like, shit, who wrote this policy? It's not even the quiet part out loud, it's... Bad?
I'm guessing you mean Danish? I'm from Denmark and no, it does not read 'better' in Danish. It's a dumb law that won't accomplish what they expect it to.
Does this read 'better' in Dutch?
I'm guessing you mean Danish?
I'm from Denmark and no, it does not read 'better' in Danish. It's a dumb law that won't accomplish what they expect it to.
-- Timothy Snyder "On Tyranny" Leaders that identify the enemy as the other, and say they're the entire problem are misleading frightened people. Clearing off foreigners is not a magic bullet, but...
"16 Learn from peers in other countries. Keep up your friendships abroad, or make new friends in other countries. The present difficulties in the United States are an element of a larger trend. And no country is going to find a solution by itself."
-- Timothy Snyder "On Tyranny"
Leaders that identify the enemy as the other, and say they're the entire problem are misleading frightened people. Clearing off foreigners is not a magic bullet, but it's like there's no other possible future people see right now. It's distressing how anti-immigrant discussions are becoming on other online communities, and now with moves like this standing as examples.
Archive: https://archive.li/9S0WR
Summary of article:
More specifically:
Additional context — excerpt from an older article:
My thoughts:
This is genuinely appalling policymaking! If these were general changes to public housing or immigration policy, it would be less disastrous. However, it is fundamentally and inherently illiberal for a society to target such specific policy based
solely andexplicitly on people's ancestral backgrounds!To base policies by loosely categorising people as 'non-Western' under broadly defined criteria, Denmark's approach practically amounts to institutional racial/ethnic discrimination under the guise of policy. Literally counting people based on ethnic origin for the purposes of housing policy. Not citizenship, nor residency status — merely where their ancestors came from!
Imagine this anywhere else. Imagine if you were Sadiq Kahn, the current Mayor of London. If this law had existed in the UK, he would be considered 'non-western' simply because his parents were first-generation immigrants. Despite being a fully integrated British citizen, born and raised in the UK, with Britain as his home, hardly different from any other Brit, he would be grouped together in the same 'problematic' category as anyone else whose ancestors were born elsewhere. How on earth is this even remotely acceptable?
(Even more demonstrations of absurdity: such policies, if law in their respective countries, would apply to people such as Freddie Mercury, Queen band lead, Rishi Sunak, UK Prime Minister, or even freaking Obama, the former US president!)
*Edit: other commenters makes a good point, ethnic background isn't only the sole criteria, but definitely a crucial one.
I completely agree with you -- this is absolutely disgustingly racist policy, and it doesn't even try to be subtle about it. I desperately hope there's pushback from other EU countries and the Court of Justice because this is horrific policy.
Curious to see this law getting international coverage now. It was quite controversial here in Denmark but we haven't heard much about it in years.
I think it is a ridiculous law that doesn't even solve anything. But there seems to be some details that are not quite correct. At least from my understanding ethnicity is not the sole criteria but one of five and three criteria needs to be present for several years for this to take effect. I believe that is their excuse that it isn't "technically" targeting only based on race because in theory all housing areas could become affected. Though in practice it is very much targeted at areas with lots of resident from non-Western countries.
Also Danish here and yeah this is nowhere close to being news to me. Parties have been trying to solve this for at least 10 years, maybe 20. But glad it's getting coverage because even though ethnicity is not the sole criteria, it is still institutional racism to have it as a criteria at all
Another Dane here. When I moved into my current apartment, the area I moved to was on the "ghetto-list", and I had to prove I had held a job for the last six months and had a clean criminal record before I could move in. I should maybe say that my family is Danish going back to at least mid 1600s, so it's not because of my skin colour.
Edit: oh, and this was in 2019
Huh, I wonder if I would count as Western or not. I'm not white, but am American? Although I'm not Muslim so I'm guessing they wouldn't particularly care. Would native americans (or australians/new zealanders) count as western?
