http://www.bt.dk/nyheder/artikel:aid=418960/

She said – with reference to the totalitarian side of Islam – that there are certain things u cant be tolerant of. But Telegraphs Berlin-correspondent misquoted her, saying that she said that we should show opposition to Islam.

Pete

You raise some important issue, with regards to understanding the situation.

About the Queens quote:

““We have to show our opposition to Islam … We are being challenged by Islam these years… We have let this issue float about for too long because we are tolerant and lazy…” the queen said in an official biography published on Thursday, April 14. ”

That quote is in fact a mis-quote. You should check your sources for that. Opposition is not the word she used. The queen has a long history of preaching tolerance and openness towards other people and cultures. Actually all royals do. Frederick the coming King has shown a great involvement in immigrants issues. What the Queen adressed in her speach was the traditonel danish behaviour of “konflitkskyhed” meaning the “passive agressive behaviour”. She pleaded dialogue, and that danes nor immigrants should be scared of interaction, and telling each other how they feel about things openly. So in fact she was hussing the danes with that. At other times she has blamed danes for “dumb-smart remarks”

“But what has been changing?”

There has been a public debate about the challenges of globalization. At the same time, the tone in the debate has been very straightforward. For a number of years the silent minoroity have not had a say at all. This has let to the rise of DPP a party which in the immigration debate is on the right side. They have spoken for the (minority) of danes who see massive immigration as a threat rather than a possibility.

Due to the exessive immigration in the 80s and 90s Denmark saw problems never occuring before. Increase in harder violence, risen amount of immigrant women at womens crisis centres, pressure on social servies etc. etc. Ironically this development happend in a time where the danish economy was on a forward march. Surely the media also played a big role in adressing the problems. The prior taboos were silenced by this.

DPP found areas in which they could be in line with “average Joe”. Not only in immigration issues, but also with regards to the EU (DPP are very sceptic of this). When it comes to the elderly people, they also take their sides. Fx ensuring extra payments for the weaker elderly people. In a society in big change u can win alot of votes speaking to peoples fear about whats going to come and the “dangers” of mass-immigration.

DPP were in a way justified since for many years the “establishment” predominantely the academics had imposed taboos about speaking your mind. They were for long backed up by a traditional centre-left media. DPP have been very good at using emotive arguement, and their financial policies certainly are unrealistic. They have also has charismatic leaders and the ability to strictly control their party, thus excluding anyone who publicly made racist statements etc. knowing that they would lose votes on such things. The history of DPP goes back to the 80s when its early party virtually broke into pieces because of internal distress. This they have managed to avoid.

I reckon DPP will by time lose influence. Besides from the immigration policy which is tightened to the max given the current work-market conditions they will soon find themselves offering nothing else than other parties can.

Pete

It’s trying to preserve its liberal traditions against something fundamentally illiberal – Islam.

On the question of the 12% voting for the far-right, I would be very interested on their inclinations and also how the far-right party managed to persuade them.

We know about Haider, Pym, Le Pen and others and how they work. How does the far-right operate in Denmark?

I have my own problems with how America has and does treat its non-whites – most of those views I share with you.

Similarly for the UK, with Nick Griffin of the BNP getting acquited on incitement to racial hatred by him wrapping himself in the cloak of freedom of speech, is worrying and it requires a serious political response at all levels, and from across all sections of society. That is how they and their predecessors were kept in check – long enough to implode.

I have visited Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Holland and really had not expected such controversy to be fuelled from there. And did I say I really like the countries and the people. But what has been changing? Its a good while since I last went (10 years).

Finally, I’d be interested to know what prompted Denark to send troops over to Iraq and why its current Government and why the Danish Queen has been so vociferous about muslims.

“We have to show our opposition to Islam … We are being challenged by Islam these years… We have let this issue float about for too long because we are tolerant and lazy…” the queen said in an official biography published on Thursday, April 14.

So is there / was there a concerted effort on part of the Government, the Queen and its allies in the media to harness the worst political elements – which may have led to this.

And in the end – does this (or has it already) lead the Danes to lose all their liberal instincts.

Be astonished and wager differently !

I take it that your comments are due to lack of knowledge about the danish welfare state ?.

The future outlook though i do agree with you about. That is, if the net-influx will be of people with the educations/skills needed for a modern societys economy.

Pete

I agree with the morale of the article you posted, but in parts it is very one-sided.

Let me give an example:

“Even the Saudis only reacted after Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish prime minister, refused to receive a protest delegation of Danish Islamic leaders and ambassadors from Muslim countries. The Danish government’s insensitivity and rudeness were almost as offensive as the cartoons”.

Here they dont get the facts str8.

