Denmark plans to limit 'non-western' residents in disadvantaged areas

SilentPanda

Member
Nov 6, 2017
6,814
Earth
Denmark has announced plans to crack down further on disadvantaged neighbourhoods by reducing the number of “non-western” residents, scrapping the controversial term “ghetto” in its proposed legislation.

In the bill – a review of existing legislation on combatting “parallel societies” – the interior ministry proposed that the share of residents of “non-western” origin in each neighbourhood be limited to a maximum of 30% within 10 years.
The interior minister, Kaare Dybvad Bek, said in a statement that too many non-western foreigners in one area “increases the risk of an emergence of religious and cultural parallel societies”.

He said, however, that the term “ghetto”, used to designate disadvantaged neighbourhoods, would be removed from the new legislation.

“The term ghetto is misleading ... I think it contributes to eclipsing the large amount of work that needs doing in these neighbourhoods,” he said
According to Statistics Denmark, 11% of Denmark’s 5.8 million inhabitants are of foreign origin, of whom 58% are from a country considered “non-western”.

......Non-western?
Is that just a nice method of saying not white?
 

Aaronrules380

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
16,222
Guys don't worry, if we don't call it a ghetto it's clearly completely different, regardless of if the actual conditions and realities remain completely the same /s
 
Dec 31, 2017
6,896
Segregation of immigrant communities is a real problem throughout Europe. Not sure this is the right way to go about it though.
 

EternalDarko

Member
Oct 26, 2017
679
Uhm what the fuck is 'non-western' supposed to be?
It's crazy how badly the world is regressing when it comes to race.
 

hobblygobbly

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,381
DEUTSCHLAND
this is apartheid policy. a government dictating where ethnic populations can and cannot live

although it‘s on the news throughout the EU, i haven‘t heard any criticisms from politicians or the EU about this. disappointing
 

Zampano

The Fallen
Dec 3, 2017
1,622
I’m not from Denmark by this is more complex than it seems from what I’ve read. They are trying to stop social housing estates being dumping grounds for poorer people with no choice about where they live and will instead be trying to move people into social housing integrated with other communities. This comment from Reddit was useful context for me:

Dane here: Let me explain how this works.

The law will only apply in areas that have been designated a “ghetto”. The common denominator for those areas are high levels of unemployment, high share of immigrants AND (this is important) they are all part of a public funded social housing scheme.

In Denmark we have social housing estates. They are self owned and no one profits from the rent. A home in the social housing sector is free of speculation and the rent is cost-related.

How ever, since Social housing estates are build by means of public funding. In return, the municipality that has funded the building work can typically dispose over every third vacant home for housing purposes.

Guess what the municipality does with their allocation? They assign it to social clients unable to find housing on their own. But instead of dispersing them, they usually dispose over the one third of social estates that are most worn down and shitty. The apartments that no one else want to rent. The result is that the social clients are concentrated in entire neighborhoods. Schools in those areas become overloaded. The remaining well functioning citizens in the area leaves. And the concentration of unemployed social clients continue to grow.

It’s a vicious cycle.

It is made even worse by the fact that many of those social housing estates are entire neighborhoods build in the sixties and seventies. It was supposed to be entire suburbs build for for blue collar workers, with their own schools, shopping malls etc. but blue collar workers didn’t like the concrete jungle of the socialist utopia. And bought their own homes instead.

Now these “enclaves” are reproducing misery. Kids from challenged families will grow up amongst other unemployed challenged families. Schools they attend will be full of kids from unemployed troubled families. Nothing will ever change because every home in the area social housing. Not attractive for well functioning families.

I grow up in such an area. Will fight tooth and nail to ensure my kid never have to live in such a place.
 

Thorrgal

Member
Oct 26, 2017
7,925
I’m not from Denmark by this is more complex than it seems from what I’ve read. They are trying to stop social housing estates being dumping grounds for poorer people with no choice about where they live and will instead be trying to move people into social housing integrated with other communities. This comment from Reddit was useful context for me:
I'm not from Denmark either, but this is also the case in more EU countries, that's why I thought the goal of the legislation was to find a solution for this issue.