From an American perspective, it's definitely pretty strange. Ethnic enclaves in many US cities have achieved fame, like the NY or SF Chinatown, and although they often were historically because of ghettos, are today celebrated for their cultural richness and history.
That being said, I do understand that Europe is dealing with immigration challenges that the US mostly doesn't deal with, on account of the ocean and all, but any policy that's targeting ethnicity just feels... wrong. In fact, while I'm not sure if it violates Danish law, this would almost certainly be illegal in the US, being discriminatory by proxy against protected classes.
In Northern Europe, ethnic enclaves are almost only infamous because of crime and some right-wingers even call these areas "no-go zones" because of it. Just want to add a little context to this, as a Dane.
As I understand it, the US treats immigration very differently from Denmark and elsewhere in Europe. While the US embraces cultural differences, Denmark wants to integrate any immigrant - something that becomes impossible when they self-segregate in ghettos (which I am aware is an outdated/problematic term in some countries but that is still what it's called here, legally) hence them calling it parallel societies.
This used to be a right-wing talking point and parties would get a lot of votes for being anti-immigration (or anti-brown, as I like to call it) but the Social Democrats adopted this policy as well and won elections because of it. They are not even seen as a leftist party anymore by the way, having had so many neo-liberal policies in the last 10 years, even lowering taxes for the rich. And now that they've gone into government last year with Moderaterne (centre) and Venstre (centre-right) that's the final nail in their coffin.
Anyway, this has been underway for many years and the overton window shifting the last few decades is the reason this is happening.
This could just be the ones that you notice. For example in London (which is technically in northern Europe but stretching it a bit, but I am fairly familiar with London so that biases my examples) there are some ethnic enclaves that people wouldn't really think of as ethnic enclaves (because they are composed mostly of wealthy ethnic minorities). Especially around the Hyde Park or South Kensington there are some Indian "ghettoes" composed of partners at Magic Circle law firms and business people (for context, houses cost upwards of £5 million in those areas).
Denmark is far less diverse than London, we do not have a Chinatown or anything anywhere close to it. Again, the policy of the state is to attempt to assimilate immigrants, not allow them to self-segregate.
But you are right about the other thing which is also something that will get brought up a lot in these discussions here - that there are rich-people-ghettos. I went to school in one of these areas. Almost all my classmates had millionaire parents; doctors, CEO's, TV celebrities, politicians, dynastic families... My family was one of the only middle class ones. The entire municipality (then called Søllerød) and ones surrounding it is a lot wealthier than other parts of the country. Frederiksberg in Copenhagen would probably be equal to the examples you give, just that it's not ethnic minorities - I know somebody there who are selling their house at a whopping 58 million kroner (£6770000).
In my opinion, these rich people ghettos are just as problematic as ethnic ones. They may lack organized crime gangs, but they make up for it in money laundering and corruption.
That's nice that people at least discuss that. I await the day that Denmark enacts a policy under which rich people ghettoes will also be demolished with the rich redistributed across the country.
I'm sure the money laundering and corruption is very disorganized.
So essentially they're going to Kristallnacht neighborhoods where certain ethnicities hang out. Having one parent is enough to count, whereas if you speak Danish and make money and don't do crime, that doesn't matter. And Danish neighborhoods with those problems are fine too as long as they're white.
What exactly do they mean by "reduce" social housing to no more than 40%? Sell them to private developers for gentrification? Literally wrecking ball and broken glasss-ing them?
Vancouver and Toronto would be wiped off the map if this was a Canadian policy.
I wonder why they didn't hide the obviously discriminatory bits behind good old gentrification. Has that been going on for a while and just not churning people out fast enough?
I agree that it's hyperbolic to compare this to Kristallnacht, but it's absolutely naive to see something like this and come to the conclusion that "there is no risknof Denmark doing that". This type of policy is absolutely not as far away from that as you imply, and it's built on exactly the same fundamental ideas and principles as that. Part of why they need to fight against policies like this is because of how quickly they can progress into that.
