Jyllands-Posten, the newspaper that published the infamous Mohammed cartoons that caused violent demonstrations and boycotts in the Arab world in 2005, has done it again. It has picked on another bloc of more than 1.3 billion people to offend. On Monday it published a drawing of the Chinese flag with the five stars replaced by images of the Wuhan coronavirus. The Chinese ambassador to Denmark called it insulting and demanded an admission of misjudgment and an apology. The Chinese Chamber of Commerce in Denmark concurred.
JP’s editor, Jacob Nybroe, responded that the drawing was not intended to be offensive, that the paper has a right to freedom of expression, and that China’s response reflected a “different type of cultural understanding.” He maintained that there was nothing to apologize for. The illustrator himself, Niels Bo Bojesen, made no comment. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen was also asked whether she would apologize and responded in the same vein (DK): “[W]e have a very, very strong tradition in Denmark not only for freedom of expression but also for satirical drawings in Denmark, and we will also have it in the future.” Other party leaders concurred.
Satire in the eye of the target
In Denmark political cartoons are referred to as “satirical drawings,” but it is not clear that this one is satire. Readers may differ in their perception of satire. The paper says the drawing is simply a representation of a major world event at the moment. The flag image is used as a way of identifying the origin of the coronavirus, but it does not explicitly mock or demean China. It has no text except the word “Coronavirus” and no other elements besides the flag image that suggest a particular interpretation. The paper had previously used other national flags to identify issues. It seems to have deniability.
Does Frederiksen think it’s satire, or was she just using the usual name of the genre? If it is satire, then it is satirizing something in particular, presumably the Chinese nation or government. What would the implied criticism be – that China should have done something to prevent the outbreak? That the Chinese might have risked something like this happening because they eat wild animals, as in the SARS outbreak?
It wasn’t critical, but if it was, it had a right to be
In any case, this has become a confused game of imputation and double-guessing. It’s not just any country that the drawing refers to; it’s one with the most powerful censorship apparatus in the world and the only one that can bully the most powerful corporations in the world such as Google and Apple into complying with its censorship policies.
Whether or not China is being hypersensitive, once it takes offense and demands action, it elevates the drawing to an international incident. If the drawing itself is a test of China’s international diplomacy, its response poses a test for the Danish players and then the Danish players’ response in turn poses another test for China. Frederiksen’s statement was less “offensive” toward a superpower than her seemingly spontaneous comment that Donald Trump’s interest in buying Greenland was “absurd.”
Finessing deniability
Did JP knowingly or deliberately provoke China, even with its deniability? Was the paper being callous and unsympathetic toward the Chinese people suffering from the outbreak and the Chinese authorities scrambling to contain it? Should it have refrained from publishing the drawing because of the Chinese government’s sensitivity to possible criticism and the possible repurcussions on Denmark’s exports to the country?
Perhaps the “satire” was aimed indirectly at China’s censorship policies. That is, even though the drawing itself didn’t contain any particular criticism, it was a stealth attack that provoked a reaction by China that could be criticized for trying to curtail freedom of the press in another country. In this reading, the illustration thus gained a measure of ridicule or absurdity that true satire requires – even the wordplay found in much classic satire – insofar as China itself has publicized the “insult” far beyond JP’s weekly domestic circulation of 120,00 – the population of a mere village in China – and caused it to go viral, like the bug depicted.
31 January 2020
24 January 2020
Why there is less social justice warfare in Denmark
Why doesn’t Denmark have as much controversy about social justice issues as do the US and the UK?
First, racial and ethnic tensions are not as acute because Denmark does not have the same history of slavery and colonialism. Slave trade was conducted in the Danish West Indies until 1848, but there is no segment of the Danish population that has descended from slaves and endured centuries of discrimination. There is an ethnic underclass, but only around 13 percent of the population has a foreign background. The largest group are the descendants of “guest workers” who came mainly from Turkey in the 1960s and 1970s. It is difficult to remember a case of the police killing a person of color person under suspicious circumstances.
Second, conditions for women are more favorable because of the extensive welfare state and a tradition of greater egalitarianism.
