Tag: Danish society

Let Us All Be Radical

kat.marlySamfunds tænkerierLeave a Comment on Let Us All Be Radical

First published on figmentsofimaginations.blogspot.dk, February 20th 2016 during thesis writing.

“The first four steps, in fact, revolve around getting to know people and building trust: Be helpful, be good neighbors, listen to the concerns of others. The activist’s religious identity is not revealed until step five and only then in a rudimentary fashion that avoids church questions and instead centers on generic religious discussions and values … In a similar fashion some Islamic activists, particularly jihadis, hide their movement identity, until after a personal relationship is developed. ” Quintan Wiktorowicz, Radical Islam Rising, 2005 p. 23.

As I am writing my thesis  I came across this rather detailed description of how religious activists, through a development of personal relation, seeks to proselyte among strangers, in an attempt to gain followers. At first I found it kind of weird; So now I have to worry about the guy who pics up my wallet from the street and runs to me to hand it to me? Or the neighbour that knocks on my door with a piece of pie she made yesterday? Because they might be radicalised and before I know it I might be involved in some extreme activities? First, I came to realise that this method is not exclusively something “Islamic activists” do, everyone does it. Everyone should do it. Not necessarily with a hidden agenda. But, wouldn’t the world be a less lonely place if we were some who came out of our individualistic tendencies? Everyone needs someone to listen to one’s concerns. Relate. Everyone at some point in their lives needs a helping hand. Second, I became a little curious on how many ‘radicalised’ have actually been detected in the Danish society. An article recently revealed that the Danish Immigration Services received 5 notifications of coincidences of possible radicalised people. In 2015 an estimated number of over 21000 people sought asylum in Denmark (exact numbers: https://www.nyidanmark.dk/NR/rdonlyres/E3C50EA0-BD36-4DDD-9C8D7AAF44DE1F12/0/seneste_tal_udlaendingeeomraadet.pdf). Now, 5 coincidences are not a lot. Though, we may take into account that various de-radicalisation programs may have received some notifications as well, the next question is what here is meant by ‘radicalisation’? The usual definition contains a process where someone to a higher degree accepts violence in order to fulfil one’s political / ideological / religious goals. Now, does this person have to exercise violence? Can someone be referred to as radical just in terms of opinions? One’s execution of regular lifestile choices? Would someone choosing to live fully by the bible not also be called radical by the rest of the society if they did not live by this norm? And what exactly is wrong with having a radically different worldview as long as such worldview does not violently affect others? I understand that something needs to be done when it comes to preventing violence from being the choice of expression when someone wants to express themselves, but I find that radical way of living becomes dangerous in itself, without some perspective and without general knowledge about the different worldviews. Hypothetically, I guess the reason why Christianity in some contexts isn’t regarded as ‘dangerous’ in the Danish society, because Danes are aware and know to some extent of the religion and what it entails, naturally everything unknown becomes that dangerous thing out there in the dark. But maybe, instead of accusing someone for being ‘radical’ in its negative connotation, it is time to reach out and become acquainted with the different worldviews. What is the worse that could happen? Maybe you will get a knew friend? Maybe not? Under all circumstances, we are all free to express our opinions. Free to belief in anything we want. As long as that does not cause any harm to others’ rights? So lets all look over the hedge separating our gardens from the neighbours and say hello.

Let’s all be ‘radical’.

Share

Accepting the “other” worldview?

kat.marlySamfunds tænkerierLeave a Comment on Accepting the “other” worldview?

A new radio-program on my favourite radio-station made me wonder whether or not it is really that bad to have created an “us” as opposed to everyone else? When is it actually problematic to have created an in-group, an “us”? The host often argued against refugees and had a rather narrow minded and sceptical view on people who are of another descent than “pure danish” – people who have mixed their original descent with the Danish culture.

I have always argued against the creation of in-groups, cliques or groups like this. I find that they tend to try to set a standard for the rest to follow, which demeans other people who does not necessarily follow the rules of such a group – back to the school milieu, so to speak. But, the thing is, that we cannot avoid creating an “us”. To be Danish is different from being Swedish or Norwegian. We create societies bound together by culture, language, politics, religion and so forth.  No matter how we look at it, the way we collect and unify the different aspects of our society will stand in opposition to other societies and how they have bound the different aspects together.

Once, I was at a wedding, which to me have become the perfect example of this fact. While the groom was of Danish descent, the bride was Muslim. It was a wedding with different cultural elements, where the guests at some aspects did not know what was going on and regarding other aspects were a part of the “club” that knew! These two people getting married, was creating an “us”.