It's not a simple issue in any case, but I wish they would do something here to try and solve it. I hope it works over there.
 

dstarMDA

Member
Dec 22, 2017
1,293
I really don't like the phrasing nor the "parallel societies" right-wing angle, but the proposal is an interesting one, if for all the wrong reasons.
 

John Kowalski

Member
Oct 27, 2017
18,595
I’m not from Denmark by this is more complex than it seems from what I’ve read. They are trying to stop social housing estates being dumping grounds for poorer people with no choice about where they live and will instead be trying to move people into social housing integrated with other communities. This comment from Reddit was useful context for me:
Yeah i was thinking, if they're in the position of "putting" them there and they're choosing not to, where else will they go then? If the point is to give these people access to other communities effectively diversifying classes and ethnicities, it feels like it would be an improvement for those who depend on the government to have a place to live.

Well, improvement is not really the best word because they can also be dislocated from their community in the process, become more isolated and face harsher discrimination. I don't really know.
 

PinkSpider

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,047
Segregation of immigrant communities is a real problem throughout Europe. Not sure this is the right way to go about it though.
Oh definitely, Hull in the UK their are areas they migrated pretty much all Middle Eastern refugees to (I quite like the areas myself; some good food and friendly people. Walking home from a night out I'd rather walk through there than other areas (Back when nights out existed)).
 

Deleted member 82064

User requested account closure
Banned
Sep 29, 2020
596
Isn't this just scattered-site public housing? I mean this is what most countries should do. Obviously, it would be nice if they applied this to all low income neighborhoods. But reality is that immigrants usually are the poorest of the poor so they would most likely be most represented anyway.

edit. wording is really bad here. And the non-western aspect is suspect as hell. But basically I would agree that minorities from low income areas would be offered housing from better neighborhoods.
 
Last edited:

Prophet Steve

Member
Oct 26, 2017
950
I don't think non-western is entirely the same as non-white, but it really depends on the definition. For example immigrants from Poland may be considered non-western as it is considered Eastern Europe, but still white.

I have some doubts with the plan but not enough knowledge of the full context. I think it is good to not have entire disadvantaged areas, but if limiting the amount of residents those need to be provided with a good alternative. I assume people decide to live in the places they do because there are no better options.
 

CoolOff

Avenger
Oct 26, 2017
2,904
The Swedish right-wing will be drooling over this :/
I mean, the criteria and wording is way more fash in this case, but we've had extensive discussions in Sweden on how to avoid "community gravitation" when immigrants are allowed to freely settle anywhere. Södertälje taking on all those Iraqi refugees in the 00s was a very commendable thing, but there is an argument to make for more evenly "distributing" immigrants both between cities and within cities, if the methods used are acceptable (incentives rather than punitive for example).
 
Oct 30, 2017
931

MikeHattsu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,563
I don't think non-western is entirely the same as non-white, but it really depends on the definition.
Looks like this is the definition in Denmark:

Google Translate said:
Western countries: All 28 EU countries as well as Andorra, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Norway, San Marino, Switzerland, Vatican City, Canada, USA, Australia and New Zealand.

Non-Western countries: All other countries.
 

GMM

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,842
Dane here, the places commonly referred to as "ghettos" do pose as big problems since they are riddled with high unemployment and acts as a social dumping ground for people that the society has a hard time integrating with the rest of the country, the colossal failure to integrate refugees, immigrant workers and other non native people has become a huge issue throughout Europe in general. Large groups of people distancing themselves from the rest of society hurts everyone as we see in these areas, high unemployment, abnormal levels of crime and a general lack of opportunity for kids makes these areas non-desirable to live in for other people.

Something needs to be done, this might not be the solution and the wording on it is a bit wrong, but any attempt to do anything will not be seen well since it deals with a very sensitive subject. Doing nothing will just make the cycle continue in those areas and nothing will improve, it's a bad situation all around caused by decades of failure to help people integrate by creating opportunities for those people to pursue instead of forgetting about them.

Forcing people to move is wrong and should be a last resort, ideally these people should move to other places by themselves by virtue of getting employment and affording a better living situation for their respective families. Incentives and social outreach should fix this, not force.
 

