Last week I wrote about the relative paucity of controversy about social justice and political correctness in Denmark. But there are often minor incidents that indicate the status of the culture wars in the country. Most often they concern race and immigration A couple of recent incidents involved a fairly new political party, the Nye Borgerlige (The New Right), which was founded in 2015.
On December 17, Denmarks Radio, the state television network, broadcast a short documentary about the party’s campaign to gain a foothold in Parliament in the June 2019 election (Vermund and the battle for the right wing (DK)). It focused almost exclusively on Pernille Vermund, the party’s co-founder. Vermund is a former member of the Conservative Party who sought to create a niche that combined aspects of the xenophobic but welfare-state-friendly Danish People’s Party and the economically libertarian Liberal Alliance Party. The party’s platform had three key conditions for supporting the current center-right government: a moratorium on accepting refugees, the deportation of foreigners convicted of crimes, and a requirement that foreigners support themselves. Its main stated objective was to preserve Danish culture and values.
Competing for anti-immigration voters
It appeared from polls that the party was taking voters from Denmark’s People’s Party. But during the campaign, a newer, more virulent anti-immigrant party obtained enough signatures to get on the election ballot. This was Stram Kurs (Hard Line), led by Rasmus Paludan, who advocated deporting all Muslims and whose public appearances drew counterdemonstrations from Antifa that turned violent. The New Right thus now had a rival faction to the right that was also drawing voters from Denmark’s People’s Party. Paludan was considered a crude interloper, while Vermund was a presentable sophisticate from the wealthy northern suburbs. In the election, the New Right received 2.5 percent of the votes and gained the minimum number of parliamentary seats, and the Hard Line fell just short of the 2.0 percent threshold. Overall, the left-wing parties won a secure 91-75 majority, with the Danish People’s Party suffering the greatest losses.
Wedding-day jitters
Six months later, the documentary included a kind of open-mic moment that had nothing to do with the campaign. The governing administration had announced the election in May, one week before Vermund’s planned wedding (she married entrepreneur, investor and author Lars Tvede). On the morning of the wedding, Vermund was hanging campaign posters on lampposts with her staff. It was warm, and she was wearing shorts. She wasn’t being interviewed, and they weren’t discussing the election. The camera watched them from across the road. When a limousine passed, Vermund remarked that it was a perker, a derogatory term for people of Middle Eastern or Arabic background with a connotation similar to the notorious American N-word but not quite as charged. She immediately covered her mouth with her hand, and someone standing by her quickly added “En udlænding” (a foreigner), a more politically palatable description. (Only “more” PC because the people in question may well have been Danish citizens whose parents or grandparents were immigrants.)
This little remark prompted accusations of racism and calls for Vermund to apologize by representatives of other parties. In an interview with the tabloid BT (DK), Vermund refused to apologize. She maintained that she was informal and outspoken, that this had been a private situation with familiars, that the word referred to a particular subculture, that it shouldn’t be considered offensive if it is not used maliciously, and that she wouldn’t use it in Parliament. Vermund, who happens to be an attractive blonde in her early forties, has at times behaved impulsively, once saying that she found women attractive and French-kissing a (male) comedian on a talk show. She said that it’s good to provoke the liberal intellectual elite (DK) who think they are more open-minded than others.
Forgiving jihadism?
The word perker is indeed considered by most to be a vulgarity in any context, certainly any involving a politician. It suggests condescension at best and possibly an instinctive aversion to ethnic minorities or a lack of compassion. It tarnished the veneer of slick confidence of Vermund and her neoliberal supporters and lessened their distance from Paludan’s motley Hard Line. One might ask why the camera was turned on at that moment when nothing significant was happening and whether Vermund and her staff knew it was on, although that doesn’t change the fact that the word slipped out and was captured.
This slip-up aired just a week after another incident involving the New Right that reached its conclusion. MP Mette Thiesen was convicted of libeling a fitness instructor (DK), Mahmoud Loubani, by calling him a “terrorist sympathizer” in a Facebook post. The background is a little murky. Earlier Thiesen had written a post about a threat made against her. Loubani, who had appeared on a television program, wrote a comment on it wondering whether Thiesen had made up the threat herself, with laughing emojis. Thiesen read through Loubani’s posts and found that he had once written “Allah yerhamo” (May God forgive you) apparently about Omar El-Hussein, the young radicalized Muslim who murdered two people in 2015, a film director outside a panel discussion with a cartoonist and a volunteer security guard at a synagogue.
