Denmark Plans to Limit "Non-Western" Residents in Disadvantaged Areas

[Kooky]

It depends on the specific issue being addressed. In Denmark's case, it doesn't have a problem of parallel societies of Italians or Irish people where problematic cultural and religious practices thrive, so it seems logical that they are instead focusing on other demographics.

What "problematic cultural and religious practices" are we talking about here? Your previous post talked about sexual assault statistics in Sweden, which is a different country entirely.

(edit)
So far, the "problems" people are talking about seem to be assumed prima facie without any data to back up those claims, or taken wholesale from the speeches of politicians without even looking at the context they were delivered in, let alone whether they are accurately describing the situation in the first place.

 

[Debater Slayer]

That still claims that these parallel societies are the migrants' fault - and not, for example, a result of being stranded in a hostile environment that strengthens bonds with the already familiar.

Sweden and Germany have experienced the emergence of some of these parallel societies/smaller communities with problematic cultural practices despite welcoming them into the new countries and generally providing a more comfortable environment than most neighboring countries would. I'm sure some migrants are radicalized and isolated by way of a hostile environment that discourages integration, but I doubt that's always or even mostly the case.

When I was in Saudi Arabia, I met some Syrians who had access to residence in Saudi Arabia and Turkey but still opted to go to Europe. Guess what? Their beliefs and culture still largely resembled the average conservative Muslim: sexist, homophobic, and supportive of blasphemy laws, among other things.

The issue runs far deeper than many Western people, especially leftists and liberals, would like to believe. You simply can't assume everyone who spent their whole life in a largely homogeneous religious culture with mostly conservative norms to be entirely benign and friendly upon arriving in a completely different culture where secularism and religious freedom and equality are the norm, all while still embracing the conservative beliefs.

What "problematic cultural and religious practices" are we talking about here? Your previous post talked about sexual assault statistics in Sweden, which is a different country entirely.

(edit)
So far, the "problems" people are talking about seem to be assumed prima facie without any data to back up those claims, or taken wholesale from the speeches of politicians without even looking at the context they were delivered in, let alone whether they are accurately describing the situation in the first place.

See above.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I could tell you, but that would likely make me a persona non grata on these forums, so I'm going to let you folks figure out the reason by yourselves.

My assumption is popularism. When appealing to the masses, anti-immigration policies have often played well.
However, based on anecdotal evidence, my own (limited) time in Copenhagen, and friends I have who live there, there are some cultural issues, and some substance around this as well.

 

[Kooky]

Sweden and Germany have experienced the emergence of some of these parallel societies/smaller communities with problematic cultural practices despite welcoming them into the new countries and generally providing a more comfortable environment than most neighboring countries would. I'm sure some migrants are radicalized and isolated by way of a hostile environment that discourages integration, but I doubt that's always or even mostly the case.

When I was in Saudi Arabia, I met some Syrians who had access to residence in Saudi Arabia and Turkey but still opted to go to Europe. Guess what? Their beliefs and culture still largely resembled the average conservative Muslim: sexist, homophobic, and supportive of blasphemy laws, among other things.

The issue runs far deeper than many Western people, especially leftists and liberals, would like to believe. You simply can't assume someone who spent their whole life in a largely homogeneous religious culture with mostly conservative norms to be entirely benign and friendly upon arriving in a completely different culture where secularism and religious freedom and equality are the norm.



See above.

I've talked to dozens of Syrian refugees over the last 3-4 years, and my impression is that Syria is considerably less homogenous in its ethnic and religious makeup than almost every European country I can think of, but not only that - there is also an enormous cultural divide between people from rural areas and less educated backgrounds, and people from the big cities and those with higher educations and white collar jobs.

If all Syrians were as you describe, then they would gladly live in Saudi Arabia, whose regime and patriarchial society embodies everything you describe these Syrians you met as. But we both know that this is not the case, and I would argue that a major reason is that a significant portion of Syrians is emphatically not the kind of person who would be happy in a KSA-esque society.

I've met Syrians from all walks of life, and very few of them had anything good at all to say about the KSA, if they had to say anything at all. Even the more conservative ones didn't seem to regard the KSA or its society as an ideal worth emulating in their daily lives.