Third, the country has historically been one of the most tolerant towards LGBT+ groups. It was the first to recognize same-sex partnerships, and it legalized same-sex marriage in 2012.
Fewer enemies
Fourth, the right-wing radicalism that provokes activism on the Left is less extensive and prominent. White supremacist and neo-Nazi groups are very small and are looked down upon by the general population. The extremist Stram Kurs (Hard Line) Party, which advocated deporting all Muslims, received 1.8 percent of the votes in the 2019 election and didn’t qualify for seats in Parliament.
Fifth, universities, where most social justice agitation and scandals have taken place in the US, have an infrastructure in Denmark that makes them less susceptible to activism. They are not residential colleges. There are some dormitories, but very few are located on campus. Many students commute from home or live in apartments. They do not congregate as often as American students in clubs and interest organizations and perhaps for that reason do not develop a tribal mentality. They are also more professionally oriented. They do not simply “go to college” to get a B.A. They choose their major fields when they apply and begin to specialize after one year. It is likely that more of them are more interested in pursuing their careers than in political activism. Additionally, they aren’t burdened by the prospect of a sizeable undischargeable debt upon graduation.
Sixth, Twitter, which offers the quickest and easiest way to engage in ideological warfare, is less widespread in Denmark than in the US. Facebook is the most popular social media forum here. It does sometimes attract heated debate but has less rapid-fire escalation of denunciation and insult-trading and, in the extreme, mob frenzy.
Marxism was here first
Seventh, the European socialist tradition already offered a theoretical framework and vocabulary for addressing social injustice. It was more firmly established and intellectually coherent than, say, Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter and intersectionalism, which need to explain themselves.
Eighth (a corollary of the preceding), there were already well-established political parties on the far Left with a voice in Parliament and influence on center-left administrations. The Red-Green Party’s platform is more extreme than the American progressive movement’s. Activists have a channel to promote their causes and need not always be an protest element that is not taken seriously.
Ninth (something that could have been mentioned first), some of the main objectives of the social justice movement have already been accomplished here, most obviously universal health care, tuition-free university, and policies to prevent environmental damage and climate change. There is not as much crony capitalism and lobbyist influence to protest against.
Tenth, children here are less “coddled” than Americans, as famously documented by Lukianoff and Haidt. They are less sheltered and are encouraged to be more responsible for themselves and therefore less likely to develop an entitlement and grievance mentality.
Biology 101
Finally (and more speculative), both academics and, where relevant, politicians appear to be stronger adherents and defenders of free speech and a scientific viewpoint than their American counterparts. Denmark is proud of its democratic tradition, which is linked to its egalitarianism. It has high voter turnouts and numerous local organizations and cooperative housing associations founded and run by citizen groups that span socioeconomic strata. There is less tendency to attempt to silence and suppress opposing political positions and probably less need for students to insulate themselves from exposure to ideas that might make them uncomfortable.
I don’t know how deeply social constructionism has influenced the social sciences here, but I doubt that the natural sciences are seriously threatened by ideological campaigns to deny the distinction between sex and gender, for example. If university faculty are under less pressure because of the factors listed above, then there is less need for them to cede an evidence-based approach.
First, racial and ethnic tensions are not as acute because Denmark does not have the same history of slavery and colonialism. Slave trade was conducted in the Danish West Indies until 1848, but there is no segment of the Danish population that has descended from slaves and endured centuries of discrimination. There is an ethnic underclass, but only around 13 percent of the population has a foreign background. The largest group are the descendants of “guest workers” who came mainly from Turkey in the 1960s and 1970s. It is difficult to remember a case of the police killing a person of color person under suspicious circumstances.
Second, conditions for women are more favorable because of the extensive welfare state and a tradition of greater egalitarianism.
Third, the country has historically been one of the most tolerant towards LGBT+ groups. It was the first to recognize same-sex partnerships, and it legalized same-sex marriage in 2012.
Fewer enemies
Fourth, the right-wing radicalism that provokes activism on the Left is less extensive and prominent. White supremacist and neo-Nazi groups are very small and are looked down upon by the general population. The extremist Stram Kurs (Hard Line) Party, which advocated deporting all Muslims, received 1.8 percent of the votes in the 2019 election and didn’t qualify for seats in Parliament.