Thiesen maintained that she had deliberately refrained from calling Loubani a “terrorism sympathizer,” but the judge found that her epithet must ordinarily be understood to mean that Loubani endorsed the terrorist action. She had to pay a small amount to Loubani for damages and legal fees (under $5,000 in total), but she was acquitted of criminal charges because Loubani had not filed them within six months of the incident.
Small parties come and go
Is the lesson here that the New Right’s leaders need better PR discipline? Neither incident is more unusual than behavior that emerges periodically from the Danish People’s Party, and they apparently have little consequence. Telltale indiscretions followed by obligatory indignation and then exculpatory rationalizations – fairly tame business as usual that can’t compare to saying that Mexicans are rapists and Congresspersons are treasonous human scum.
It’s not clear yet whether there is indeed a place for nationalist libertarians on the crowded political landscape. Recent attempts by the right-wing coalition to blend these elements did not succeed, and the New Right is now polling below the parliamentary threshold. It is not sitting idle in its legislative seats, however. Most recently it initiated a farfetched campaign (DK) against the new center-left administration’s removal of restrictions on social benefits for immigrant families. It proposed holding a referendum on the issue and got support only from the Denmark’s People’s Party.
27 December 2019
20 December 2019
Campus grievance culture revisited
Last month there was a little ruckus over a questionnaire (DK) for a thesis project that two University of Copenhagen students sent to 7,000 other students over the University’s shared email system. One of the respondents hit Reply All and complained very politely, almost apologetically, that they [sic] couldn’t complete the questionnaire because it asked the subjects to identify themselves as male or female and the student was neither of those.
The student was attacked less politely in further replies by people who thought they were a whining snowflake or worse. Others asked for the administration to take action, particularly against the first student’s accusers. The associate dean explained that the administration hadn’t been aware of the inappropriate Reply All function in the email system and afterward shut down the system. He added that it is important to have a space where people can discuss topics such as sex, gender and identity, and it should preferably be offline.
Rules on outrage
That was apparently the end of the incident. The most striking thing about the report is that it reminds us how little in Denmark we hear of the kind of culture wars that are raging in the US and the UK, particularly on campuses: bias reporting, protests, deplatforming, calls for resignation, self-censorship. Identity politics is hardly unknown here, but it doesn’t have a pervasive influence on academic life. In fact the most noteworthy recent event on this front was the University of Copenhagen’s revision of its guidelines on offensive behavior (DK) to define such behavior more narrowly.
The University had instituted a set of guidelines in 2018 after the so-called Sombrero Scandal in which students at the Law Faculty objected to costumes based on ethnic stereotypes at a Mexican theme party. The Faculty banned such parties, and a controversial debate on cultural appropriation and “offense-culture,” as it’s called here, ensued at the University. The result was a set of rules that defined offensive behavior very broadly as any action that caused a perception of violation on the part of an individual university employee or student; that is, any subjective feeling of harassment, discrimination or even discomfort.
This is the key sentence: “It is the employee’s or student’s experience of having been subjected to offensive behavior that is the basis [of the case].”
Anything qualifies for a citizen’s arrest?
The guidelines in turn prompted a new debate about whether the criteria for an offense should be an individual’s opinion or more objective categories of behavior. They occasioned protests by some faculty members that they would hamper academic freedom, classroom discussion and research. This phase led to a re-evaluation and eventually a revision of the guidelines at the end of October of this year.
The new guidelines are no longer based on a subjective perception of violation but rather on the definition set forth by the Danish Working Environment Authority. The Authority’s definition also takes the individual’s experience as the starting point, regardless of whether or not the behavior arose from a deliberate intention to offend. But it makes an important qualification that an individual’s reaction is not automatically accepted as evidence of a violation:
“It is a case of offensive behavior when one or more persons grossly or repeatedly subject other persons to behavior that is perceived by the latter as demeaning. This implies that there may be situations in which a person feels violated but management determines that it was not offensive behavior.” (my translation)
Rolling back the presumption of guilt
The new guidelines state that they do not cover referrals from students about the content or methods of teaching or about teaching assignments. They also set forth a procedure for persons who feel violated: First they should object or refuse to participate in the situation, and then they should speak to others about the incident and possibly to their manager or administrator. For their part, managers should investigate the circumstances that led to the report before opening a formal case.