The majority of the people I've talked to seemed to enjoy life in the West, and a significant part of them - although hardly the majority - was thankful of the opportunity to build a new life for themselves. (Of course, the rest wanted to get back home as soon as would be feasible - which is also understandable, considering their circumstances.)

As for being sexist and homophobic, that accurately describes most young men I have met over the course of my life, especially (but not limited to) those from less educated backgrounds. The source of toxic masculinity is one that I would argue is universal across cultures, as patriarchy extends to nearly every major cultural area on the planet.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I've talked to dozens of Syrian refugees over the last 3-4 years, and my impression is that Syria is considerably less homogenous in its ethnic and religious makeup than almost every European country I can think of, but not only that - there is also an enormous cultural divide between people from rural areas and less educated backgrounds, and people from the big cities and those with higher educations and white collar jobs.

If all Syrians were as you describe, then they would gladly live in Saudi Arabia, whose regime and patriarchial society embodies everything you describe these Syrians you met as. But we both know that this is not the case, and I would argue that a major reason is that a significant portion of Syrians is emphatically not the kind of person who would be happy in a KSA-esque society. I've met Syrians from all walks of life, and very few of them had anything good at all to say about the KSA, if they had to say anything at all. The majority of the people I've talked to seemed to enjoy life in the West, and a significant part of them - although hardly the majority - was thankful of the opportunity to build a new life for themselves. (Of course, the rest wanted to get back home as soon as would be feasible - which is also understandable, considering their circumstances.)

As for being sexist and homophobic, that accurately describes most young men I have met over the course of my life, especially (but not limited to) those from less educated backgrounds. The source of toxic masculinity is one that I would argue is universal across cultures, as patriarchy extends to nearly every major cultural area on the planet.

Of course not every Syrian fits the description of being problematically conservative; I'm talking about the specific subset of migrants at whom the new law is aimed. Furthermore, while there are multiple religious and ethnic sects inside Syria, that doesn't mean certain cultural norms aren't mostly shared among many of them. For example, mainstream Shi'a and Sunni sects of Islam tend to be largely at odds with and even hostile to each other, but both often share strongly homophobic and sexist teachings.

Homophobia and sexism indeed exist everywhere to one extent or another, but there are varying degrees thereof. While both examples are hateful and unacceptable, being homophobic by avoiding befriending gay people is not remotely the same as being homophobic by believing homosexual sex is punishable by death or lashing.

 

[Kooky]

Of course not every Syrian fits the description of being problematically conservative; I'm talking about the specific subset of migrants at whom the new law is aimed. Furthermore, while there are multiple religious and ethnic sects inside Syria, that doesn't mean certain cultural norms aren't mostly shared among many of them. For example, mainstream Shi'a and Sunni sects of Islam tend to be largely at odds with and even hostile to each other, but both often share strongly homophobic and sexist teachings.

Homophobia and sexism indeed exist everywhere to one extent or another, but there are varying degrees thereof. While both examples are hateful and unacceptable, being homophobic by avoiding befriending gay people is not remotely the same as being homophobic by believing homosexual sex is punishable by death or lashing.

As far as I can tell, the law is not aimed at a "specific subset of migrants"; it is targeting all non-European migrants regardless of their religion, status, public conduct, or attitude towards gender equality. And it is being justified by the exact stereotypes you espoused so strongly in your previous posts: That people from the Middle East, South Asia and Africa are intrinsically misogynist in thought and action, more prone to criminal activity, and harboring a quasi-genetic tendency towards backwardness, savagery, and terrorism.

That is the popular image of people from these regions in the West, and even when presented with evidence to the contrary, the best you get is a mealy-mouthed "well, not all of them are like that, but", with the "but" inevitably segueing back into the aforementioned stereotypes.

I can't think of a mainstream world religion, Western or Eastern, that is not presently strongly homophobic and sexist in its teachings. And even on these very forums, we get, like clockwork, threads full of people bemoaning that gender equality and opposition to homophobia or other forms of bigotry have "gone too far" and must be rolled back at once to whatever glory days of the past currently en vogue, but usually as far back as to make homophobia and blatant misogyny acceptable in public discourse again. And this is a forum housing some of the most open minded people I've met.