11 muslem ambassadors to Denmark initially sent a letter to the primeminister asking for a meeting in which they wanted “a discussion as to what legal action he was going to take against Jyllands Postens drawings, and comparing the steps by Jyllands Posten to the steps of terrorists”.

First of all a request like this is an unheard of attempt to influence national danish matters. This is not following the rule-book of normal diplomacy.

Secondly it must have been fully clear to the 11 embassadors to Denmark, that the prime-minister of Denmark in no way whatsoever could hold a meeting with them with such an agenda. Embassadors to Denmark must be expected to (I would say even as a minimum) be fully aware of how the government is seperated from the free press, and how such a request cannot be met. They also must be expected to be fully aware of the seperation between legislative, judicial, and executing power. ( I dont know the correct words in english but i am sure U catch my drift here… ).

Thirdly the primeminister responded to the request in 100% by the book diplomatic manner:
In a very polite letter he made it clear that such a meeting under no circumstances could be held with that agenda. He used the opportunity to inform them the basics of our system just to make sure no misunderstanding or misinformation went around.

Fourthly his foreign Minister Per Stig Møller as a matter of fact did have an inforal meeting with the 11 embassadors in which he clarified Denmarks stand on the issue, namely that a primeminister in no way whatsoever can interfere with the free press in this country.

…

There are other parts of the article that i have my doubts about/disagree with:

“Bush’s reaction shows that Americans have a better understanding of multiculturalism than most Europeans.”

If this is to be understood correctly minorities in American of different races are better off living there than in Europe ?. Maybe try to ask som Mexican-sweat-shop workers about this, some of the 90% black people on death rows, or maybe even the very very few congressmen with another etnicity than caucasian?. They might have a slightly different opinion about it.

“In Britain we are further back. If there is a tolerance spectrum, with resistance to diversity at one end, acceptance of it in the middle and celebration of it at the other end, Britain lies somewhere near the middle.”

Maybe a few of the illegal immigrants living under inhumane conditions in Englands biggest cities as slaves to prostitution or arranged marriages, or in camps along the french border would disagree here?.
I dont think those groups have any kind of political voice at all.

“In an excellent piece in Der Spiegel, Jytte Klausen, a Danish political scientist who has interviewed more than 300 Muslim leaders in western Europe over the past five years, says “religious tolerance and respect for human rights have been sorely lacking in Denmark”.”

A totally ungrounded statement.
I hope you read my prior link and posting.

Pete

See this from Jonathan Steele -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoonprotests/story/0,,1707526,00.html

We are all familiar with cynical politicians who use and abuse their peoples for power. Anti-immigration policies based on race I suspect would be seen as anti-european, however based on religion is the get -out clause.

This is the rationalisation central to advances of the right wing across continental europe. Watch Sarkozy manoeuvre in France. Another advanced society.

Historically and almost universally, from immigrants to America, UK and Europe generally – whether as economic migrants or refugees – are a spur to the economy. If that is not the case in Denmark, then let me know. I would be astonished if your foreign-born community is such a burden on the welfare state. Net contributors I would wager. This is the old argument the predecessors to the BNP harnessed.

Given the demographics of Europe I anticipate demands of the economy will be such that once again immigration will again be needed. That debate is under way in the UK. One downside of this is that it leaves the economies they leave are left a little impoverished. Separate issue – maybe another thread.

Those guys. Currently Kaplan and others. You take my point; in day to day terms I would suggest that Realpoitik and political pragmatism is a distinction without a difference.

http://journalistaward.stop-discrimination.info/fileadmin/pdfs/Europ_ische_Inhalte/Journalist_Award/DA_artikel__bers..pdf

Pete

“Without saying it you allude to rising racism which in turn has delivered a ‘centra-right’ government which (although not mentioned) is supported by a far-right party.”

In a democracy all votes are all worth the same – or not ?. For many years the danish governments have had support from the far left. Hardly ever been part of government though. Neither is the far-right now.
Or maybe you are of the opinion that the 12,5 % who vote for a “far-right-party” shouldnt be counted, when legislation is passed ?.

Besides: it is questionable whether DF (DPP) is a far right party like BNP. It gained most of its votes from the social-democratic party which traditionally has been a centre-left-party. In many aspect DPP actually vote like a centre party, or far left when it comes to EU-issues. They are more like your tories…

Denmark is not a racist society. If you knew your stats you would know, that Denmark is one of UNs 3 biggest contributors, and have been so for decades.

Denmark have helped out in alot of conflicts all over the world, among others the roadmap to peace in middle East comes out of a danish initiative.

People living in Denmark (including muslems) get better welfare than almost anywhere else in the worlds fx. free education, free medical care etc. etc.