These are significant changes not only because they moderate the policy but also because they defer to the civil rights that apply to society as a whole and do not treat students as a vulnerable class in need of special indulgence. Students are already protected by laws against discrimination and harassment that protect all citizens. The University opted out of the more expansive conception of harm that can be problematic to implement and that can have negative consequences for the fundamental principle of free expression.
Uncommon sense
The University Rector, Henrik Wegener, explains that the guidelines are intended to balance the interests of academic freedom and need for students and employees to feel that they are in a safe environment. That sounds like obvious common sense, but the University’s position doesn’t appear to be a very common viewpoint on American campuses. One problem with the welfare state is that once a social group receives a specific benefit, it becomes almost impossible to scale it back, even if economic or other factors argue for doing so. The same may be the case for the burgeoning diversity and inclusion bureaucracy in the US that has a vested interest in its own prohibitions.
The student was attacked less politely in further replies by people who thought they were a whining snowflake or worse. Others asked for the administration to take action, particularly against the first student’s accusers. The associate dean explained that the administration hadn’t been aware of the inappropriate Reply All function in the email system and afterward shut down the system. He added that it is important to have a space where people can discuss topics such as sex, gender and identity, and it should preferably be offline.
Rules on outrage
That was apparently the end of the incident. The most striking thing about the report is that it reminds us how little in Denmark we hear of the kind of culture wars that are raging in the US and the UK, particularly on campuses: bias reporting, protests, deplatforming, calls for resignation, self-censorship. Identity politics is hardly unknown here, but it doesn’t have a pervasive influence on academic life. In fact the most noteworthy recent event on this front was the University of Copenhagen’s revision of its guidelines on offensive behavior (DK) to define such behavior more narrowly.
The University had instituted a set of guidelines in 2018 after the so-called Sombrero Scandal in which students at the Law Faculty objected to costumes based on ethnic stereotypes at a Mexican theme party. The Faculty banned such parties, and a controversial debate on cultural appropriation and “offense-culture,” as it’s called here, ensued at the University. The result was a set of rules that defined offensive behavior very broadly as any action that caused a perception of violation on the part of an individual university employee or student; that is, any subjective feeling of harassment, discrimination or even discomfort.
This is the key sentence: “It is the employee’s or student’s experience of having been subjected to offensive behavior that is the basis [of the case].”
Anything qualifies for a citizen’s arrest?
The guidelines in turn prompted a new debate about whether the criteria for an offense should be an individual’s opinion or more objective categories of behavior. They occasioned protests by some faculty members that they would hamper academic freedom, classroom discussion and research. This phase led to a re-evaluation and eventually a revision of the guidelines at the end of October of this year.
The new guidelines are no longer based on a subjective perception of violation but rather on the definition set forth by the Danish Working Environment Authority. The Authority’s definition also takes the individual’s experience as the starting point, regardless of whether or not the behavior arose from a deliberate intention to offend. But it makes an important qualification that an individual’s reaction is not automatically accepted as evidence of a violation:
“It is a case of offensive behavior when one or more persons grossly or repeatedly subject other persons to behavior that is perceived by the latter as demeaning. This implies that there may be situations in which a person feels violated but management determines that it was not offensive behavior.” (my translation)
Rolling back the presumption of guilt
The new guidelines state that they do not cover referrals from students about the content or methods of teaching or about teaching assignments. They also set forth a procedure for persons who feel violated: First they should object or refuse to participate in the situation, and then they should speak to others about the incident and possibly to their manager or administrator. For their part, managers should investigate the circumstances that led to the report before opening a formal case.
These are significant changes not only because they moderate the policy but also because they defer to the civil rights that apply to society as a whole and do not treat students as a vulnerable class in need of special indulgence. Students are already protected by laws against discrimination and harassment that protect all citizens. The University opted out of the more expansive conception of harm that can be problematic to implement and that can have negative consequences for the fundamental principle of free expression.
Uncommon sense
The University Rector, Henrik Wegener, explains that the guidelines are intended to balance the interests of academic freedom and need for students and employees to feel that they are in a safe environment. That sounds like obvious common sense, but the University’s position doesn’t appear to be a very common viewpoint on American campuses. One problem with the welfare state is that once a social group receives a specific benefit, it becomes almost impossible to scale it back, even if economic or other factors argue for doing so. The same may be the case for the burgeoning diversity and inclusion bureaucracy in the US that has a vested interest in its own prohibitions.