Fifth, universities, where most social justice agitation and scandals have taken place in the US, have an infrastructure in Denmark that makes them less susceptible to activism. They are not residential colleges. There are some dormitories, but very few are located on campus. Many students commute from home or live in apartments. They do not congregate as often as American students in clubs and interest organizations and perhaps for that reason do not develop a tribal mentality. They are also more professionally oriented. They do not simply “go to college” to get a B.A. They choose their major fields when they apply and begin to specialize after one year. It is likely that more of them are more interested in pursuing their careers than in political activism. Additionally, they aren’t burdened by the prospect of a sizeable undischargeable debt upon graduation.
Sixth, Twitter, which offers the quickest and easiest way to engage in ideological warfare, is less widespread in Denmark than in the US. Facebook is the most popular social media forum here. It does sometimes attract heated debate but has less rapid-fire escalation of denunciation and insult-trading and, in the extreme, mob frenzy.
Marxism was here first
Seventh, the European socialist tradition already offered a theoretical framework and vocabulary for addressing social injustice. It was more firmly established and intellectually coherent than, say, Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter and intersectionalism, which need to explain themselves.
Eighth (a corollary of the preceding), there were already well-established political parties on the far Left with a voice in Parliament and influence on center-left administrations. The Red-Green Party’s platform is more extreme than the American progressive movement’s. Activists have a channel to promote their causes and need not always be an protest element that is not taken seriously.
Ninth (something that could have been mentioned first), some of the main objectives of the social justice movement have already been accomplished here, most obviously universal health care, tuition-free university, and policies to prevent environmental damage and climate change. There is not as much crony capitalism and lobbyist influence to protest against.
Tenth, children here are less “coddled” than Americans, as famously documented by Lukianoff and Haidt. They are less sheltered and are encouraged to be more responsible for themselves and therefore less likely to develop an entitlement and grievance mentality.
Biology 101
Finally (and more speculative), both academics and, where relevant, politicians appear to be stronger adherents and defenders of free speech and a scientific viewpoint than their American counterparts. Denmark is proud of its democratic tradition, which is linked to its egalitarianism. It has high voter turnouts and numerous local organizations and cooperative housing associations founded and run by citizen groups that span socioeconomic strata. There is less tendency to attempt to silence and suppress opposing political positions and probably less need for students to insulate themselves from exposure to ideas that might make them uncomfortable.
I don’t know how deeply social constructionism has influenced the social sciences here, but I doubt that the natural sciences are seriously threatened by ideological campaigns to deny the distinction between sex and gender, for example. If university faculty are under less pressure because of the factors listed above, then there is less need for them to cede an evidence-based approach.
17 January 2020
Children with gender dysphoria in Denmark
In the Anglosphere you see things like this everyday: An IT contractor sues Nike for failing to protect them (the contractor) from misgendering harassment by coworkers who didn’t refer to them by the desired pronouns. Dozens of psychologists resign from a British clinic because they think it overdiagnoses gender dysphoria in children and they’re afraid of being labeled transphobic if they don’t conform. With the arrival of 2020, there seem to be some signs of fatigue with aggressive transgender activism. Some people who might have been sympathetic to the issues are tiring of the dogmatism fueling the more questionable demands and judgments: their insistence on the right of biological males who self-identify as women to compete against cis-women in all sports, their branding as bigots heterosexuals who are not interested in dating transpeople, and their automatic approval of transitioning for pre-adolescents.
Below the statistical radar
Transgender issues also arise in Denmark. There has been a steady increase in requests for hormone treatment and surgery in the past few years. But the trend appears to be at a simpler, more exploratory stage, and issues concerning transgender rights, inclusion and pronouns are still rather novel. Schools are only beginning to adapt restroom and locker-room facilities (DK) to dysphoric children. Earlier this year professors were still surprised when students criticized the use of the categories “male” and “female.” One case involved a statistics course (DK) in the biology faculty, in which students were to analyze differences between the sexes in phenomena such as left-handedness and height. Some objected that the assignments were offensive to people who don’t identify with either category. They weren’t questioning the validity of the studies, only the conventional limitation to two sexes that made some people feel overlooked and left out.
