Danish Election ’15

Here are the results of the election of 2015 in Denmark.

1. Social democrats (26.3%)

2. DF: (Danish people’s party) (21.1%)

3. Venstre (Liberals) (19.5%)

Plus 6 other parties getting between 3 and 7% of the vote:- Red/green alliance, liberal alliance, the alternative, radicals, socialist people’s party and conservatives, in order from most popular to least.

Now, in Denmark, no one party is ever in a position to rule alone. They would need something like 50% of the popular vote to do so, as far as I can tell. They must make coalitions.

If you add up all the ‘red team’ parties and all the ‘blue team’ parties, blue team wins.

Now, looking at those results you would think “Fair enough, blue team wins, headed by DF obviously” but you would be wrong.

The DF don’t want to rule. They don’t want to rule because they know their policies actually can’t work and the second they get to try them out, it will become abundantly obvious and then they will never ever be voted for again. They are happy for Venstre, who came third to rule so they can sit at the back and boo.

Why did they come second?

If you want my opinion, and I’m assuming you do if you have read this far. If you want my opinion, it is because of the work all the other parties have done in promoting them.

I am not even joking. The DF’s election adverts had NOTHING of substance in them. Nothing. Their first slogan was ‘trust and peace of mind’, their second was ‘you know what we stand for’.

Meanwhile, almost every other fricking party had something about the immigrants ruining everything. The Social Democrats had something about how they wanted to reduce crime, specifically burglary. Despite this being an overwhelmingly Danish crime, they still managed to blame the immigrants in the 50 or so words on their billboard.

The tactic must have been ‘let’s beat the DF at their own game, xenophobia works, let’s do it!’ but it’s the same thing that happens when I see a Burger King advert: I want to go get a McDonalds. They advertised the joys of xenophobia perfectly and people responded by voting for the market leaders in xenophobia.

Meanwhile, after what the red team did to the teachers during the lockout, there were a lot of red team voters who had to find red team parties that did not screw them over. I assume a lot of the red team vote was split by the decidedly un-red team policies the incumbents had been enacting.

Sidebar: Have you noticed that these parties quite cheerfully expend all their airtime on talking about how to tame Johnny Foreigner but spend all their power on dismantling the welfare state?

What I think should have happened, again, not even joking, is that the Social Democrats should have joined up with the DF and one other party and led a new ‘orange’ coalition.

The DF are socialist, the DF blame foreigners and seek easy answers to difficult questions. I am struggling to see the difference with the current SD.

I am pretty much done with Danish politics now.

Sensationalisation

Before the shootings in Paris, I had commented that the Danish media was spending a lot of bandwidth talking about Islam creating an us-and-them mentality. After the shootings, the story was simple enough for the media to have on repeat, so the message could be properly disseminated. Vice.com reported on concerns that political forces were hijacking the event for their own devices, at the expense of community cohesion.

Every time a politician tries to make political capital on anything, there is always an equal and opposite reaction. For every voter they recruit with talk of their economic or social policy, they turn off others. They accept that risk. That risk is acceptable: it’s how free speech works.

Every time a politician tries to drive a wedge between ‘our values’ and the ‘other’, their aim is to recruit  voters but they are putting others off. This sort of politicking makes the marginalised feel more so. Usually, the marginalised stay passive and so politicians have got into the habit of doing it. You see it in the UK, when the Conservative Party propose stopping national unemployment insurance pay outs to the obese. And of course, we saw a lot of it after the shootings in Paris. “Why don’t moderate Muslims decry these attacks?” “Muslims are solely responsible for stopping this”. For every Dane that nodded their ignorant little head about the sentiment; many were irritated, infuriated, provoked.

And it’s just free speech. It’s just how free speech works. Those who work in politics are free to make disenfranchised people feel like shit, if it gains them a vote down the line. You won’t find any argument on that point here.

But.

Shouldn’t they be a bit more nuanced? Shouldn’t they make the effort to tell the long story? Shouldn’t they look at the wider picture a bit more? And make it a bit more thoughtful?

They do it because it works and they do it because we are lazy. The voters cannot be bothered to sit down and absorb a complex argument, so politicians are careful to craft the best soundbite to save everyone the effort. Instead of politicians having an actual debate on the nature of power, the role of conflict in the modern world, the causes of violence across the globe; we just get regurgitated pap. “Free speech should never be threatened!” “Their values are not our values!”