13 December 2019
Left swerve
It’s that time of year again – not only for the winter holidays. The Danish Social Democratic administration, along with four smaller parties, reached a deal on the 2020 budget, the first one since the election that brought them to power in June. Since Denmark is one of the few remaining European countries with a left-leaning government in power, it is noteworthy as a barometer of what is possible for the welfare state these days.
More social services and taxes
Here are some of the main features of the agreement:
These measures will be financed by increases in taxes and duties on cigarettes, plastic shopping bags, estates, property registration, gambling, aircraft, and leased company cars and by a termination of tax deductions for work telephones and favorable treatment of parents’ purchases of apartments for their children.
The government needed the support of all the left-wing parties, so the crux of the negotiations was concessions to their demands. The increase in day-care staffing was controversial because it will result in higher user fees (DK) since parents usually end up paying 25 percent of the costs – an extra $200 to $400 per year in this case. The perception was that voters were willing to pay for more welfare as well as for more “humane” treatment of refugees and immigrants after the Liberal Party’s infamous series of restrictive measures.
Democracy in action
The right-wing opposition voiced its usual objections that higher spending and taxes, particularly for benefit of foreigners, will hamper business and the property market. Others complained that the green initiatives are too modest and that while domestic funding was increased, contributions to international collaboration were not.
Altogether the budget appears fairly typical of center-left initiatives that are intended to compensate for or undo the excesses of the preceding center-right administration. The Social Democrats have moved rightward in recent years, especially on immigration, and these measures represent only an incremental adjustment, not a realignment. The far Left wanted to avoid a further increase in wealth inequality, and the centrist faction wanted to avoid a net loss of jobs. The budget apparently does not quite fulfill either of these wishes, which is perhaps a sign of a fair compromise. Social services should improve somewhat, economic growth is likely to slow somewhat, and in a few years the country will probably be willing to let the pendulum swing back in the other direction.
Tackling climate Armageddon
The budget agreement was swiftly followed by the adoption of a historic climate bill (DK). It stipulates a 70 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the 1990 level by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2050. It was hailed as a model program ready just in time for the COP meeting in Madrid next week. It was endorsed by all the parties in Parliament except for the two smallest right-wing parties, partly because it didn’t contain provisions for maintaining jobs. A crucial factor was an agreement on setting binding intermediate targets in the individual years from 2025 until the overall target dates.
There were no details about how this reduction will take place, however. That is to be determined by a broad majority of Parliament next spring, with recommendations of concrete measures from the Climate Panel. Those measures (DK) are likely to include a transition from fossil fuels for transportation to electricity and biofuels, more wind turbines and solar energy panels, less use of natural gas, better insulation in older homes, and changes in agriculture that will result in lower meat consumption and food waste.
Progressive landmark or worse than useless?
The initiative did not escape criticism. The targets were called misleading because they covered only domestic production and not emissions from imported goods. The Skeptical Environmentalist, Bjørn Lomborg of Copenhagen Consensus, maintains that the expensive plan will have a negligible effect on the climate (DK). The 70 percent reduction alone, which will cost DKK 842 billion ($125 billion), will reduce global warming by only one ten-thousandth (that’s 0.0001) of a degree in 80 years. Lomborg argues, as he has contended before, the money should be spent instead on research and development on alternative energy sources in order to help reduce emissions in the largest developing economies, particularly China and India.
Lomborg’s critique implies that the new law is merely a form of national virtue signaling. Denmark has had a rationale for such symbolism, though. Its politicians are well aware that it is far too small to have a significant effect on global trends by itself and have therefore sometimes argued that its achievements could serve as inspiring models for others, as formerly when it topped the list of foreign aid contributors. But if these are merely stopgap measures and a waste of resources, then it’s not even sending a good signal. Lomborg has often been dismissed out of hand by climate activists, but he’s not a denier and his position should be addressed directly.
More social services and taxes
Here are some of the main features of the agreement:
- Increased funding for staffing at day-care centers, for hiring additional nurses, for psychiatric services, for schools, and for green initiatives such as the removal of duties on electric cars.
- The termination of fees for instruction in Danish for foreigners, of a strict residence requirement for unemployment benefits for foreigners and Danes who have lived abroad, and of the “education ceiling,” a limit to one degree that had been intended to get dilatory college students into the workforce faster.
- A resumption of the policy of accepting “quota refugees.”