To me, the difference is whether a society compares itself with another in a demeaning way. Thus, creating an “us” as opposed to “them”. The fact that we have different cultures, comes from different societies, does not mean that we cannot behave and be polite towards one another. It does not mean that we in Denmark cannot help the refugees that flows into the country. It does not mean that we cannot help those people who suffer from war, by help recreating and reconquer their, “us”. In the end, everyone deserves to be a part of an “us”.

The problem with this constellation is when “us” and “them” becomes “us” versus “them”. When different groups compares, there may in some situations be created an unhealthy environment where one group presents itself as superior compared to the other.

Being a fellow citizen is not just about being apart of a group, but accepting the differences between the different groups living in and outside one’s society. Being a part of one group is not the problem – we all are apart of specific groups, whether we like it or not. The problem is when one group finds themselves superior towards another group.

Share

A ‘Schizophrenic’ Life

kat.marlySamfunds tænkerierLeave a Comment on A ‘Schizophrenic’ Life

These days the problems concerning the refugees is a sour subject in Denmark. In Denmark we all remember the day refugees walked across the country on the motorway. As a Dane I am at one hand more or less embarrassed by the way Denmark is perceived by the outside world. On the other hand I haven’t lost faith in the Danes, as I can see how much of a difference the Danish people actually want to do.

A friend of mine told me about a local initiative where the children of the neighbourhood can come and get help with their homework. She told me that most of the children knew Danish better than their native tongue and thereby, complicating simple communication between children and their families. Integration seems to be going very well, you may think. But hold on for a moment and try to follow my train of thought.

(more…)

Share

The Effects of Terror?

kat.marlySamfunds tænkerierLeave a Comment on The Effects of Terror?

Originally posted at Figmentsofimaginations.blogspot.dk, April 8th 2016. 

These days the Danish government is yet again making cutbacks regarding radicalised young people. The reason why it is yet again a part of the media as well as a part of the Government’s awareness is due to a resent police response the Danish Security and Intelligence Service made where some young people were arrested and charged within the so-called ‘Danish terror-paragraph’.

It is rather common that radicalisation in a context such as this makes the media overflow with articles that hints fear and begins a sense of hostility among the Danish people. I must admit that the anger regarding the rather one-sided cover of the so-called “muslim radical” which makes it seem that all muslims are radical may overflow my judgement and make my arguments in this respect rather generalised. However, the medias eternal cover of radicalisation in more or less direct connection with Islam and muslims. It makes me so furious that it is the action of a few people that may have an affect of how the Danish people regard the rest of the Danes who confess to Islam and are actually well integrated and participate in the Danish society and pay their taxes.

On one hand, I understand that it’s within the government’s interest to show the Danish people that it takes action against possible terror-threats. In a time like these where Europe seem more of a terror-target than ever, it would on one hand seem ‘too laid-back’ if the government did not react. On the other hand, I find the reaction more a overreaction than a reaction to possible threats. The fact that the Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET) actually manages to do the job they exists to do, makes me wonder why we need another government “over”-reaction. PET have done a rather good job in the prevention of terror in Denmark – a thing that is rather difficult to prevent. I believe that the only reaction government intervention will create is that the media attention will yet again make muslims the villains and it will create even more hostility among the Danish people. Thus, the growing hostility will result in a Danish people who will to a lesser degree help the war-inflicted people, who really need our help. For instance, I argue that the demand for a complete closure of our borders is a reaction to the growing hostility that is in Denmark. Thus, we will shut out people who have experienced trauma, war and terror in ways we will never be able to understand.

If the government instead let the authorities they have implemented work the way they are ment to, I would respect the government if they react in a rather respectful way towards this Danish system. It would possibly create more peace and instead of letting the fear cloud the judgement of the Danish people. It might make room for more compassion.

Even though, many Danish people have worked against the Danish government’s view of the refugees who have more than ever escaped to Europe, the fact that a refugee-hostile party as the Danish People Party who have gained more support than ever shows me that there is a great deal of fear and hostility that needs to be dealt with in Denmark.

We keep saying to each other that fear and a limitation of our everyday life is what terror wants to create. Even though we keep telling ourselves and each other that it’s important to live life as we would and not be affected by the terror. Maybe, terror is slowly creeping into our conscience and have slowly affected the way we think about the world and the way we react towards people who truly needs our help. Or the way we react towards the diversity that obviously exists in our society.

Showing compassion and helping other are indeed a more difficult road towards destroying terror and what it creates among the people affected by it. But I believe that the long and difficult road is the better road to take than fighting with the same means and tools as the “enemy” does. Have we, the rich part of the world forgotten that our previous actions hostile and mean actions may have had a role in creating the anger, hostility and the “us” and “them”-mentality that terror springs from? Maybe it is time to react differently than we usually have done since a war on terror obviously haven’t worked?

Share