Thorrgal

Member
Oct 26, 2017
7,925
Statistics Denmark defines everything as "non-western" that isn't EU/EEA, USA, Canada, Australia & New Zealand.



Looks like this is the definition in Denmark:
So the UK is non-western on that map lol, alongside the balkans, Ukraine, Belarus, Albania and Moldova
 

Fliesen

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,468
While the idea behind it (counteracting the self-fulfilling prophecies of certain "ethnic ghettos" forming and such stimulating integration and mixing of cultures) seems sound, this feels like it'll create new issues altogether.
In general, telling folks where they can and cannot live, based on their ethnicity, feels incredibly wrong.

Statistics Denmark defines everything as "non-western" that isn't EU/EEA, USA, Canada, Australia & New Zealand.


haha, fuck those non-western English.
 

nib95

Contains No Misinformation on Philly Cheesesteaks
Member
Oct 28, 2017
17,995
Dane here, the places commonly referred to as "ghettos" do pose as big problems since they are riddled with high unemployment and acts as a social dumping ground for people that the society has a hard time integrating with the rest of the country, the colossal failure to integrate refugees, immigrant workers and other non native people has become a huge issue throughout Europe in general. Large groups of people distancing themselves from the rest of society hurts everyone as we see in these areas, high unemployment, abnormal levels of crime and a general lack of opportunity for kids makes these areas non-desirable to live in for other people.

Something needs to be done, this might not be the solution and the wording on it is a bit wrong, but any attempt to do anything will not be seen well since it deals with a very sensitive subject. Doing nothing will just make the cycle continue in those areas and nothing will improve, it's a bad situation all around caused by decades of failure to help people integrate by creating opportunities for those people to pursue instead of forgetting about them.

Forcing people to move is wrong and should be a last resort, ideally these people should move to other places by themselves by virtue of getting employment and affording a better living situation for their respective families. Incentives and social outreach should fix this, not force.
The issue with non white migrants being forced to move into predominantly white areas is that in predominantly white (and presumably poorer) estates, they often face considerably higher amounts of racism, loneliness, isolation, segregation, bullying, prejudice etc.

That's the reason communities of minorities form in the first place, because people feel comforted being around more of their friends, family etc, for added security, support, union, socoalising, ease of communication etc.

This isn't exactly exclusive to non white immigrants or migrants either, see countries like Spain, France, Dubai, South Africa etc, where you have entire communities of white or English/British folk, many of whom speak English almost exclusively instead of the native language due to the make up of said towns.

This solution that Denmark is proposing is absolutely awful, racist and potentially so much more damaging to said minorities.

The far better solution to support the "ghettos" is simply with much more funding, infrastructure, businesses, opportunities, investment, education etc. It's only through these kinds of things that what used to be rough ghettos in cities all around the world, can and in cases slowly have transformed into more thriving, economically prospective spots.
 

GMM

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,842
The issue with non white migrants being forced to move into predominantly white areas is that in predominantly white (and presumably poorer) estates, they often face considerably higher amounts of racism, loneliness, isolation, segregation, bullying, prejudice etc.

That's the reason communities of minorities form in the first place, because people feel comforted being around more of their friends, family etc, for added security, support, union, socoalising, ease of communication etc.

This isn't exactly exclusive to non white immigrants or migrants either, see countries like Spain, France, Dubai, South Africa etc, where you have entire communities of white or English/British folk, many of whom speak English almost exclusively instead of the native language due to the make up of said towns.

This solution that Denmark is proposing is absolutely awful, racist and potentially so much more damaging to said minorities.

The far better solution to support the "ghettos" is simply with much more funding, infrastructure, businesses, opportunities, investment, education etc. It's only through these kinds of things that what used to be rough ghettos in cities all around the world, can and in cases slowly have transformed into more thriving, economically prospective spots.
Absolutely agree with everything you said, change should come naturally by investing in the problematic areas and supporting it’s people, the issue of integration will not be solved just by moving the people because why would that motivate them in a positive way.