These measures will be financed by increases in taxes and duties on cigarettes, plastic shopping bags, estates, property registration, gambling, aircraft, and leased company cars and by a termination of tax deductions for work telephones and favorable treatment of parents’ purchases of apartments for their children.
The government needed the support of all the left-wing parties, so the crux of the negotiations was concessions to their demands. The increase in day-care staffing was controversial because it will result in higher user fees (DK) since parents usually end up paying 25 percent of the costs – an extra $200 to $400 per year in this case. The perception was that voters were willing to pay for more welfare as well as for more “humane” treatment of refugees and immigrants after the Liberal Party’s infamous series of restrictive measures.
Democracy in action
The right-wing opposition voiced its usual objections that higher spending and taxes, particularly for benefit of foreigners, will hamper business and the property market. Others complained that the green initiatives are too modest and that while domestic funding was increased, contributions to international collaboration were not.
Altogether the budget appears fairly typical of center-left initiatives that are intended to compensate for or undo the excesses of the preceding center-right administration. The Social Democrats have moved rightward in recent years, especially on immigration, and these measures represent only an incremental adjustment, not a realignment. The far Left wanted to avoid a further increase in wealth inequality, and the centrist faction wanted to avoid a net loss of jobs. The budget apparently does not quite fulfill either of these wishes, which is perhaps a sign of a fair compromise. Social services should improve somewhat, economic growth is likely to slow somewhat, and in a few years the country will probably be willing to let the pendulum swing back in the other direction.
Tackling climate Armageddon
The budget agreement was swiftly followed by the adoption of a historic climate bill (DK). It stipulates a 70 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the 1990 level by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2050. It was hailed as a model program ready just in time for the COP meeting in Madrid next week. It was endorsed by all the parties in Parliament except for the two smallest right-wing parties, partly because it didn’t contain provisions for maintaining jobs. A crucial factor was an agreement on setting binding intermediate targets in the individual years from 2025 until the overall target dates.
There were no details about how this reduction will take place, however. That is to be determined by a broad majority of Parliament next spring, with recommendations of concrete measures from the Climate Panel. Those measures (DK) are likely to include a transition from fossil fuels for transportation to electricity and biofuels, more wind turbines and solar energy panels, less use of natural gas, better insulation in older homes, and changes in agriculture that will result in lower meat consumption and food waste.
Progressive landmark or worse than useless?
The initiative did not escape criticism. The targets were called misleading because they covered only domestic production and not emissions from imported goods. The Skeptical Environmentalist, Bjørn Lomborg of Copenhagen Consensus, maintains that the expensive plan will have a negligible effect on the climate (DK). The 70 percent reduction alone, which will cost DKK 842 billion ($125 billion), will reduce global warming by only one ten-thousandth (that’s 0.0001) of a degree in 80 years. Lomborg argues, as he has contended before, the money should be spent instead on research and development on alternative energy sources in order to help reduce emissions in the largest developing economies, particularly China and India.
Lomborg’s critique implies that the new law is merely a form of national virtue signaling. Denmark has had a rationale for such symbolism, though. Its politicians are well aware that it is far too small to have a significant effect on global trends by itself and have therefore sometimes argued that its achievements could serve as inspiring models for others, as formerly when it topped the list of foreign aid contributors. But if these are merely stopgap measures and a waste of resources, then it’s not even sending a good signal. Lomborg has often been dismissed out of hand by climate activists, but he’s not a denier and his position should be addressed directly.
06 December 2019
'Tis the season to be jolly
The first of December kicks off the Christmas season in Denmark. Christmas is big here, not only because it’s an overwhelmingly Christian country – it’s also one of the most unreligious societies you can find. Also because it’s very dark in the winter – up to 17 hours a day. Families and schoolchildren gather indoors to make decorations and ply other time-tested customs. Companies hold their annual, sometimes a bit profligate parties. The country leads the Western world in candle consumption by a sizeable margin. When you’re biking home during rush hour in the chilly, drizzling rain, the sight of flickering flames in the window reassures you of a cozy haven awaiting with seasonal delicacies and uplifting music.
Truth in food labeling
This strong tradition also leads certain people to defend its sanctity against possible incursions and slights. Thus the criticism that some supermarkets received (DK) from politicians and other cultural watchdogs for advertising items such as “vinterboller” (winter buns) and “vintermedister” (winter sausage). The critics, mostly on Facebook, the leading local forum for debating social and moral issues, assumed that these concoctions had replaced the traditional “juleboller” and “julemedister” (Christmas buns and sausage), presumably to placate the Muslim population that might feel excluded from such majoritarian observances.