The professor couldn’t change he statistics, but he offered to use colors instead of the sexes, however that might work. After the evaluation meeting, he felt that his freedom of expression was being constrained and it made his teaching difficult. It seems rather quaint in comparison with what happens to American professors who run afoul of transgender activists. The same article tallies up the number of formal complaints about sexual harassment and offensive behavior at the University of Copenhagen: there were only five from 2016 to 2018.
Taking the plunge
Last month the Denmarks Radio television network broadcast a documentary about the youngest child in the country, at age 11, to begin hormone treatment: “I don’t want to be a girl, Mom” (DK). It gave a sympathetic, sometimes moving account of the child’s situation and the difficulty of the decision. Altogether it offered a balanced treatment of the factors at play: the children’s discomfort in their innate sex; parents’ and doctors’ uncertainty about the best course and the timing; sex researchers’ and politicians’ caution about irreversible long-term effects of the treatment; and the possibility of regret and a desire for de-transitioning. There was widespread agreement about the need for better knowledge about the consequences of such treatment.
And the process for determining whether to offer the treatment reflects those concerns. It consists of a referral to a sexology clinic, several interviews and tests, including psychiatric assessments and intelligence tests, consultations with school personnel, and a comprehensive evaluation by a group of psychologists and doctors. Contrast this with the position taken by American Academy of Pediatrics, whose guidelines for children who seek treatment for gender dysphoria recommend an immediate “affirmative” response, that is, a commencement of the treatment process.
Whose interests are being served?
In a recent podcast with Quillette Magazine, Dr. James Cantor discusses his critique of these guidelines in a peer-reviewed article in which he cites several instances where the Academy misrepresented research. Among them was a dismissal of the previously accepted approach of “watchful waiting,” which was supported by replicated findings that after puberty two-thirds of children with gender dysphoria come to accept and prefer their natal sex. Most of them found that they were simply gay and not born in the wrong body.
Like much of the transgender debate that goes beyond questions of fundamental civil rights, discrimination and equal protection, the Academy’s attitude is baffling in its apparent disregard for both science and common sense. Does it reflect a tendency toward overtreatment in American healthcare, a general trend toward ideological extremes and rigidity in American public debate, both? It's encouraging that Danish healthcare professionals and researchers maintain a more deliberative, agnostic approach to this fraught issue and the transition bandwagon.
Below the statistical radar
Transgender issues also arise in Denmark. There has been a steady increase in requests for hormone treatment and surgery in the past few years. But the trend appears to be at a simpler, more exploratory stage, and issues concerning transgender rights, inclusion and pronouns are still rather novel. Schools are only beginning to adapt restroom and locker-room facilities (DK) to dysphoric children. Earlier this year professors were still surprised when students criticized the use of the categories “male” and “female.” One case involved a statistics course (DK) in the biology faculty, in which students were to analyze differences between the sexes in phenomena such as left-handedness and height. Some objected that the assignments were offensive to people who don’t identify with either category. They weren’t questioning the validity of the studies, only the conventional limitation to two sexes that made some people feel overlooked and left out.
The professor couldn’t change he statistics, but he offered to use colors instead of the sexes, however that might work. After the evaluation meeting, he felt that his freedom of expression was being constrained and it made his teaching difficult. It seems rather quaint in comparison with what happens to American professors who run afoul of transgender activists. The same article tallies up the number of formal complaints about sexual harassment and offensive behavior at the University of Copenhagen: there were only five from 2016 to 2018.
Taking the plunge
Last month the Denmarks Radio television network broadcast a documentary about the youngest child in the country, at age 11, to begin hormone treatment: “I don’t want to be a girl, Mom” (DK). It gave a sympathetic, sometimes moving account of the child’s situation and the difficulty of the decision. Altogether it offered a balanced treatment of the factors at play: the children’s discomfort in their innate sex; parents’ and doctors’ uncertainty about the best course and the timing; sex researchers’ and politicians’ caution about irreversible long-term effects of the treatment; and the possibility of regret and a desire for de-transitioning. There was widespread agreement about the need for better knowledge about the consequences of such treatment.