I don’t think this probably very poor solution comes from a directly racist perspective as much as it’s just some politicians thinking that the solution is to spread it out and hope it dissolves in the process, but who knows what the actual motivations might be, but in it effect it can be extremely racist in not allowing them to live anywhere because an area reached it’s “non-western” quota .

I hate that my country somewhat often tries to employ radical tactics to correct past mistakes of how it handled immigration by reaching too broadly, especially when some of the kindest people I know and have worked with aren’t natives from this country yet they might face new hurdles in their lives because the politicians can’t figure out how to deal with the extremely problematic areas without taking broad stances.
 

Akita One

Member
Oct 30, 2017
3,974
Yeah because allowing the fewest number of people possible to immigrate just so it looks good enough to the least liberal of liberals, and then putting them in a place where white people don't have to see them, and telling white people not to go where they live...that's not racist...because hey they have free housing, free healthcare and free college!

/s
(This law reeks of "Hey we don't want you to be aware that we have social issues that aren't being addressed, particularly the integration of foreigners from a social and cultural level...so just stay away from these <fill in racist euphemisms here>)

Also...lol at how elitist this map is...Europe's problems in a nutshell...worse at getting along with white people than the rest of the world who have been actively oppressed by Europeans:
Statistics Denmark defines everything as "non-western" that isn't EU/EEA, USA, Canada, Australia & New Zealand.


From the link:
"...if more than half of the residents are immigrants and descendants of “non-Western” countries. “Ghetto” neighbourhoods are designated “tough ghetto” after four years."
 
Last edited:

kinoki

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,000
I don’t think this is nearly as negative as people might first assume. The inherit problem when dealing with racial issues is that sometimes you have to make unpopular decision that has a better result. I’m very interested in seeing how this works out in the long run. Hopefully for the better.
 

Lidl

Member
Dec 12, 2017
1,597
  1. The issue with non white migrants being forced to move into predominantly white areas is that in predominantly white (and presumably poorer) estates, they often face considerably higher amounts of racism, loneliness, isolation, segregation, bullying, prejudice etc.
    That's the reason communities of minorities form in the first place, because people feel comforted being around more of their friends, family etc, for added security, support, union, socoalising, ease of communication etc.
  2. This isn't exactly exclusive to non white immigrants or migrants either, see countries like Spain, France, Dubai, South Africa etc, where you have entire communities of white or English/British folk, many of whom speak English almost exclusively instead of the native language due to the make up of said towns.
  1. But that's just one of the motivations or reasons. Other ones would be lack of money to settle in predominantly native neighborhoods or being rejected in those areas and native populations moving away when migrant populations cross certain thresholds. The other two issues I mentioned would be helped by the policies in the op (I think)
  2. It seems like you are conflating auto-segregation with actual segregation
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
18,220
Uhm what the fuck is 'non-western' supposed to be?
It's crazy how badly the world is regressing when it comes to race.
European countries have taken the "enlightened" view to not demography by race but by country of origin. They don't see race, you see. So, in order to get the browns non-europeans out of their neighborhoods they must create a new demographic of non-western.
 
May 9, 2018
172
Denmark's politicians have spent the last 2 decades on constantly escalating demonization of non-westeners. Now they expect white Danes to accept being forced to live next to them?

Would be hilarious if not for, you know, the whole ethnic cleansing overtones.
 

GMM

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,842
Wait, how does Australia classify as western but Britain doesn't?
Most likely the definition hasn't been updated since the UK stepped out of the EU, might be a technicality that will be revised in the near future since the definition does state that it includes all EU countries which the UK is not.
 

Fliesen

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,468
Wait, how does Australia classify as western but Britain doesn't?
It's very obvious that the defintition previously included the UK by the UK being a part of "the EU", and it simply hasn't been updated to reflect the fact that Britain's not part of the EU anymore, and such, would need to be explicitely mentioned.
 
Oct 30, 2017
931
Wait, how does Australia classify as western but Britain doesn't?
I made this map with some online tool based on the info from the OHCHR page, which just mentioned "EU".


MikeHattsu posted the official website of Statistics Denmark a few posts above.