But naturally there is a limit to the amount of iliterate and un-educated foreigners a society like Denmark can absorb. If you knew the history of recent immigration to Denmark, you would know that this group by far outnumber the immigrants with educations and skills usefull for the society . Think about it: If you were a doctor or lawyer would you settle in Denmark to pay 68% tax out of a smaller income or rather go to UK or US and pay much less out of higher incomes ?.

Therefore the government, supported by DPP, have tightened immigration rules, in order to :

I. prevent the growing problems with arranged/forced marriages, especially in the Pakistani, Turkish and Somail-communities, which are the biggest groups in Denmark.

II. assure that the immigrants presently in Denmark get educations and jobs in order to support themselves and their families

III. enforce a better integration-programme, with danish-classes and gained knowledge of dansh society, to enable them to understand the society they choose to settle in

In UK there doesnt seem to be a problem, since everyone are left to their own devices.

The average muslim from a third world country would be better off where..?

“Also not mentioned, the newspaper in question has political links which are not covered well enough.”

Jyllands Posten is Denmarks biggest newspaper. Its readers come from a big section of the population, including governing parties as well as opposition. To assume that the paper is in the pockets of DPP is far fetched. The editoral line, however, is government friendly.

In may 2005 the Jyllands Postens journalist Ole Borg won the EU award for “Diversity, and against discrimination” among contributions from 250 journalist from 25 countries. For the series of articles “the contributors” about emmigrants and descendants who contribute to the society and the work-market in Denmark….

Does that sound BNP to you ?

Pete

Well in that case why are they still in London, Paris, New York etc, where they’re getting oppressed? Why don’t these women in black ghost outfits decamp to a Muslim country like Iran where women aren’t oppressed at all?

No, she’s not Diana Hayden nor is she Sushmita Sen,
Not even Aishwarya Rai, Who is this girl then?

No, she does not flash her legs nor walk down the aisle semi-nude
For her such things are unthinkable, sacrilegious and downright rude

Miss World, Miss Universe, Miss “Anything”, She does not aspire to be
She shuns all kinds of publicity in privacy she would rather be

Never in a swimming costume will she for a camera pose
Yes, she’s the ‘girl in hijaab’ more beautiful than a rose!

Those who’re ‘stripped’ of modesty will ‘strip’ for any cause
Whether on a lonely beach or in front of a full house

In their naked greed they dance In pursuit of earth’s glory
Is there a thing more vulgar than a woman devoid of modesty?

In the name of freedom all moral values are now defined
Vulgarity, nudism, nakedness are steps to fame that wind

Those who are of rotten minds call it freedom of “female” species
Yet, they exploit them a-plenty, whenever and wherever they please.

But for their terrible transgressions maybe they are not fully to
blame, The Muslims forgot their duty and let them live in shame

Incumbent upon the Muslims it was to promote good and stop all vice
If they had done their duty such situations wouldn’t arise

Back to our girl in hijaab much loved in Allah’s sight
She is darling of all the angels Heaven beckons to her, by right

She’s a simple Muslim Girl Yet more beautiful than a full moon
The brightness of her face is all “Noor” can there be a greater boon?

Modesty is her birth right without it, she’d feel lost
“Shamelessness” is a Devil’s tool that she avoids at any cost

No, she does not commit sinful acts nor to base desires give vent
In studies, salah, zikr and tilawat much of her time is spent

In obedience of Allah’s commands she does all the things wise
And the riches that she scorns befits a “Princess of Paradise”
Our beloved Prophet (PBUH) said modesty is a part of faith
For those who follow not we solemnly lay a wreath

No, she’s not Diana Hayden nor she is Sushmita Sen
Nothing on earth would entice her Rupees, Dollars or Yen!

Hijaab

Amidst the hustle and bustle of a teeming metropolis, a solitary figure traverses. She moves steadily in her black garment which shields her against the tyranny of this life. Whilst others around her rush frantically, she move with tranquillity and ease. The peace which she achieves beneath this veil of hers, is immense. It is a liberation beyond measure. Is this a princess of royal blood? No. Is she a head of state? No. So who is this woman of serenity? This is a woman of Hijaab. A woman amongst many women. A Muslim Woman.
The site of a woman covering from top to bottom, is not so rare anymore in the major cities of the West. For many Westerners it represents the oppression which Islam imposes upon women. For Muslims however, it is the realisation that Islam will eventually reach every corner of this planet. This is not surprising, considering that Islam is the fastest growing religion on Earth. What is surprising, for Westerners, is that 7 out of 10 (70%) people who become Muslim are Women! It is these same women who then go on to willingly observe the Hijab without coercion or force. The women of Hijaab in the cities of London, Paris, New York etc, are not all immigrants who have just stepped off the boat, as many people think. Rather, many of them tend to be women of high intellect and education. Women who have experienced the bitterness of western oppression. Women of diverse nationalities and races, who are brought together as one, under the banner of Islam.