And the process for determining whether to offer the treatment reflects those concerns. It consists of a referral to a sexology clinic, several interviews and tests, including psychiatric assessments and intelligence tests, consultations with school personnel, and a comprehensive evaluation by a group of psychologists and doctors. Contrast this with the position taken by American Academy of Pediatrics, whose guidelines for children who seek treatment for gender dysphoria recommend an immediate “affirmative” response, that is, a commencement of the treatment process.
Whose interests are being served?
In a recent podcast with Quillette Magazine, Dr. James Cantor discusses his critique of these guidelines in a peer-reviewed article in which he cites several instances where the Academy misrepresented research. Among them was a dismissal of the previously accepted approach of “watchful waiting,” which was supported by replicated findings that after puberty two-thirds of children with gender dysphoria come to accept and prefer their natal sex. Most of them found that they were simply gay and not born in the wrong body.
Like much of the transgender debate that goes beyond questions of fundamental civil rights, discrimination and equal protection, the Academy’s attitude is baffling in its apparent disregard for both science and common sense. Does it reflect a tendency toward overtreatment in American healthcare, a general trend toward ideological extremes and rigidity in American public debate, both? It's encouraging that Danish healthcare professionals and researchers maintain a more deliberative, agnostic approach to this fraught issue and the transition bandwagon.
10 January 2020
Immigrant children are getting more education than Danes
The results of a new study (DK) from Think Tank DEA surprised researchers. They show that, after the data are adjusted for the families’ financial background, more children of non-Western immigrants are completing a course of higher education than so-called “ethnic Danes.”
The study compares the number of young people who have taken a bachelor’s degree within 10 years of graduating from elementary school, that is, ninth grade, in the period 2002-08. The subjects are broken down into quintiles on the basis of their parents’ income. The results are consistent across the income spectrum: 8 to 10 percent more of the children of non-Western immigrants – both those born in Denmark and born elsewhere – attain a degree than Danes. The percentage ranges from about 30 percent for the lowest quintile to 60 percent for the highest.
Without the adjustment, this still isn’t the case. The gross average for all Danes is 33 percent and for immigrant youth is a couple of points lower. The difference in the two results reflects the fact that there are relatively few children of immigrants in the highest quintile segment. Another qualification is that Danish youth may take longer to finish college because more of them take a supplementary year before starting gymnasium (high school) and take a gap year before college.
Breaking the trend and the pattern
Nevertheless, the results are seen as a significant success for recent efforts to get more children of immigrants to pursue higher education. The accepted “story” in Danish society about ethnic minorities and education, especially in recent years during the rise of nationalist sentiment and the Danish People’s Party, has been that the lack of education and interest in education among immigrant children were a prime factor in preventing meaningful integration.
For a few years now, however, immigrant girls have constituted an exception to this image. A study from the Economic Council of the Labour Movement (DK) published in September showed that, of children of parents without an education, more girls with an immigrant background completed a degree than Danish girls as well as boys, or became “pattern-breakers” who exemplify social mobility. Even in gross terms, without considering parental background, immigrant girls recently surpassed Danish boys in educational attainment.
Girlbosses on the march or boys playing hooky
I would draw two conclusions from the study, one fairly obvious: The problem is with boys, particularly low-income boys of all ethnicities. It is well known that girls have been overtaking boys in the educational system for years in the US as well as Denmark. With the outsourcing and automation of manufacturing, academic training is necessary to thrive in the knowledge economy, and girls have seen women advancing into professional careers for at least a generation.
Critics have said that the educational system is geared towards girls, who are able to sit still, concentrate and communicate verbally at an earlier age than boys, and that boys become discouraged and fall behind. Another explanation in the Danish context is that immigrant girls are encouraged to pursue education as the path toward integration in Danish society and are receptive to the message, while boys are “left on their own” and are more likely to end up in vocational training if they pursue a career. In any case, the fact that, taking into account their economic background, immigrant boys show the same margin of superiority in education to Danish boys is a striking development.
