New word: Danboozle

Danboozle: verb

To try to convince someone to do something in a certain way because ‘this is how it is done in Denmark’ (whether it is or not).

Example:- Here in Denmark, we always rinse the washing up thoroughly under hot water before placing it in the dishwasher.



This is the best thing I’ve seen. It’s a fight amongst suburban Danes about dog shit.

For those of you lucky enough not to know: dog shit is somewhat of an epidemic in Denmark. I’ve never had it dansplained as a ‘negative form of politeness’ or ‘just the way Danes are: deal with it’, so I’m not sure why exactly that is. My take is that people just feel entitled to do whatever the fuck they want, so why would they bend down with a plastic bag and feel how warm their dog’s poo is?

Anyway, let’s get some popcorn because someone is mad about it.


Red: It’s gone wrong again dear dog owners Fucking filth !!!!!



Orange: Agreed…. It’s just a bit difficult and find the dog owner… Heheh

Red: Yes unfortunately, Orange (;

Lime: Ew basterd

Orange: Where is it?

Orange: And is it usually bad there??

Red: By the shared housing commune, forest hill path towards the subway underpass

Blue: Someone’s got shit on their shoes! :’)

Red: And who do you think that was, Blue??

Blue: The wolf?

Blue: Or you? :D

Red: Good Guess my boy

Dark pink: Oh no! We just have to hope that the dog is on Facebook and in this group so they can see it themselves!!!

Red: You trying to be cute, Dark pink?

Yellow: Look on the bright side dear Red, you could have been bare footed ! First world’s problems


(I rather think the lack of safe disposal of hazardous waste is also a third world problem but ok)


Purple: Hello I am a dog owner myself but often see, that the bags with shit in them are thrown on the ground.

Cyan: Unbelievable people can’t tidy up after their dog, their best friend. That can’t be. As far as I know, you’re not allowed to have a dog in forest hill. You can look after a holiday dog but you should also look after these (accidents). Tidy up after yourself. There’s no one that thought about sliding in one. :-( :-(. Not even you with a dog :(

Green: Of course it’s not okay and filthy. But why should all of us, who have fuck all to do with it, be “punished” with a cloying picture of a smeared shit thrown at us on Facebook? What are you trying to achieve? I think recently all the grumpy old men and their petty problems have been filling up too much of this wall.

Cyan: Green, I liked Red’s status. Many that follow fb, and many more will get to read it. Also many might feel embarrassed about this filth in an otherwise dog free area. You maybe have a dog yourself? That you don’t even want to clean up after. Ugh, shame on you :(

Green: There’s nothing wrong with the message. It’s how it is delivered and the forum it is delivered in. Like everyone in this area is a badly behaved dog owner. And such a foolish comment that I should be ashamed. You know nothing about me. That’s exactly my point, that grumpy men like you, tar us with the same brush, if there’s something they’re not happy about. As far as I am aware, there is neither nor ought there to be anywhere in the local area that is declared dog free. Luckily.


The reply from Cyan which came in after I did the screenshots:-

I’m not grumpy. It just sounded like you had a dog yourself and didn’t care about the leftovers.

Of course there should be space for dogs. But in an area where you are not allowed to have dogs, the owner should make damn sure they tidy up after their fiddle.


And this argument about nothing is everything I have been saying about Denmark for six years.

  • Someone has a complaint about something because it directly affected them
  • Some people agree it is bad (but what can you do?)
  • A guy makes a joke which doesn’t really land
  • Someone passive aggressively tells off the complainant for complaining
  • Someone else tells him to think positively and be grateful for what he has
  • Someone else agrees it is a bad thing at length
  • Someone else says the complainant is making people who do not do the bad thing feel bad and it’s just grumpy old men who complain
  • One of the so-called grumpy old men accuses him of, in fact, doing that very bad thing if he’s saying they shouldn’t talk about it

No one thinks of solutions to the problem. No one asks “how do other cultures deal with this more successfully?” They just go round and round with the same old dance. Jokes, passive aggression, “positivity”, not-all-dog owners, ad hominem attacks.