The supermarkets were quick to correct that misapprehension. They had been wise enough not to drop the Christmas versions of those goods from the inventory. They had merely added an alternative secular variant. More enlightened commentators and media outlets criticized in turn the traditionalists’ alarm at a nonexistent problem while much more urgent issues such as climate change demanded their attention.
A-caroling we go
Lest anyone think that Denmark’s progressive tendencies have kept it on the straight and narrow politically correct path, however, another incident last week raised a slew of eyebrows and hackles. Bertel Haarder, a former cabinet secretary from the Liberal Party (the center-right mainstream party) and the longest-serving member of Parliament, continued his own Christmas tradition of presenting his colleagues with a humorous homemade song (DK). All in good fun until the last of the eight verses:
A much different hetero is the Hedeager boy:
One wasn’t enough, he wanted two in the mayor’s bed!
He went after them both and grabbed a little too much!
He thought that the Red-Green Party was common property!
BUT why should they be so strict
And prevent Red-Green sex.
Let him take a lovely witch
Home for Christmas!
(my literal translation, sans rhymes)
This rousing finale refers to an event from earlier in the year for which a former member of the Red-Green Party board was convicted of raping (DK) a woman at a gathering in the home of Ninna Hedeager Olsen, Copenhagen’s Deputy Mayor for Technology and the Environment. The victim was judged to have been defenseless because of sleep and alcohol, and the man was also found by the court to have groped the mayor at the same time. The small Red-Green Party (Enhedslisten, a.k.a. the Unity Party) is the furthest to the left in Danish politics. It has advocated the nationalization of private enterprise and other collectivist measures. Multicultural Copenhagen is its prime stronghold, and environmentalism is its strongest position.
No sense of decency?
Outrage ensued across almost the entire political spectrum. WTF was he thinking – joking about rape and referring to the victim as property and a witch to boot! It sounded like he even approved of the assault. Haarder had a single supporter in the parliamentarians’ email thread (DK), from the Danish People’s Party’s, the most strident proponents of Danish family values (“Get with the Christmas spirit!”). Haarder made a rather mild apology saying that he was sorry if anyone was hurt by the verse and he had never intended to condone or make fun of rape. A party spokesperson reiterated his disavowal of any disrespectful intentions.
The 75-year-old Haarder has often extolled Christianity and traditional cultural values and played the moral watchdog himself. That an intelligent, well-educated, respected high officeholder could be so tone-deaf (while being a prosodic craftsperson) to the growing sentiment about rape culture tells us something about this country. It has seen the arrival of identity and diversity politics, but it is not yet under great pressure to conform to intersectional ideology. It’s nevertheless surprising that none of Haarder’s aides forwarded him the #metoo memo. His freewheeling boorishness prompts a comparison to the U.S. Troll in Chief, who has done more than anyone else to lower the standards of decorum for the highest ranking officials. Few others have achieved the cultish devotion that grants him virtual immunity, however.
Poetic licentiousness
It’s unlikely that Haarder was influenced by Trump, though. He’s been cranking out these songs since Trump started playing with his daddy’s money in New York real estate market. He just got carried away with his composition. He was thinking as a poet, not as a politician who consults his spin doctors and their polls, and reveling in a saturnalian tradition that is not above a touch of bawdry. The perp’s covetousness must have offered a tempting opportunity to exploit the trope of abolishing private property, but did he really wish to characterize the event as typical of an entire political party’s style of sex – to wit, a drunken orgy – hinting at its origins in the hippie-communist milieu decades ago? Such an indiscretion, at the expense of an unconscious woman, shows that while Scandinavian social democracy might serve as a model for economic progressivism, it offers less inspiration for the cultural warriors battling sexism and other abuses of the patriarchy.
In the interest of fairness, it should be noted that the convicted rapist is appealing his sentence on the grounds that he believed the victim had been awake, although that would not exonerate him from the charge of indecent exposure to Mayor Hedeager Olsen, who took an extended sick leave after the incident. During that time she was spotted serving draft beer at an inn run by a friend, for which she is being investigated for a violation of labor market rules.
Cheers (in moderation), holiday revelers!