So forgive me if I remain highly skeptical of the supposedly intrinsically bigoted nature of West and South Asians, especially when most of these arguments seem to be based on self-reinforcing stereotypes and an enormous helping of selective perception.

I know from second-hand experience that immigrants from Asia and Africa can have enormous difficulties integrating successfully into Western cultural and economic life, but almost none of these problems seemed to come from an inability to accept that women in the West don't wear headscarves and kissing in public is considered acceptable.

I did encounter one young Turk who was a little incredulous to hear that he could, in theory, legally marry his male cousin, but I'm not sure whether that stemmed from homophobia, sexism, some inborn form of bigotry he must have suffered from, or just being a very closeted gay man.

 

[Debater Slayer]

As far as I can tell, the law is not aimed at a "specific subset of migrants"; it is targeting all non-European migrants regardless of their religion, status, public conduct, or attitude towards gender equality. And it is being justified by the exact stereotypes you espoused so strongly in your previous posts: That people from the Middle East, South Asia and Africa are intrinsically misogynist in thought and action, more prone to criminal activity, and harboring a quasi-genetic tendency towards backwardness, savagery, and terrorism.

That is the popular image of people from these regions in the West, and even when presented with evidence to the contrary, the best you get is a mealy-mouthed "well, not all of them are like that, but", with the "but" inevitably segueing back into the aforementioned stereotypes.

I can't think of a mainstream world religion, Western or Eastern, that is not presently strongly homophobic and sexist in its teachings. And even on these very forums, we get, like clockwork, threads full of people bemoaning that gender equality and opposition to homophobia or other forms of bigotry have "gone too far" and must be rolled back at once to whatever glory days of the past currently en vogue, but usually as far back as to make homophobia and blatant misogyny acceptable in public discourse again. And this is a forum housing some of the most open minded people I've met.

So forgive me if I remain highly skeptical of the supposedly intrinsically bigoted nature of West and South Asians, especially when most of these arguments seem to be based on self-reinforcing stereotypes and an enormous helping of selective perception.

I know from second-hand experience that immigrants from Asia and Africa can have enormous difficulties integrating successfully into Western cultural and economic life, but almost none of these problems seemed to come from an inability to accept that women in the West don't wear headscarves and kissing in public is considered acceptable.

I did encounter one young Turk who was a little incredulous to hear that he could, in theory, legally marry his male cousin, but I'm not sure whether that stemmed from homophobia, sexism, some inborn form of bigotry he must have suffered from, or just being a very closeted gay man.

It seems to me you're operating from mistaken assumptions about my points:

- The issues I mentioned aren't "stereotypes"; they are what more than one statistic and trend point to as well as what I have experienced first-hand during my whole life in Middle Eastern countries. They would be stereotypes if they had no basis in reality and if I asserted they applied to all Middle Eastern people rather than a subset, neither of which is the case here.

- Nowhere in my arguments did I mention any "intrinsic" or "quasi-genetic" basis for the cultural problems among a subset of migrants; I only talked about cultural backgrounds and religious beliefs. Such assertions as the ones you cited often typify Nazi and racially supremacist rhetoric, and I'm quite careful with my choice of words and reasoning in order to underline the difference between racism and legitimate concerns about certain cultural beliefs and traditions.

- You seem to still be assuming that because I'm highlighting specific concerns that apply to a subset of migrants, the statements must be intended to describe all migrants. That's both a faulty and unhelpful assumption.

This is one of the main issues I see with bringing up the problems within certain cultures when talking to some Western liberals or leftists. Not a single Arab secularist I've talked to has disputed cultural concerns similar to the ones mentioned in the article about some migrants from Arab and Muslim countries, yet it is usually the Western liberals who will claim racism and respond with emotionally charged, hyperbolic arguments because they seem unable to accept that cultures and people aren't identical or that criticizing the problematic aspects of a culture can be done without being racist or overgeneralizing.

We're simply proceeding from different perspectives here: while you appear to be understandably hesitant to make any remotely broad criticism about some people from other cultures, I believe it is my duty and responsibility toward my culture and home region to call out the aspects that need improvement, especially the culture. It disappoints and greatly concerns me to see so much regression and so many anachronistic and inhumane traditions glorified in multiple Middle Eastern countries under the banner of either culture or mainstream religious beliefs.