I think it’s funny myself. Also, I think it’s interesting to see how they interact in this space. If they were to meet in the street, even where the dog shit was, they wouldn’t say anything to each other without prior appointment a month in advance.






One from the Vaults: The Buck Stops Where?


Something prescient from 2011 about Venstre foreign policy hope you enjoy reading it again.


And so, wearily, on to immigration.

As I noted previously, Venstre allowing certain people from certain “developed” countries to have an easier experience when they try to live here permanently with their Danish husband or wife throws up problems.

The Integration Minister (Søren Pind) said at the time in a newspaper column that he was “sick to death of equality mongers”.

The Press releases from the Integration Ministry are never translated into English. Highlights of a recent one saying how successful the current immigration policies are include “Denmark is internationally seen an example of good integration,” (which is demonstrably untrue, as international reports have noted Denmark is the worst at integration), and “Denmark is today more open to foreigners than ever before but now you come to Denmark to study and work, unlike earlier where you came for asylum or family reunification,”
and my personal favourite
“But at the same time I am in the process of modernising the Danish Immigration legislation, so that for example, now it will be easier to have family reunification with foreigners who come from countries which have a marked similarity with Denmark.”

If Søren “effing” Pind thinks that Japan, Canada, The USA and Australia are “markedly similar” to Denmark, then this guys problems are more serious than we think.
His grounds for choosing the countries that are on the favoured list have nothing to do with similarity with Denmark but are rather
1) No visa required to visit Denmark from their country
2) Member of OECD
3) At the top of the Human Development Index

Which includes South Korea and Israel for all three criteria. He never mentions them in his speeches.

The OECD is a club you can belong to if you like democracy and market economies. There are 34 countries in it, less than 30% are outside of Europe. The President of the OECD is Mexican. If he married a Dane, he would have to sit the language test to be allowed to stay in the country with her.
There are no African countries in the group. Only Japan, S Korea and Israel are from Asia. Only Chile and Mexico are from Central/South America.

The Human Development Index is a calculation made on the basis of life expectancy, education and income… A way of calculating if a country is “developing” or “developed”. Denmark comes 19th, behind all the other Scandinavian countries and, as I have noted, South Korea, Japan and Israel.
Making the cut of “Highly Developed Country” but behind Denmark are countries like Bahrain, Qatar, UEA, Barbados, Singapore and Brunei.
As they are not members of the OECD, these highly developed countries are not “similar” enough for Mr Pind.

Then the visa arrangements. How very strange that this would be requirement for saying a person was more able to integrate. Whether you need a visa or not to enter a country depends on if a visa has been negotiated with the country or not. “Similarity” is a very funny way of putting something like that.

Now, let’s just cut the crap for a second. If a Dane has fallen in love with someone from another country, surely the Dane should be the judge of whether she or he is “similar” enough to be romantically involved with. Why second guess them? Why say that similarity between cultures can only be judged on visa arrangements, a country’s membership of an arbitrary group AND the use of controversial development indicators?
He has enough courage to come out and say things that are not true, like Denmark is internationally recognised as a good place for integration but not enough courage to say that he only wants Danes to marry people from predominantly white, non-muslim, rich, democratic, market-forces led countries.

He has to couch it in terms that are understandable but not easily translated into plain English and spread far and wide. Dogwhistle politics, they call it. He uses the word “similar” to mean a certain thing and that thing is not about cultural values or ability to learn a language or will to integrate but rather a similarity on the most superficial of bases.

We have to watch this development carefully. He is saying that people from certain countries do not have to pass a stupid test to be allowed to stay with their Danish spouse today but tomorrow, he will almost certainly be saying those people should also be allowed welfare benefits like receiving health care without having to pay extra out of pocket.
This will be a way of ensuring that foreign wives of Danes only give birth on Danish soil if there is a good chance they are white. This is what is coming, everyone so try to act surprised when it happens.

This is the State’s Minister being questioned on the new rules that would make exceptions for people from certain countries.