The stick and the carrot
The other conclusion will be less palatable to many. That is, that the hard line on immigration and integration taken by the preceding (center-right) Liberal administration in both policy and rhetoric has been effective in changing attitudes toward integration among immigrants. Inger Støjberg, the Minister for Immigration and Integration from 2015 to 2019, was mocked and vilified for her 100-plus measures to restrict immigration and reduce social benefits for immigrants. She was accused of being cruel, of increasing child poverty, and of flouting international conventions. She is still the subject of an investigation (DK) for allegedly separating refugee couples in which the girl was a minor automatically, disregarding their right to a hearing on their residential accommodations.
Despite the legitimate criticisms, it is likely that the reduced number of immigrants has made it easier for the educational system and social services to help steer those already living here into productive career paths and has mitigated the sense of a separate social underclass in immigrant neighborhoods that is exacerbated by a steady flow of new arrivals. And that the insistent rhetoric about the necessity of rejecting Sharia law and accepting the norms of Western society, such as equal protection and equal opportunity, has helped to persuade immigrant families that formal education is the best means of promoting their children’s success and happiness. These effects are probably the reason that the new Social Democratic administration, in its approach to integration, has only moderated its predecessors’ harshest measures and maintained the emphasis on liberal democratic values.
The study compares the number of young people who have taken a bachelor’s degree within 10 years of graduating from elementary school, that is, ninth grade, in the period 2002-08. The subjects are broken down into quintiles on the basis of their parents’ income. The results are consistent across the income spectrum: 8 to 10 percent more of the children of non-Western immigrants – both those born in Denmark and born elsewhere – attain a degree than Danes. The percentage ranges from about 30 percent for the lowest quintile to 60 percent for the highest.
Without the adjustment, this still isn’t the case. The gross average for all Danes is 33 percent and for immigrant youth is a couple of points lower. The difference in the two results reflects the fact that there are relatively few children of immigrants in the highest quintile segment. Another qualification is that Danish youth may take longer to finish college because more of them take a supplementary year before starting gymnasium (high school) and take a gap year before college.
Breaking the trend and the pattern
Nevertheless, the results are seen as a significant success for recent efforts to get more children of immigrants to pursue higher education. The accepted “story” in Danish society about ethnic minorities and education, especially in recent years during the rise of nationalist sentiment and the Danish People’s Party, has been that the lack of education and interest in education among immigrant children were a prime factor in preventing meaningful integration.
For a few years now, however, immigrant girls have constituted an exception to this image. A study from the Economic Council of the Labour Movement (DK) published in September showed that, of children of parents without an education, more girls with an immigrant background completed a degree than Danish girls as well as boys, or became “pattern-breakers” who exemplify social mobility. Even in gross terms, without considering parental background, immigrant girls recently surpassed Danish boys in educational attainment.
Girlbosses on the march or boys playing hooky
I would draw two conclusions from the study, one fairly obvious: The problem is with boys, particularly low-income boys of all ethnicities. It is well known that girls have been overtaking boys in the educational system for years in the US as well as Denmark. With the outsourcing and automation of manufacturing, academic training is necessary to thrive in the knowledge economy, and girls have seen women advancing into professional careers for at least a generation.
Critics have said that the educational system is geared towards girls, who are able to sit still, concentrate and communicate verbally at an earlier age than boys, and that boys become discouraged and fall behind. Another explanation in the Danish context is that immigrant girls are encouraged to pursue education as the path toward integration in Danish society and are receptive to the message, while boys are “left on their own” and are more likely to end up in vocational training if they pursue a career. In any case, the fact that, taking into account their economic background, immigrant boys show the same margin of superiority in education to Danish boys is a striking development.
The stick and the carrot
The other conclusion will be less palatable to many. That is, that the hard line on immigration and integration taken by the preceding (center-right) Liberal administration in both policy and rhetoric has been effective in changing attitudes toward integration among immigrants. Inger Støjberg, the Minister for Immigration and Integration from 2015 to 2019, was mocked and vilified for her 100-plus measures to restrict immigration and reduce social benefits for immigrants. She was accused of being cruel, of increasing child poverty, and of flouting international conventions. She is still the subject of an investigation (DK) for allegedly separating refugee couples in which the girl was a minor automatically, disregarding their right to a hearing on their residential accommodations.