There is simply no way forward for the region unless we start tackling these difficult but crucial issues, which is what people like Faisal Saeed Al Mutar, Raif Badawi, and Nawal El Saadawi, among others, have been doing, often at the expense of their safety and reputation within their home countries.

 

[Kooky]

@Debater Slayer
Did you completely miss that the proposed policy described in the article said nothing about "certain cultural beliefs and traditions", or have we already stopped talking about that entirely?

 

[Debater Slayer]

@Debater Slayer
Did you completely miss that the proposed policy described in the article said nothing about "certain cultural beliefs and traditions", or have we already stopped talking about that entirely?

It did, though, even if not in those exact terms. From the same part I quoted earlier:

The interior minister, Kaare Dybvad Bek, said in a statement that too many non-western foreigners in one area “increases the risk of an emergence of religious and cultural parallel societies”.

It seems clear to me that the highlighted portion implies targeting certain cultural beliefs and traditions--I don't see how a "parallel society" wouldn't be comprised of those at its basis.

 

[Kooky]

It seems to me you're operating from mistaken assumptions about my points:

- The issues I mentioned aren't "stereotypes"; they are what more than one statistic and trend point to as well as what I have experienced first-hand during my whole life in Middle Eastern countries. They would be stereotypes if they had no basis in reality and if I asserted they applied to all Middle Eastern people rather than a subset, neither of which is the case here.

But we are, crucially, not talking about life in Middle Eastern countries; the topic at hand is migrant communities in Europe. You keep talking about how bigoted Saudi Arabia and the many other autocracies of the region are, but that tells us very little about what people who presently live in Europe believe, how they live their lives, and how they interact with the majority culture in their new home countries.

Your concerns, therefore, seem to be based on a belief that people do not - or indeed, are incapable of - adapting the way they live depending on their larger situation in a wider cultural, economic and political context.

If we take your argument in this light, then I find it puzzling why you would object to my characterization of certain behaviors as intrinsic to their Otherness as Middle Easterners, South Asians, or Africans - if they were not, then how exactly could you infer a fundamental commonality, or perhaps even identity, between the Middle Eastern, African, and South Asian migrant communities of Europe, and mainstream societies in Middle Eastern dictatorships? If there is no fundamental commonality between Asian and African Muslims no matter where they live, then why exactly would we infer that exact commonality?

 

[Kooky]

It did, though, even if not in those exact terms. From the same part I quoted earlier:



It seems clear to me that the highlighted portion implies targeting certain cultural beliefs and traditions--I don't see how a "parallel society" wouldn't be comprised of those at its basis.

But how is a policy that says nothing about "parallel societies" - and indeed does not even manage to define what that is supposed to be in real factual terms - supposed to do away with these phenomena?

If the sole migrant-related criterium is migrant quotas, then how exactly does that infer doing away with "parallel societies", except by virtue of stereotyping migrant communities as intrinsically unable or unwilling to adapt or integrate into mainstream culture?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Where do you see that mentioned in the article we are ostensibly still talking about?

But we are, crucially, not talking about life in Middle Eastern countries; the topic at hand is migrant communities in Europe. You keep talking about how bigoted Saudi Arabia and the many other autocracies of the region are, but that tells us very little about what people who presently live in Europe believe, how they live their lives, and how they interact with the majority culture in their new home countries.

Your concerns, therefore, seem to be based on a belief that people do not - or indeed, are incapable of - adapting the way they live depending on their larger situation in a wider cultural, economic and political context.

If we take your argument in this light, then I find it puzzling why you would object to my characterization of certain behaviors as intrinsic to their Otherness as Middle Easterners, South Asians, or Africans - if they were not, then how exactly could you infer a fundamental commonality, or perhaps even identity, between the Middle Eastern, African, and South Asian migrant communities of Europe, and mainstream societies in Middle Eastern dictatorships? If there is no fundamental commonality between Asian and African Muslims no matter where they live, then why exactly would we infer that exact commonality?

I actually don't think we're getting anywhere here. You either present inaccurate versions of my positions or go after semantics instead of the focal points of what I'm saying.