We don't have nearly enough social housing in Canada for that to be true.
*Cries in too severe lack of public housing to even enact this dumb law
This is obviously flagrantly racist, but it's also dangerous in lots of other ways
When in Rome…
...be shunned by the locals and forced into ghettos where you can only afford to live with other non-Romans?
This is the opposite of that, with the intention being to go to enclaves of a particular ethnicity and force them to leave those neighborhoods and live in white majority neighborhoods.
Narh. Racists don't want the minorities they hate to move into their own neighborhood. This is just a bullshit excuse.
I don’t think so. I feel like the culture in Nordic countries is a bit “you must assimilate to our country’s norms and customs. . .by force if necessary.” Yeah the racists don’t want to live next to them anyway, but the way with these things is people rarely think through all the implications of political positions they take. The political culture there is much bigger on the argument that they don’t assimilate as the justification for discrimination.
I remember there was a proposal there in the aughts that made the news here. They were going to make it part of the citizenship exam to make people watch footage of gay couples kissing and nude beaches and such as a pretty pointed “F U” to people from conservative Muslim cultures.
For one, it's objectively what's happening. Even in the article, the testimonials the Times reported were about having to pack up and move to neighborhoods dominated by "western" people.
Secondly, I'm not sure why you think it's some kind of excuse or not racist? It can be construed as just as racist. The underlying ideology marks a strong semblance to problematic ideas during the age of colonization about white saviorism, that the brown barbarians from arabia and africa would by themselves only foment crime and poverty, but if you place them next to Good™ white people, they'll become nice, civilized europeans.
It also is a means of power. By preventing a minority from ever being a even a local majority, you drastically reduce the amount of power they can have. It makes it difficult to construct a coherent identity in Danish society and create a self confidence in your own minority status.
Is that the underlying ideology, or the current motivations?
The underlying ideology would seemingly be to impose culture change on immigrants and try to maintain existing culture (culture existing at the time any policies that fit this ideology are implemented). In this way, it doesn't inherently make any distinction about who is more civilized or who is being saved, it's simply a matter of who has to change their ways or adapt to living with others. Thus the underlying ideology at its core is merely self interest. Of course the motivations being cited aren't simply about who has to change, but rather that there seems to be a perspective that the immigrants they're targeting with these policies are problematic in the ways you described. I think that's different than saying it's the "underlying ideology".
Power through culture, yes. But ultimately as long as land is something you can own/claim control of, and countries exist pretty much specifically to protect land for entire groups of people, then it is completely logical that people will use culture integration as a way to continue to protect that land. Any representation of groups that don't share similar cultural values could otherwise impose power over the land those people occupy, which is antithetical to the goal of their government. Within the concept of sovereign countries/governments, immigration isn't even something that is an entitlement. It's a compromise, because stagnant population growth of a country could be its downfall, so balancing what people who want to immigrate are willing to compromise on and what people who already exist in that country are willing to compromise on is the balancing act of maintaining a growing country and existing stakeholders. It's also a compromise of security as well, because you can either attempt to defend your land by force (if all land surrounding you becomes too contested then naturally the pressures of seeking land will come onto your land) or again, make compromises for access to that land.
I don't see the concept of how land is controlled to be changing anytime soon, so at a fundamental level, the underlying ideology does not seem to be racist, it seems to be self-interest. The motivations added on top of the underlying ideology can be racist however.
At a meta-discourse level I would say this is a kind of cheap shot comment that I would expect to find on Reddit.
I asked a question and provided a reason for why what I believe might be correct. You then provide a counter-assertion but no explanation or reasoning, which doesn't really advance the discussion.
I'll try to answer.