Truth in food labeling
This strong tradition also leads certain people to defend its sanctity against possible incursions and slights. Thus the criticism that some supermarkets received (DK) from politicians and other cultural watchdogs for advertising items such as “vinterboller” (winter buns) and “vintermedister” (winter sausage). The critics, mostly on Facebook, the leading local forum for debating social and moral issues, assumed that these concoctions had replaced the traditional “juleboller” and “julemedister” (Christmas buns and sausage), presumably to placate the Muslim population that might feel excluded from such majoritarian observances.
The supermarkets were quick to correct that misapprehension. They had been wise enough not to drop the Christmas versions of those goods from the inventory. They had merely added an alternative secular variant. More enlightened commentators and media outlets criticized in turn the traditionalists’ alarm at a nonexistent problem while much more urgent issues such as climate change demanded their attention.
A-caroling we go
Lest anyone think that Denmark’s progressive tendencies have kept it on the straight and narrow politically correct path, however, another incident last week raised a slew of eyebrows and hackles. Bertel Haarder, a former cabinet secretary from the Liberal Party (the center-right mainstream party) and the longest-serving member of Parliament, continued his own Christmas tradition of presenting his colleagues with a humorous homemade song (DK). All in good fun until the last of the eight verses:
A much different hetero is the Hedeager boy:
One wasn’t enough, he wanted two in the mayor’s bed!
He went after them both and grabbed a little too much!
He thought that the Red-Green Party was common property!
BUT why should they be so strict
And prevent Red-Green sex.
Let him take a lovely witch
Home for Christmas!
(my literal translation, sans rhymes)
This rousing finale refers to an event from earlier in the year for which a former member of the Red-Green Party board was convicted of raping (DK) a woman at a gathering in the home of Ninna Hedeager Olsen, Copenhagen’s Deputy Mayor for Technology and the Environment. The victim was judged to have been defenseless because of sleep and alcohol, and the man was also found by the court to have groped the mayor at the same time. The small Red-Green Party (Enhedslisten, a.k.a. the Unity Party) is the furthest to the left in Danish politics. It has advocated the nationalization of private enterprise and other collectivist measures. Multicultural Copenhagen is its prime stronghold, and environmentalism is its strongest position.
No sense of decency?
Outrage ensued across almost the entire political spectrum. WTF was he thinking – joking about rape and referring to the victim as property and a witch to boot! It sounded like he even approved of the assault. Haarder had a single supporter in the parliamentarians’ email thread (DK), from the Danish People’s Party’s, the most strident proponents of Danish family values (“Get with the Christmas spirit!”). Haarder made a rather mild apology saying that he was sorry if anyone was hurt by the verse and he had never intended to condone or make fun of rape. A party spokesperson reiterated his disavowal of any disrespectful intentions.
The 75-year-old Haarder has often extolled Christianity and traditional cultural values and played the moral watchdog himself. That an intelligent, well-educated, respected high officeholder could be so tone-deaf (while being a prosodic craftsperson) to the growing sentiment about rape culture tells us something about this country. It has seen the arrival of identity and diversity politics, but it is not yet under great pressure to conform to intersectional ideology. It’s nevertheless surprising that none of Haarder’s aides forwarded him the #metoo memo. His freewheeling boorishness prompts a comparison to the U.S. Troll in Chief, who has done more than anyone else to lower the standards of decorum for the highest ranking officials. Few others have achieved the cultish devotion that grants him virtual immunity, however.
Poetic licentiousness
It’s unlikely that Haarder was influenced by Trump, though. He’s been cranking out these songs since Trump started playing with his daddy’s money in New York real estate market. He just got carried away with his composition. He was thinking as a poet, not as a politician who consults his spin doctors and their polls, and reveling in a saturnalian tradition that is not above a touch of bawdry. The perp’s covetousness must have offered a tempting opportunity to exploit the trope of abolishing private property, but did he really wish to characterize the event as typical of an entire political party’s style of sex – to wit, a drunken orgy – hinting at its origins in the hippie-communist milieu decades ago? Such an indiscretion, at the expense of an unconscious woman, shows that while Scandinavian social democracy might serve as a model for economic progressivism, it offers less inspiration for the cultural warriors battling sexism and other abuses of the patriarchy.
In the interest of fairness, it should be noted that the convicted rapist is appealing his sentence on the grounds that he believed the victim had been awake, although that would not exonerate him from the charge of indecent exposure to Mayor Hedeager Olsen, who took an extended sick leave after the incident. During that time she was spotted serving draft beer at an inn run by a friend, for which she is being investigated for a violation of labor market rules.
Cheers (in moderation), holiday revelers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)