Statistics Denmark talks about EU 28 on their official website though (that would include the UK), therefore it's probably just the fact that they didn't update their rules / website and added UK as as an additional country. :P
 

nib95

Contains No Misinformation on Philly Cheesesteaks
Member
Oct 28, 2017
17,995
  1. But that's just one of the motivations or reasons. Other ones would be lack of money to settle in predominantly native neighborhoods or being rejected in those areas and native populations moving away when migrant populations cross certain thresholds. The other two issues I mentioned would be helped by the policies in the op (I think)
  2. It seems like you are conflating auto-segregation with actual segregation
I don't really understand exactly what you mean by this, but the gentrification that often occurs when poorer minority areas start becoming more affluent, is still better than those areas simply remaining grossly impoverished and neglected, thus lending to more displacement, crime, mental and physical health issues, lack of opportunity etc.

When a certain minority area reaches a higher level of affluence and white people start moving in again (which is generally a sign the location is beginning to economically flourish), that often lends to certain pockets of minority communities financially benefiting, with potentially further economic ramifications to the wider community.

Eg they acquire their residential property and then when the prices increase due to gentrification, they sell at a healthy mark up and then move to a less expensive area, having enough money to invest in a business, investments or whatever else, and also bring some of their family, friends etc on board too.

On your final point, I don't believe I'm confusing anything. This policy threatens to force segregation based on ethnicity, essentially mandating certain minorities having to live in predominantly white and presumably poor areas (I doubt they're going to situate them in luxury areas), which as mentioned, can sometimes have a different string of hugely detrimental impacts to said minorities. It's not like all in those types of estates are likely to be the most welcoming to minorities.

My aunty (originally from Bangladesh) was moved to a 99% white populated poor council estate, and the very FIRST day they moved in, some youths broke in armed with golf clubs, beat my uncle up, and berated them telling them pakis weren't welcome. So me and a bunch of family had to stay around for their protection, but police got involved, had to constantly check up, even literally park up outside the property for huge amounts of time, though she was thankfully fairly quickly relocated to a slightly more diverse council block.

Funny how the incident never made it to local papers, or The Sun, Daily Mail etc. But this is the kind of shit minorities/immigrants etc have to often deal with, and why staying in a more diverse or like cultured location, can in its own ways be so beneficial, at least early on anyway (my aunty now lives in a better area due our family improving their financial situation and including them in businesses).
 
Last edited:

Cat Party

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,063
I don't know nearly enough about Demark's politics to speculate about the motivations of this plan. I can accept that this could be a 100% good faith plan to improve the lives of the people affected.

But any time a government tells a minority population that "there's too many of you in this place, you need to move somewhere else," that is as red a flag as there can be.
 

mael

Avenger
Nov 3, 2017
10,577
If this means that social housing will be spread out in all types of neighborhood and not conveniently avoid the richest one and basically concentrate them in the least wanted area of town, that is absolutely needed.
In France you have a law that mandates that each town has at least 20% of social housing at the ready.
Most rich cities just pay a fine and the poorest ones are just handling the surplus as best as they can.
Basically creating segregated area.
NIMBY is a plague of western countries.

If it's about controlling minority population, that's entirely different.
 

iareharSon

Member
Oct 30, 2017
7,600
I don't know nearly enough about Demark's politics to speculate about the motivations of this plan. I can accept that this could be a 100% good faith plan to improve the lives of the people affected.

But any time a government tells a minority population that "there's too many of you in this place, you need to move somewhere else," that is as red a flag as there can be.
I mean, you should view it in the context of a country that does shit like this:


Starting at the age of 1, “ghetto children” must be separated from their families for at least 25 hours a week, not including nap time, for mandatory instruction in “Danish values,” including the traditions of Christmas and Easter, and Danish language. Noncompliance could result in a stoppage of welfare payments. Other Danish citizens are free to choose whether to enroll children in preschool up to the age of six.
 

Vermillion

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,717
"Hey, it's just to lower crime in those areas. Totally helping them out :)"

Snarky reply aside, the issue I have with threads like these is that the people this will affect aren't immediately accessible. So we basically have to go on the word of outside observers or the majorities within that country.

Which is like... imagine if all of the threads on racial policy in America had no minorities commenting. Or LGBTQ+ policy. Etc.