“For every subtle and complicated question, there is a perfectly simple and straightforward answer, which is wrong.”
H.L. Mencken

In fact, the message was simple enough that politicians and others who work in politics (for example, dictators), who have no respect for free speech could show up and pretend that they did for a day. It was easy for them because no one was having a discussion, they were just pronouncing shibboleths.

And, honestly, if someone unstable does become so incensed about any given poltician’s message that they become violent, this is not a reason to make the discussion more nuanced. For one, you cannot change your behaviour just because violent people do not like it. For another, their crimes are great for electioneering.

The reason to use free speech to make intelligent, moderate, well-informed pronouncements is for its own sake. Which is why it is not happening.

And thence to the role of the media.

Here is a video is from 2009 about a school shooting in Germany and its wall-to-wall coverage in the international media.

Forensic psychologists have pin-pointed things that can make copy cat mass murder more likely. These things include blanket coverage, sensationalised reports, making the shooter appear to be an anti-hero, focusing on the body count.

The media has responsible standards for reporting on suicide. The media mostly follows this, though not in the case of high profile suicides like Robin Williams. This is because using these guidelines saves lives.

By reporting on “Charlie Hebdo” (and the siege in the Jewish supermarket) in a sensational, blanket way, they made copy-cat killings more likely. They did not emphasise the troubled, disturbed lives of the murderers but made them out to be some breed of freedom fighter, allied to a terrorist cell. Compare/contrast with the reports on Breivik’s mental state and less than flattering comments on his character.

Though, it is not like the media cannot report on mass killings in a responsible way. The Chapel Hill suspect was dismissed as a mentally ill anomaly almost immediately and the crimes he is accused of were reported much less sensationally and were buried under the news cycle very quickly.

But what incentive does the media have to tone down the coverage of mass murder when it is clearly what the public want to consume? Nothing much happened between the Copenhagen shootings suspect being killed by police and his name being released but there was wall-to-wall coverage anyway. In this time online, many new stories were written because each click means revenue and the public are ready and willing to click. It is what the public want and so it is what they get.

His name has been released and the only detail about him that has come out is that he was active in illegal gangs. Straight off the bat, he is an anti-hero. The police have not confirmed this was a terrorist attack, just that they are investigating if it was. The Danish media are calling it terrorism anyway. This rolling coverage cements the same old us-and-them attitude. But who is ‘us’ and who is ‘them’?

Responsible reporting of this mass murder could save lives. But it is an election year, people don’t want to buy newspapers anymore and the public are simply not interested. They want pictures of bullet holes, they want to feel a frisson, they want a simple bedtime story. They don’t give a shit about the dead or their families, they just like to rubber neck and shudder.

And for all the Mr and Mrs Denmarks who are polarised against The Muslim Threat by this coverage; young troubled men are also being polarised against The West.

Trouble in Paradise

In the last couple of weeks, I have been reading the handful of books that have come out in English about Denmark to cash in with the success of tv shows Forbrydelsen and Borgen. Two of these books were written by visitors or recent immigrants, so a lot of the text is repeating what they have heard. For example, Danish people like interior decorating because their daycares and schools are decorated nicely.

Danish classrooms
Danish classrooms
Typical classroom in Denmark
Typical classroom in Denmark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

And I had to put the book down and breathe for a minute or two. Danish classrooms are functional, they get the job done… but beautiful? Who are these people feeding these quotes to foreigner journalists?

There are a lot of quotes like that out there. One chapter is about how Denmark has a wonderful welfare system because of the efforts of collective bargaining. And collective bargaining is so strong because of the efforts of Grundtvig, the 19th century school reformer. According to legend, his dream was to teach Danish people to think critically and ask the right questions in order to keep them safe from tyranny; a legacy that lives on even today.

Except. Not quite.

I can’t just upload a random picture from a few years ago to refute this, so I will have to take this part by part.

The history of the things that make Denmark attractive

In the late 1800s, there were strikes after lockouts after strikes. In 1899, a compromise was struck which ultimately ended in a system with maternity and paternity leave, sick pay, holiday pay and all the benefits that are lauded as Denmark doing things right.

This will have been a hard battle. These rights did not just appear just because Danes are so much better at democracy or seeing things realistically. People fought for these rights at great personal expense.

Whether you can credit Grundtvig’s ideas in those early stages, I do not know, I am no historian. But for the collective bargaining that was to come, having a general public that was educated in thinking critically will have helped.

Shut downs

Grundtvig’s aim is being actively frustrated right now and this threatens everything that those trade unionists 100 years ago were working for.