His answers are instructive. Some highlights if I may…
Enhedslisten’s (the Red-Green party), Johanne Schmidt-Nielsen asked the Prime Minister of Denmark Lars Løkke Rasmussen, how is this remotely fair?

Why should an Argentinian man have to sit a test that a Japanese man does not have to? What objective reasons are there?

He tries not to answer it and just goes into some guff which reveals he wants it both ways, he wants tough immigration rules but he wants to be perceived as having an open society. (We want an open society, not a wide-open society)
Johanne gets to ask again and she says that she was not asking about the administration’s immigration policy but the concrete question of “how is that even fair?”

He tries to pass the buck to Søren Pind “because I am indeed not an expert at caseworker level here” (echoing his COP15 performance when he was trying to be chair and when he got it wrong “I am not familiar with the regulations in this system”)
He makes the general point that the thinking of the administration is to be as flexible as possible for those that have “integration potential”, who have “the will (to integrate?)”, who can… fit in our society.

Line Barfod asks the same question “What are the objective criteria that say that people from certain countries should be subject to different rules? What are the objective facts behind the Minister’s opinion that an Argentinian man cannot handle Denmark?”

He blusters, passes the buck to Søren Pind again, he says the grounds have something to do with the UN’s development index.

Lene clarifies that she does not require Lars to go into great masses of detail into individual cases, simply wants him to explain what the objective criteria are for his opinion that an Argentinian man will find it harder to manage Denmark and have a weaker desire learn Danish than a Japanese man. Why would an Argentinian man find learning Danish harder than a Japanese man?

He answers that the debate needs to be had. But later.

This is interesting. They picked “men” on purpose. They picked those countries on purpose.

Why they could not have said “Why would a woman from Pakistan find it harder to learn Danish than a woman from the USA?” goes to the heart of what this is about. They needed to find the most “ridiculous” case thrown up by this law. The case of two men from equally strange but equally non-muslim countries being treated very differently.

If they had brought up women from Islamic countries, there was always a risk he would say “Well, of COURSE, they will find it harder to integrate!” If they had brought up men and women from African countries, would he have made other ignorant observations?

Even if he did not say ignorant things, the Press would dutifully report the story in such a way that they did not need to be said. The prejudice in this country is that people from the US are more able to integrate than people from “Muslim” countries. What objective criteria is this based on? There is none.

Dogwhistle politics.

He claims that he wants to make it easier for those who can and want to integrate to come here. As there is no way of knowing who that is ahead of time, they have just decided to claim those from developed, democratic, rich countries are better at integration than those from “dissimilar” countries.

This would be a lot easier to talk about if they would reveal what integration is. Søren Pind said it was “assimilation”, becoming Danish and a bunch of American immigrants freaked out. They love being here, they said, but they do not want to BE Danish.

Is integration the ability to get a job? They already have a point system in play which allows those with educational backgrounds far in advance of the average Dane to settle here. If you have a PhD from a top 10 university but also come from a “dissimilar” country like Barbados or China, how will that impede job hunting?

If integration is about speaking Danish, then Prince Henrik (bless his heart), never really integrated properly into Danish society and he is FRENCH. As similar as you can get on these development criteria.
Plus, some of my friends are Americans in Denmark who cannot speak Danish. Even luksus Australian Gus does not speak fluent Danish. Meanwhile, all of the immigrants from “dissimilar countries” I know speak fluent Danish (fluent enough to get 12 in their 9th class Danish oral exam, some of them).

What do they mean by integration and why on earth would coming from a muslim, poor, non-democratic country preclude you from finding it easy?

Lars Løkke Rasmussen should have been hounded from office ages ago. He is incompetent, he passes the buck, his ministers make embarrassing mistakes, he presides over an administration which deliberately and accidentally misleads and he seems to be drunk most of the time.

The Danish Press leave him be. He is allowed to make such statements, answer questions in this way and get away with all manner of double-speak without being challenged.

The buck should stop with him but as he refuses to take on that responsibility, it must stop with the Press.