Despite the legitimate criticisms, it is likely that the reduced number of immigrants has made it easier for the educational system and social services to help steer those already living here into productive career paths and has mitigated the sense of a separate social underclass in immigrant neighborhoods that is exacerbated by a steady flow of new arrivals. And that the insistent rhetoric about the necessity of rejecting Sharia law and accepting the norms of Western society, such as equal protection and equal opportunity, has helped to persuade immigrant families that formal education is the best means of promoting their children’s success and happiness. These effects are probably the reason that the new Social Democratic administration, in its approach to integration, has only moderated its predecessors’ harshest measures and maintained the emphasis on liberal democratic values.
03 January 2020
The prime minister’s New Year’s speech
Every New Year’s Eve, the queen gives a brief speech on the state of Denmark, and the next evening, the prime minister does the same. The latter is not intended to be a definitive status report on the nation or a detailed program for the future, but it does usually offer an outline of the most important items on the political agenda. The tradition often produces well-intentioned sentiments and objectives that people can agree on, even if it lacks concrete measures for realizing them.
This year was Mette Frederiksen’s first such speech (UK) as the leader of the Social Democratic administration that came to power in June. Frederiksen appeared a little nervous, but she delivered it smoothly. Its substance was unusual. She spent most, perhaps two-thirds, of the 15 minute speech on a single subject and one that has never received such prominence in this context: children who should be removed from their homes. That is, children who are so neglected or abused by their parents that they should be transferred to foster parents or a foster home or even adopted by another family. On the face of it, that was an extreme, disquieting message at the conclusion of the biggest family holiday week of the year.
Save the children
But it was not wholly surprising. During the parliamentary election campaign, Frederiksen announced that she wanted to be the “children’s prime minister,” so she was expected to take steps to make good on her promise. The issue falls under the headings of social mobility, equal opportunity, protection of the weak, and solidarity, which are core Social Democratic principles that are generally shared by the entire political spectrum. One of Frederiksen’s first major acts in office was to make an official apology (DK) to a group of boys who were abused in a foster home in the years 1946 to 1976. Their treatment gave rise to an extensive report on the mistreatment of foster children, but Parliament had voted against a formal apology.
Besides its length, this part of the speech was striking for its hard line and blunt criticism of irresponsible parents. There was hardly a mention of support or counseling for such families. Far too many parents have had “too many chances” to redress their harmful behavior. Their children should get a new home earlier in their lives, and it should offer better conditions than such alternatives have previously afforded. They should not be shuttled around through foster homes and schools, for example. In a line that pleased the nationalist constituencies, Frederiksen added that children’s entitlement to these things superseded the customs of some “other cultures” that allow corporal punishment of children and do not allow girls the same freedoms as boys. She cited Denmark’s historical tradition of advances in these areas. It was the first country to require schooling for all children and one of the first to prohibit child labor; it banned corporal punishment in the 90s.
The other topics mentioned in the speech fit into the same general concern with fælleskab – solidarity, community, fellowship. The one that was the most widely anticipated, because of campaign proposals, was an effort to enable people who are physically debilitated from their work to take an early retirement. After a brief comment on a stronger line against terrorism threats, returning jihadis and gang crime, Frederiksen concluded on the urgency of measures to prevent climate change, with a nod to the young activists who helped to publicize the stakes.
Only in a welfare state
Imagine how this focus on adoption would have gone down in an American state of the union address: The “government” thinks it knows what’s best for my children and wants to kidnap them in a new sort of civil forfeiture? It’s inconceivable that this would be a headline topic in any presidential speech on the general condition of the country, even by a female democratic socialist. Frederiksen received the usual criticism (DK) that the plans, particularly for early retirement and climate change, were lacking in detail. But the other party spokespersons generally praised her emphasis on mistreated children, with few questioning whether it was the country’s most pressing issue.