These policies are aimed almost exclusively at immigrants from Muslim countries. There have long been issues with crime, lack of education, social control, sexism, homophobia etc. Even going so far as to people from these neighbourhoods going to their local imam instead of police/courts to settle disputes. And for more current examples just last week in my city of Odense, people were burning the Israeli flag and a few days ago at a pro-Palestine march, there were chants to bomb Tel Aviv. There is also a lot of anti-LGBT sentiment among the Muslim population, arranged marriages, girls and women being nowhere close to equal...
So. Why would you not want to integrate? I mean you may be looking for opportunity or fleeing from poverty or war, but why go to a country with inherently different values from yours? Why move to a country when you want no part of that country's culture nor participate in any society except your own?
Having said all that, I feel I should mention that I still think this is a racist law and we (Denmark) no doubt have institutionally racist policies.
I don't really think that culture is as fixed as you make it out to be. If you look at most countries views and attitudes change over time. Immigrants bring new outlooks, new ways of doing things, etc. I like learning things from other people, and I think that at a societal level there's a great opportunity for mutual exchange here (rather than just in a single direction). All of Europe is going to need a lot of unskilled migrants to perform care work for an ageing population. Being able to accept other people and integrate them into society without forcibly assimilating them (which is unlikely to work) is a very powerful thing for any society.
Oh I agree completely on this, and it's a tricky issue because on the one hand there is a lot of bad-faith discourse about this both from racists but also sexist men of colour deflecting criticism by crying racism.
Purely from an effectiveness point of view – does it help to frame issues around LGBT+ rights as a "clash of civilisations" (i.e. a conflict between "civilised" western and "savage" muslim values) issue? I would imagine that it might in fact make these views more entrenched, and even push some muslims towards defending these beliefs out of a reflexive self-defense (because essentially it turns these issues into a football in a game of racial identity politics).
I think it's much more powerful to aknowledge that there is lots of discrimination everywhere in society and work to eliminate anti-LGBT+ discrimination that way.
I guess we'll disagree about how fixed culture is because I do believe that to a very large extent, people will stick with people who look like themselves - be it faith based, color of one's skin, heritage, country of origin, sexuality, gender, etc.
You're not wrong. However when discrimination is faith-based, as it is in many of these areas, then it will be a very tough uphill battle. I mean just think about how many centuries it has taken for the most progressive countries in the world - western ones - to become accepting of gay people. In the great perspective of history, it has only been a blink of an eye and while Nordic countries are largely accepting nowadays, that's only gay and lesbians. Trans people are still heavily discriminated (I would know) in many parts of their lives.
Most people are by themselves very accepting and tolerant of their neighbours, however I do think my country is pretty racist overall. Though I feel it's also important to make a distinction between race and culture. I would point to discussions about the Quran book burning ban as another good example of a significant culture clash in my country (this post for further reading if you want). I'm a young queer white ethnically Danish woman, but I've known a lot of immigrants, especially third generation ones. My impression, anyway, is that very few people are actually "I hate brown people" racist. Their problem is with Islam, fundamentalism, and the extremely conservative culture it brings with it. Denmark has been secular for many decades and I think similar issues would arise if it was about any other fundamentalist religious group
Mirroring this sentiment from Germany. We also have had discussions about parallel societies, though similar solutions seem unviable in our political climate currently.
Most people don't mind e.g. turks who at least make an effort to assimilate in terms of core values. Ya know, those in the constitution. Official language, rule of law, religious freedom. The constitution has no opinion on Schnitzel vs. Döner.
But if your daughters are held back from class trips or PE class because they couldn't "dress modestly", whatever that means when applied to a ten year old, or when you vote for Erdogan while enjoying a constitutional order that's strongly opposed to dictators like him, that's when even centrists and center-left starts thinking of this as a problem.
Danish Turks vote Erdogan as well. And even more alarming is that statistically speaking, the original migrants who came to work in the 1970's are a lot more liberal than their children and grandchildren who for some reason largely haven't liberalized in the same way as previous generations
Their cultures were also assimilated into American culture at large. It certainly takes time to accomplish but the only way to assimilate a large group of outsiders without erasing their culture is to bring it into your own culture, as well.