I read a book by an American woman about her experience at Christian college. Mostly what was taught were arguments to shut hard questions down.

In Danish schools, also, there is a similar movement but not for Christianity. Children are certainly taught to question but they are also taught the standard retorts to shut the question down when it gets too close to the bone.

These are (in no particular order)

  1. Even though Denmark is not perfect, it is still the best because some other countries are much worse
  2. Nowhere is perfect
  3. We have it pretty good here
  4. At least people are honest here
  5. We didn’t have any problems until outsiders spoiled everything

There are two interlocking reasons for the importance of these retorts.

Danishness as Religion

Firstly, Danishness has been elevated to the status of a religion. People do not feel Christian, they feel Danish. Questioning anything about Danishness is on the level with blasphemy. One housing association decides that an outside Christmas tree isn’t necessary for their community, the national media reports on it. One daycare facility decides that it’s just easier to serve vegetables, fish and chicken to their kids because they cater to kids with dietary restrictions, it is the end of the world because what happened to the pork? Some immigrant parents don’t come to twice annual meetings for all parents at their kid’s school, Danish parents pull their kids from the school even though there is nothing else wrong at the place.

Conviviality

The second reason is conviviality. It is important to always maintain conviviality. If one were to have a deep conversation, it might make someone uncomfortable or god forbid start an argument. Conflict must be avoided at all costs, so these arguments are stopped before they are started with the same old shibboleths. (An exception to this is when people are made uncomfortable by use of irony or politically incorrect statements, fuck conviviality in those circumstances)

If that is how you want to run a country, fill your boots. There are consequences. If you never have to ask hard questions or think deeply, your muscles atrophy.

I was sat in a large conference room with educated, politically active adult Danes. It became abundantly clear that while the majority were not exactly stupid, this lack of facility with difficult, conflict provoking concepts had disabled many of the participants in the discussion.

The course leader showed us a way of looking up information that is a matter of public record. One participant said “But why wouldn’t management just show you the accounts?” thinking this was a wonderful example of Danish humour, I turned to her, winked and said “Yeah, right(!) Good one.” She looked back blankly.

It just had not occurred to her that people often have things to hide. That people can be dishonest. That some serious Game of Thrones shit is going down most of the time.

Not being able to think of original arguments or look for hidden agendas has meant that the Danish government have been free to pull a fast one for a long time.

Worsening Conditions

All the things Guardian journalists like about Denmark are under attack. They are under attack for the same reasons they don’t exist (or are not as good), in countries like the UK: they make labour cost too much. They make the country unable to compete globally.

Danes have great parental leave benefits, great support during unemployment, holiday pay, decent wages and pensions. This is because Danish workers are not just grateful for having a job in the first place, they have unions that meet every couple of years with the employers and secure these rights.

But this is unsustainable, so the government has been weakening the unions for a while so they can do what they want. And no one has the ability to fight back.

They are able to complain about immigrants and their foreign ways. They are able to say how their country is one of the best. They are not able to see the way they are being tricked or how their services are being ruined in cost cutting measures. The things that make Denmark special are the very same that are being dismantled. Not enough people understand how powerful they are and how they could stop it. And for that, I blame the teachers.

‘Oh dearism’

Here is Adam Curtis’ analysis of the rise of ‘Oh dearism’

Part One

Part Two

Danish news is no different. World news is presented as fragmented examples of human cruelty with no attempt to bring the context into view. National news is a laundry list of minor stories and if there is an overarching narrative, it is how the immigrants are fucking everything up.

We are being distracted.

This is a week where Boko Haram massacre thousands and a man received the first 50 of his 1000 lashes for criticising Saudi clerics and the western international community mull over making Assad an ally now. The reporting of these stories has generated a few news articles and a couple of columns.

Meanwhile, the attacks on French cartoonists have been dominated the news cycle. Real talk now: murdering a bunch of people for saying/drawing offensive stuff is obviously wrong. But so is whipping someone 1000 times over 20 days. So is murdering thousands of people for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. So is making an ally of a war criminal. But those narratives are hard to fit into the current agenda. They are complicated. They are same-shit-different-day. Why is Boko Haram on the rampage? How come Saudi Arabia is as fucked up as North Korea and one country is a dear ally and the other is a mustache twiddling monster? How can one leader be as bad as Hitler one day but a necessary evil the next?