Perhaps that came partly from politeness toward her first New Year’s Day performance, but it does seem rather odd. After all, foster care concerns about 15,000, or 1 percent, of Danish children. Frederiksen could have clarified the priorities in the recently adopted 2020 budget, such as day care and support for immigrant families, which benefit a great many more children. She could have dwelt longer on the terrorist plot that was discovered and prevented last month. The speech was also noteworthy for completely ignoring a topic that usually receives much attention on this occasion: the economy. But the reason for that is a positive one: the economy is sound and no emergency measures or drastic reforms are needed. Aside from climate, there was nothing on world affairs such as Brexit and on international relations, not even a little joke about defending Greenland from a greedy real estate developer.
This year was Mette Frederiksen’s first such speech (UK) as the leader of the Social Democratic administration that came to power in June. Frederiksen appeared a little nervous, but she delivered it smoothly. Its substance was unusual. She spent most, perhaps two-thirds, of the 15 minute speech on a single subject and one that has never received such prominence in this context: children who should be removed from their homes. That is, children who are so neglected or abused by their parents that they should be transferred to foster parents or a foster home or even adopted by another family. On the face of it, that was an extreme, disquieting message at the conclusion of the biggest family holiday week of the year.
Save the children
But it was not wholly surprising. During the parliamentary election campaign, Frederiksen announced that she wanted to be the “children’s prime minister,” so she was expected to take steps to make good on her promise. The issue falls under the headings of social mobility, equal opportunity, protection of the weak, and solidarity, which are core Social Democratic principles that are generally shared by the entire political spectrum. One of Frederiksen’s first major acts in office was to make an official apology (DK) to a group of boys who were abused in a foster home in the years 1946 to 1976. Their treatment gave rise to an extensive report on the mistreatment of foster children, but Parliament had voted against a formal apology.
Besides its length, this part of the speech was striking for its hard line and blunt criticism of irresponsible parents. There was hardly a mention of support or counseling for such families. Far too many parents have had “too many chances” to redress their harmful behavior. Their children should get a new home earlier in their lives, and it should offer better conditions than such alternatives have previously afforded. They should not be shuttled around through foster homes and schools, for example. In a line that pleased the nationalist constituencies, Frederiksen added that children’s entitlement to these things superseded the customs of some “other cultures” that allow corporal punishment of children and do not allow girls the same freedoms as boys. She cited Denmark’s historical tradition of advances in these areas. It was the first country to require schooling for all children and one of the first to prohibit child labor; it banned corporal punishment in the 90s.
The other topics mentioned in the speech fit into the same general concern with fælleskab – solidarity, community, fellowship. The one that was the most widely anticipated, because of campaign proposals, was an effort to enable people who are physically debilitated from their work to take an early retirement. After a brief comment on a stronger line against terrorism threats, returning jihadis and gang crime, Frederiksen concluded on the urgency of measures to prevent climate change, with a nod to the young activists who helped to publicize the stakes.
Only in a welfare state
Imagine how this focus on adoption would have gone down in an American state of the union address: The “government” thinks it knows what’s best for my children and wants to kidnap them in a new sort of civil forfeiture? It’s inconceivable that this would be a headline topic in any presidential speech on the general condition of the country, even by a female democratic socialist. Frederiksen received the usual criticism (DK) that the plans, particularly for early retirement and climate change, were lacking in detail. But the other party spokespersons generally praised her emphasis on mistreated children, with few questioning whether it was the country’s most pressing issue.
Perhaps that came partly from politeness toward her first New Year’s Day performance, but it does seem rather odd. After all, foster care concerns about 15,000, or 1 percent, of Danish children. Frederiksen could have clarified the priorities in the recently adopted 2020 budget, such as day care and support for immigrant families, which benefit a great many more children. She could have dwelt longer on the terrorist plot that was discovered and prevented last month. The speech was also noteworthy for completely ignoring a topic that usually receives much attention on this occasion: the economy. But the reason for that is a positive one: the economy is sound and no emergency measures or drastic reforms are needed. Aside from climate, there was nothing on world affairs such as Brexit and on international relations, not even a little joke about defending Greenland from a greedy real estate developer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)