Yeah? I never said their neighborhoods were demolished (although I suspect the tenements were demolished in large waves). I just said the rest of the culture accepted them (eventually). It's hard to assimilate when you're not welcomed into society.
This certainly calls into question Denmark's #7 ranking on the 2023 Best Countries Best for Racial Equity report.
First: This is awful. Tearing apart communities of support is a brutal way of encouraging integration. This is a clearly racist law.
Second: Making sure that most neighborhoods have a mix of housing quality and price is an important way to encourage understanding and community among people of all economic and cultural backgrounds, whereas making sure that all the poorest people live in a poor neighborhood is bad for society.
So I absolutely get why it's being done, and the action in general is within the realm of currently accepted best practices, but the racialized targeting is ludicrous. There should be no more than 40% social housing in any neighborhood, and if that means that nicer neighborhoods need more social housing built then that's a cost the more well off should pay to help newcomers actually integrate.
This is fucked up. Instead of attempting to bridge the cultural gap, they'll just scatter the people? Cut off their support? This won't help anything, it's explicitly punishing people for being different. While communities deemed "problematic to the state" might get dissolved, it'll just lead to way more friction down the road.
Thank you for saying this, I totally agree.
Also the continental European perspective on racism tends to be a very "bury head in sand" kind. When people bring up cases of racism in continental Europe the usual response is that said people are "creating" and trying to stoke divisions by talking about divisions that are already there. Essentially the continental European perspective is to create this Kafkaesque situation where on the one hand it's clear that there is lots of racism and individuals and the state carry out racist policies (dressed up as "integration" policies or similar), but they also insist that they aren't carrying out racist policies and there is no racism.
One can also see this in the refusal of continental European countries to collect aggregated data on ethnicities – if we don't know how many ethnic minorities there in in Europe it's easy to pretend that they don't exist, and if we don't have any data on their economic position it's easy to pretend that there isn't any discrimination on perceived racial characteristics. The Germans will say things like "well last time we did this we used it to run a genocide" (as described in Edwin Black's IBM and the Holocaust) which is very unconvincing because we know a lot of techniques for anonymising data and therefore we don't need a database of (person, ethnicity) pairs.
Why are you going "Europe" "Europe" "Europe" about something only Denmark is doing? Like what is your point exactly? "Ha, those Europeans are just as racist as us"?
Denmark is the only one doing this particular law now but they absolutely won't be if it isn't struck down by the EU courts, and the rhetoric used to pass this law is ABSOLUTELY common throughout any European country with high immigration.
It is extremely common for white Europeans online to act like racism is a uniquely American phenomenon and that everything is totally different here. Just find any reddit thread about Dutch Christmas blackface and you'll see plenty. But it's undeniable that racism/ethnic discrimination abounds in Europe, and the only real difference with Denmark here is that they're the ones who put it explicitly in the law first.
Hmmm, reading this policy as it's written sounds... Awful? Normally you get 'good intentioned sounding policy used for horrible ends' but this sounds like 'a good idea someone had twisted into the worst it can be.'
Like, I'm confused. I get the idea of assimilation is bigger in EU countries but I guess I'd need an EU perspective on this. Does it read 'better' in Dutch? Because I get the idea of this policy, I guess, but like, shit, who wrote this policy? It's not even the quiet part out loud, it's... Bad?
I'm guessing you mean Danish?
I'm from Denmark and no, it does not read 'better' in Danish. It's a dumb law that won't accomplish what they expect it to.
Yes, bit of Nigel Powers in me there, always getting that mixed up. Thanks for the insight. It's just bog-standard populist nonsense then?
-- Timothy Snyder "On Tyranny"
Leaders that identify the enemy as the other, and say they're the entire problem are misleading frightened people. Clearing off foreigners is not a magic bullet, but it's like there's no other possible future people see right now. It's distressing how anti-immigrant discussions are becoming on other online communities, and now with moves like this standing as examples.