‘Whataboutery’ is a ridiculous point scoring exercise in debate. But surely the deaths of these innocent French people, be they cartoonists or policemen or shoppers, are just as worthy of being buried under the news cycle as the death of a 10 year old girl used as a living bomb? The guy in Australia who held a shop hostage and killed a couple of people got buried in the shuffle because he was a bonkers lone gunman. These guys in Paris, they fit a narrative. They fit a story about Good and Evil. We can stand together in solidarity because all the context and nuance are washed away.

So, now people who say “yeah but those cartoons were pretty mean, I am not really going to defend racist trolling”, are automatically on the side of Evil. People objecting to being snooped on by governments are automatically condoning Evil.

Whereas, the other news stories are just too complicated to be understood, so no one has an opinion other than “oh dear” or “people are sick” or occasionally “that continent/country/culture can’t look after itself, we should save them”.

We are being rallied to a choke point. Right now, it is needed that we feel under attack by faceless, barbaric enemies. It wouldn’t do to denounce the killers as bonkers. They are part of a plot. We are under attack and we need to take action. And the action we will take? It will be complicated and no one will bother to explain it to us. It might take the form of attacks on countries we are not at war with. It might be drone strikes. It might be economic sanctions. And when innocent people die or it sets off a chain of events (like the mistreatment of people set off ISIS), we just get to shrug and say it is too complicated to understand. That is until a crime is committed where context can be shrugged off like a jacket.

We don’t need to look at why cartoon trolling of particular people sets them off into a murderous rage. We don’t need to consider the response to world events only benefits a small minority. We don’t need to look for context or nuance, we just need to be outraged long enough for our masters to do what they want.

Micro Aggressions and Stranger Danes

To preserve anonymity of the people I meet, I try not to tell stories that would give away individuals. I’ve had a few experiences in the last few weeks that I really wanted to talk about but there was no way to do so without invading the privacy of others.

I don’t know what happened but I suddenly had a flood of invitations to events where I would be an unaccompanied foreigner to a group of people that do not know me or each other. A wedding, a party, a training event, that sort of thing.

And I had to meet a LOT of stranger Danes.

Here is my Ideal Stranger Dane, of which I met maybe half a dozen at these events.

  • Starts out with a question or a comment not about where I come from
  • Talks to me about something interesting that we can both get stuck into
  • Finds things in common
  • Makes jokes/laughs at my jokes
  • Is patient with my mistakes in pronunciation/word order/correct word usage

Here are the things that are (more or less), involuntary that Stranger Danes sometimes do (and it gets on my nerves)

  • Shudders or pulls a face when they hear my accent
  • Keeps that expression on their face whenever I speak to them
  • Walks away/turns their back on me when I approach while they are on their own
  • Repeats everything I say back to me with a singy-songy voice as if teaching an infant how to speak
  • Does not return my smile (or if they do, it doesn’t touch their eyes)
  • Only makes eye contact when talking about crime
  • Looks pissed off when I say Danish is not actually that hard for an English speaker (the hard thing only being that it must be perfect or ELSE)
  • Looks super pissed off when I say I have been in Denmark for 6 years

Here are the things that are just thoughtless but are somewhat of a choice

  • Asks DURING Danish language conversations I am having with them, if I speak Danish
  • Asks after I have replied in the affirmative “But do you UNDERSTAND Danish?”
  • Tells me that I do not understand Danish, while I am listening
  • Goes on about how hard Danish must be for me
  • Only asks me about where I am from and why I came to Denmark
  • Ignores me after this information has been shared
  • Compares me pointedly with other people who are also learning Danish
  • Insists that if I have a problem with an activity it must be because of my shitty language skills
  • Tells me that I am not ‘integrating’ if I choose not to be ignored or patronised by choosing another activity or if everyone around me chooses to move away from me
  • Underestimates my intelligence vocally

There are plenty of foreigners who can handle this or do not notice it. But it gets to me after a while. Especially since, if I bring this up, some people will jump on me to tell me all this stuff happens because I am a fucking bitch who deserved it.

Well, it never happened in the UK and it never happened in France and it never happened in Germany. In the UK, I make friends super easily. In France and Germany, people are used to hearing their language being mauled and they’re cool with it. They just let you communicate and are more or less Ideal Strangers.

In Denmark, people are not used to hearing their language mangled and they have been infected with the idea that foreigners are bad. Our badness stems from not wanting to be part of the group and not learning the language to perfection. Look at Prince Henri, he’s pretty much reviled and his Danish is perfect… he just has a French accent. That’s enough for Danish people to think that he is a stuck up prick. That’s all it took.