Since I see no point in further pursuing a discussion with so little clarity in communication, I'll opt to avoid repeating myself.

Have a nice day/night.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think the only flaw in this idea is the labeling. It's not about "non-westerners". It's about de-concentrating people who are socially and economically disadvantaged to avoid creating pockets of intense poverty and crime.

It's not a new idea. The city of Chicago has been doing this for decades, after having spent prior decades doing it the wrong way around, only to create horrifically dense concentrations of poverty and crime in big public housing projects, as a way of keeping it 'out of sight and out of mind' of the rest of the city's residents. So for the last 30 years they have been tearing down those projects and spreading the poor throughout the rest of the city's neighborhoods to avoid creating powerful criminal enclaves, and hopefully help the poor to assimilate better into the city's mainstream.

It's about keeping those who's values are inherently and fundamentally incompatible with our values, a group who is notoriously known for not respecting our ways when they come here and expecting we cater to them to make us more like their lands they left (making them terrible guests).
It's like a burka ban. The burka is very deeply rooted in extremist ideology (such as the Taliban), and it shouldn't be controversial--anywhere at all on this planet--to ban them.

 

[Kooky]

m




I actually don't think we're getting anywhere here. You either present inaccurate versions of my positions or go after semantics instead of the focal points of what I'm saying.

Since I see no point in further pursuing a discussion with so little clarity in communication, I'll opt to avoid repeating myself.

Have a nice day/night.

I'm sorry you see things that way.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It's about keeping those who's values are inherently and fundamentally incompatible with our values, a group who is notoriously known for not respecting our ways when they come here and expecting we cater to them to make us more like their lands they left (making them terrible guests).
It's like a burka ban. The burka is very deeply rooted in extremist ideology (such as the Taliban), and it shouldn't be controversial--anywhere at all on this planet--to ban them.

I think it is more complicated than that, as far as the burqa example goes. I've seen women who wore it simply because they believed it was "more pious" and others who had the absurdly misinformed and extremist belief that it reduced the occurrence of rape. The reasons for wearing it sometimes vary among different Muslims.

That said, even when it is worn as an expression of extremist beliefs, I don't think that alone is grounds for banning it any more than cross pendants should be banned when they are worn as an expression of Christian zeal. Doing so would open a can of worms that could easily lend itself to abuse and encroachment on personal freedoms.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think it is more complicated than that, as far as the burqa example goes. I've seen women who wore it simply because they believed it was "more pious" and others who had the absurdly misinformed and extremist belief that it reduced the occurrence of rape. The reasons for wearing it sometimes vary among different Muslims.

That said, even when it is worn as an expression of extremist beliefs, I don't think that alone is grounds for banning it any more than cross pendants should be banned when they are worn as an expression of Christian zeal. Doing so would open a can of worms that could easily lend itself to abuse and encroachment on personal freedoms.

Places like Chad, Tajikistan and Tunisia have banned them due to connections with extremism. And crosses don't completely cover one's face or the rest of their body. Which is what makes burqa especially heinous is they are very dehumanizing and remove so much of what we depend on to communicate with people.

 

[Kooky]

It's about keeping those who's values are inherently and fundamentally incompatible with our values, a group who is notoriously known for not respecting our ways when they come here and expecting we cater to them to make us more like their lands they left (making them terrible guests).

Who specifically are you referring to here?

It's like a burka ban. The burka is very deeply rooted in extremist ideology (such as the Taliban), and it shouldn't be controversial--anywhere at all on this planet--to ban them.

I used to think we were past the era where we consider it the state's job to tell women what pieces of clothing to were, but apparently restricting female fashion is still considered an important element of upholding national security and prosperity in the West.

Places like Chad, Tajikistan and Tunisia have banned them due to connections with extremism. And crosses don't completely cover one's face or the rest of their body. Which is what makes burqa especially heinous is they are very dehumanizing and remove so much of what we depend on to communicate with people.

So what is it exactly that you are objecting to here:
- face coverings
- religious symbols
- unfashionable female clothing
- misogynistic oppression
?