Of course, none of the people who were less than Ideal were bad people. They are nice, decent, otherwise smart people. They just lack empathy, curiosity and self-awareness. So, those people didn’t get to find out about the things that we have in common or some awesome or interesting point of view that only I can share. They didn’t get to find out that I am funny. They didn’t get to hear what it is actually like to be foreign in their country. So. I guess I won that one?

 

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.

Talking Politics with New Danes

When I first arrived in Denmark, the first question from strangers was “What do you think of Denmark?”

In the first few months, I would answer “Um. It’s good? I like it?” and the Dane would be pleased.

During culture shock, I would answer “It has its ups and downs?” and the Dane would agree, as every other country in the world also does.

I’m rarely asked what I think now. But occasionally the conversation will get onto my impressions and thoughts on Danish culture. If I think the Dane can handle it, I talk about the off putting levels of racism. (If I think they can’t I do a “Danes negotiate crowds like THIS, foreigners negotiated crowds like THAT”)

To which the new Danish acquaintance always says

“Oh, the DF. They’re a fringe element. No one votes for them. Just the old and the peasants.”

(Just between 12 and 27% of the voters, ok)

But that’s not my point. The DF are the DF, every country needs a whack job party to say stupid things and get wildly popular amongst the mouth breathers. It wouldn’t be democracy without them.

My point is, plenty of mainstream politicians say things that are the stuff of fringe whack job parties back home. And not very much happens. Maybe some people get uncomfortable and some other people shoot back with a counterpoint but no one really confronts “Hey, maybe racism has got totally out of hand in this country…” (before anyone points out that ‘Islam isn’t a race’, she makes it clear she means people from Pakistan and Somalia and uses the dogwhistle phrase ‘non-western’. So this is very much a cultural racism situation.)

Inger Støjberg published, in time for Eid celebrations, and this is not a lie, the headline

 

Happy Eid to All Muslims

I’m not going to translate the whole thing, I’ve gone down that road before with Inge and she flaps her gums too much, she’s obviously trolling and I CANNOT TAKE IT ANYMORE. Here are some choice cuts.

“For me, the end of Ramadan is the perfect opportunity to do a status check of the challenges we as Danes face when it comes to the integration of the next biggest religious community in Denmark.”

“In short, it is primarily Muslim immigrants who do not like democracy and freedom. In some environments, they directly work against it.”

“I am very conscious of the whines from the politically correct, left wing and minority of Muslims who are good at debating. They will say that I am generalising and am trying to polarise the debate to make a ‘them’ and ‘us’ mentality. My viewpoint is the opposite, it is so rare that you hear Christians (or atheists for that matter), say that freedom of expression and democracy are the wrong foundation to build society on.”

[So rare. You never get nutjob churches wanting ban books, alternative sexual practices or other religions. There has never been an example of a country having democracy suspended by non-muslims. NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF ANYTHING IT IS SO RARE. Not even in recent history like in Greece or Crimea or anything like that. It is just Muslims who hate democracy.]

“It’s why I think that if you make things really simple, all too many Muslims in Denmark practice a medieval interpretation of the Koran and it stops them from taking part in the ordinary Danish day-to-day life.”

“It’s not enough just to make an economic contribution [to the country]. If you don’t have Danish colleagues, you won’t have the same understanding of Danish values and traditions.”

[Although I’m pretty sure she’s complaining about pizza shops not international schools or companies here]

[Then she says that there’s a school in Aarhus where ‘no’ Danish children go. When what she actually means is that a lot of Danish children go there and they have family backgrounds in other countries.]

“It is not necessary to give the same demands to everyone who wants to migrate to Denmark. The main point is that there is a big difference in the abilities and will to integrate between a Christian American or Swede and a Muslim Somalian or Pakistani who come here.”

“That’s why I think that in the future, in a larger degree we ought to make it easier for those who traditionally can integrate while we should make it harder to those who do not have the ability nor will. ”

“If I, as a Muslim, was so lucky to come to Denmark through family reunification, I would love democracy and freedom of expression. I would practice my faith, conscious that I have the right too do so and the knowledge that I am protected to do so. I would be so grateful for the free society that Denmark is.”