Neither of these are being served with burqa bans - burqas being a piece of clothing almost no woman in Europe is wearing or has ever worn in her entire life, and thus entirely irrelevant to any of the issues you seem to be concerned about.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Who specifically are you referring to here

Those who come here and harass women for not being covered. Those who come here and try to establish places under sharia law. Those who come here amd complain about coworkers eating at their desk during Ramadan. I can go on. The respect our ways or they stay home where they have their ways as law.

I used to think we were past the era where we consider it the state's job to tell women what pieces of clothing to were, but apparently restricting female fashion is still considered an important element of upholding national security and prosperity in the West.

Why is this a controversy here when even Muslim nations have banned them because they are tied to extremists. People like the Taliban are the ones who came up with that. Moderate and Liberal Muslims don't wear them. Conservative Muslims don't wear them. Only the extreme Conservatives promote them.

So what is it exactly that you are objecting to here:
- face coverings
- religious symbols
- unfashionable female clothing
- misogynistic oppression

It is extremism and horrible misogyny and repression. Have you seen a burka? They are dehumanizing. They completely remove the face and its expressions and obscure great deals of body language. That's how we mostly communicate. And you want to know what else about cultures that promote? They enforce it, and if a woman is raped its her fault. If she goes out, she has to have a man with her. She's allowed no choice, and no freedom.
That is the world of the burqa, and what it is.

 

[Kooky]

Those who come here and harass women for not being covered. Those who come here and try to establish places under sharia law. Those who come here amd complain about coworkers eating at their desk during Ramadan. I can go on. The respect our ways or they stay home where they have their ways as law.

Only specifically the men who migrate to Europe and then harass women for not being covered? Nobody else?
How many of these men have you encountered, and how many of them, would you say, are currently living in Copenhagen? More than a few hundred?

Why is this a controversy here when even Muslim nations have banned them because they are tied to extremists. People like the Taliban are the ones who came up with that. Moderate and Liberal Muslims don't wear them. Conservative Muslims don't wear them. Only the extreme Conservatives promote them.

If banning pieces of clothing was an effective strategy in combating violent extremism, then why haven't governments across the world already put such policies in place against the numerous violent and extremist political movements that are currently plagueing our society?

Furthermore, I'm still not exactly clear on just what danger these pieces of clothing constitute. What do you believe happens if a woman wears a burqa in a Western city? In what way does she pose a danger to you, or anybody else?

It is extremism and horrible misogyny and repression. Have you seen a burka? They are dehumanizing. They completely remove the face and its expressions and obscure great deals of body language. That's how we mostly communicate. And you want to know what else about cultures that promote? They enforce it, and if a woman is raped its her fault. If she goes out, she has to have a man with her. She's allowed no choice, and no freedom.
That is the world of the burqa, and what it is.

If you ban burqas, there are two possible outcomes to any woman who is currently wearing them in a European city:
- she has to pay a fine
- she has to stay at home

Do you genuinely believe that either of these two likely outcomes furthers the cause of female liberation in the Western world?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Only specifically the men who migrate to Europe and then harass women for not being covered? Nobody else?
How many of these men have you encountered, and how many of them, would you say, are currently living in Copenhagen? More than a few hundred?

Did I say specifically men?

If banning pieces of clothing was an effective strategy in combating violent extremism, then why haven't governments across the world already put such policies in place against the numerous violent and extremist political movements that are currently plagueing our society?

Because many of them are reluctant to acknowledge the Quran has many horribly violent passages and teachings just like they Bible, they are terrified of being labeled "Islamophobe" (and, indeed, people who are Muslim and who did come here fleeing for their lives have been labeled Islamaphobe for criticizing the cultural norms and practices that prompted them to flee in the first place), because the Loony Left has created a double standard where it's year-round open season on criticizing all things Christian but Muslims are off limits.
And, yes, many governments around the world have banned them. Including some Muslim majority states.

If you ban burqas, there are two possible outcomes to any woman who is currently wearing them in a European city:
- she has to pay a fine
- she has to stay at home

Do you genuinely believe that either of these two likely outcomes furthers the cause of female liberation in the Western world?

That is where I am getting at they do not respect our ways. They come here and expect us to be ok with them fining women and forcing them to stay at home because you can see some of her flesh.
Being fined and forced to home IS repression. It IS taking away freedom and choice, and IS relegating women to less than fully entitled citizens.