There’s more on this (and the reactions to it) on thelocal.dk and a bit about it on cphpost.dk

Of course, she’s just farting in the wind. It’s not legal to discriminate on the basis of religious background. So if Venstre have different rules for ‘Muslims’, it will have to be on a countrywide basis. So, everyone from Indonesia or Nigeria would have the harder requirements. And I’m not even sure if they’re able to say integration requirements are easier if you come from a particular country. Probably not, or they would have done it already.

They do have the ability to say that schools need to have a majority of ‘Danish’ children, I’ve seen this shit in action. But instead of forcing ‘Danish’ children to attend the local ghetto school, they tend to close the ghetto school and bus the ‘non-Danish’ children to “spread them out”. So, that’s a worry.

Anyway. Venstre are a fringe nutjob party now but with 17-27% of the vote.

Customer Service

So, here’s what happened.

I got a letter in the post saying that our mortgage provider’s computer had gone down and we needed to send a payment direct to a certain account. I was a little suspicious but the letter had the right name and when I typed the number into my bank, the right provider name auto-completed.

Then I got another letter in the post asking for my mortgage payment. I was composing an email to check that I had sent the money to the right account when I noticed that the telephone helpline numbers were different on the two letters. The customer support email was different. The CVR number was different. And I dropped a bollock.

I google’d the support email and the first link was “FALSE EMAILS, DO NOT RESPOND TO THEM” and I did not look at the link but the bottom dropped out of my stomach.

So, I scanned in the suspicious letter and emailed customer support at the bank. I told them the situation and asked what I should do.

They emailed back straight away: contact your bank. GOOD LUCK. Seriously. “Good luck”

I contacted my bank, told them the situation, attached the suspect letter.

They emailed back straight away: nothing we can do. Contact the police.

I contacted the police. Over email because I hate telephones and I could attach the letter.

Then I started to think about how sophisticated the scam was: right name, right company name, they knew we were customers of this bank, they specifically only ask for one month’s money. They got the amount almost exactly right.

So, I googled the support email thing again to take a look at the other scams, to see if they were as sophisticated… and realised that the ‘fake’ email was not fake.

This was about fifteen minutes into the crisis and the feelings of pathetic-ness and horror were starting to give way into feelings of disbelief. So. I emailed customer support again.

“Are you SURE this is a scam. Did I just report my mortgage to the police??”

And this is the response, in full, without further comment.

Hello again 

Im sorry i didnt’  see the lette the 1. time 

It’s not a fake letter – there has been an error with the payment service as home loan is not automatically paid by direct debit – this is only in June and July that itmust be paid manually 

I regret that I was not awake for the first time  

If you have further questions, I recommend you to contact us on xx xx xx which is open every day from 9 -21″

 

 

My favourite colour is ‘rainbow’

I can be a new-to-Denmark blogger again because I just moved to Aarhus (everybody cheer!)

What better way to show you what I have been up to than some photos of the Aarhus Pride event?

Flags on buses
Flags on buses
Aros art gallery and a football pitch
Aros art gallery and a football pitch

I had forgotten that it was Pride today but I had to catch several buses for an open day at work and they all had the Danish flag and the rainbow flag mounted on the side.

The event was really quite sweet and small. No massive floats or anything. There was a family friendly fete (pictured) and some other stalls down some steps with more adult themed stalls (for example: the bar). I even got a free hug from someone giving them out at one of the stalls.

There was live music and all that sort of thing.

When the parade came past, what surprised me was that for every ‘special interest’ group that represented and walked together, there were groups of political parties waving the rainbow flag.

I am not sure if I could imagine Pride in a city in the UK having a big Labour float or a Lib Dem contingent. Maybe it would, I never managed to make it to one back in the old country.

My favourite sign was

Fuck ‘girl colours’

Fuck ‘boy colours’

What happened to *HUMAN* colours.

Scandi Spring? Fat chance

Three years ago, a market trader in Tunisia, Mohamed Bouazizi, set himself on fire to protest harassment from the Tunisian authorities. His death inspired protests in Tunisia and abroad, leading to the events of the ‘Arab Spring’.

Yesterday, a man left Brøndby town hall and set himself on fire, dying a few hours later. The news has no information about what the problem was and why he took such a violent step. Just that he had been given an answer about his case before he killed himself.

Honestly, I don’t think they care.  Whether this was mental illness or desperation or a combination, the media is entirely uninterested. Could it have anything to do with recent welfare reform? Who cares? Let’s talk about something more jolly!

What have they got to gain by looking the other way on this? Why isn’t the reason for his suicide considered newsworthy?

h/t Johnny Larsen

%d bloggers like this: