The Copenhagen Report

Each week, The Copenhagen Post passes across my desk at work. For those with a limited knowledge of Danish with an interest in Copenhagen, it's a often the starting point for picking up a bit of Danish news (though a better one is probably the handful of English article published at www.politiken.dk). As I can pretty much follow along with the normal Danish press, my need for the Copenhagen Post is limited - a good thing as it is hardly a comprehensive news source. But they do gamely (and oftentimes lamely) try.

The Copenhagen Post has been making effort to resemble a more traditional newspaper over the years, for example, by adding an editorial section, where newspaper takes a stand on one issue of the other. Which is what motivated me to sit down a write this little piece.

Now, trying to gracefully convey my feelings after reading the pile of smelly tripe they attempted to pass off for the reasoned opinion of the editor in the Feb. 20-26, 2009 edition will not be easy. But I shall attempt to. Fortunately, they did not pollute the cyberworld with this editorial - it can only be found in the print edition. What a shame. I shall therefore allow myself to quote at length from the article, so the nature of it's content can be understood well enough.

The subject was dual citizenship. That is, the ability for citizens to hold 2 passports. In Denmark, this is not permitted (there are a few exceptions, for example, children with parents of 2 nationalities). This in itself has always annoyed me, as it represents a very small-minded way of thinking.

However, reading this editorial left me seeing red by the end of the first paragraph. It only got worse from there.

"It is a fundamental principle of democracy that members of a community should have a say in making decisions about their community. But just as it is impossible to serve two masters, so too is it impossible to live in two countries - by belonging to both, one never fully becomes a member of either," intoned The Copenhagen Post to kick-off the editorial.

Oh, my. Are you fu*king kidding me?!? Um, what is this sh*t about not being able to serve two masters? Are we living in the times of slavery? And then to artificially equate this to serving two countries?

Elequent it may be, but nonetheless idiotic rubbish.

Personally, I don't think I could count how many entities I 'serve'. Is 'the country' really such an important one, amongst the many? And is it the 'ultimate' one (we'll return to this term shortly)?

Let's see.

I'm Canadian and my parents, sister and extended family live in Canada (and some in the U.S.A). They are pretty important to me. I live in Denmark and have for quite some time (which incidently is also a member of the European Union, which is a pretty important entity in itself). I like Denmark, in general. My girlfriend is Danish, as is her family. Would I chose country over her...hmmm, let me think about that for a while... And I have close friends all over the world, obviously some closer than others. They are also important. My employer is a Danish company, situated here in Denmark, but is actually owned jointly by a German company and a Norwegian company (oh no, two masters again!), but on a daily basis I'm working with people situated in 8 different countries (all working for this same company). Impossible to serve 2 masters?!? Impossible to serve 2 countries?!? What century was this editorial written in?

But let's allow ourselves to plow on further, even if we must hold our noses.

"Citizenship is bestowed upon us at birth, and giving it up is the ultimate sign of commitment to one's new country. But before one can make that commitment, one must be permitted to do so: to become a new citizen, one must not only be permitted to enter a country, one must be allowed to live there, and then one must demonstrate a knowledge of the country's history, language and culture by passing immigration tests," continues The Copenhagen Post.

The 'ultimate' commitment to one's new country? Well, I suppose for some it could be, but since when should making the 'ultimate' commitment, whatever it is, be the grounds for gaining something so practical as a passport? Is there not a much lower and more practical threshold that is somewhat more meaningful, or at least 'sufficient'. Does one really have to give up their first passport to make this commitment? Is there not simply, say, any number of actions that would do, such as living and working in a given country for some time (and thereby paying significant taxes), maybe raising a family there, with no additional conditions really necessary? And certainly no arbitrary judgment about which is the 'ultimate' among them.

Although The Copenhagen Post, and sadly the Danish government, supports this antiquated law, the 'ultimate' problem, if I dare suggest it, seems to be an insistence upon viewing the passport as something that is rather romantic in its nature.

Newsflash: it is not.

A passport is a practical and unfortunately necessary document. Something that enables people to move around from place to place. To cross borders. To live their lives as they see fit to. To be together with the ones they love. To make a living as they choose to, and to utilise the abilities they have chosen to develop in themselves. While there may be plenty of romance within these ideas, a passport is merely a facilitator and a cold bureaucratic reality - and those have always had the unfortunate trait of never ever being in any way romantic in nature.

Being able to acquire an additional passport simply makes it easier for those living in a given country to become productive members of society there. Being a productive and deserving member of society can happen in many, many ways. It also so happens that it can be done without the demonstration of knowledge of a given countries language, history, and so-called culture. Or to put it another way, one can 'integrate' into society in countless ways. There is no single correct way to integrate - for example, by giving up one's former passport or passing some sort of 'immigration test'. Of course, especially with regards to language, everything should be done to encourage those who make a country their home to learn it's language.

As for reading history books?!? Give me a break! Will they tell you everything you need to know to be a good little citizen of your new country? Give you a balanced picture of society? Yeah, sure.

Which brings us to 'immigration tests'. Oh, geez. There are certainly some worthwhile practical questions potential citizens could be asked: about laws specific to Danish society, maybe some basics about government that are of practical importance. But it's pretty limited, quite frankly.

That may be tough for those who believe everything can be measured and then converted into some numerical value to understand, a group which apparently includes the editors of The Copenhagen Post. But here's the truth: sorry boys (there are no female editors of the newspaper listed), the real world ain't quite so.

Okay, let's push further into the editorial, into the Disneyland-like make-believe world of The Copenhagen Post editors. There is more still.

"Citizenship carries with it certain rights, but those rights are paid for by living up to the obligation of national service, national pride and national unity. Dual citizenship is divided citzenship, and will always prevent a 'citizen' from fully living up to those obligations."

Yes, at this point we have moved fully into fantasy land that I would never want to be a part of. In fact, it's somewhat scary. What kind of deluded nonsense is this about being 'paid for by living up to the obligation of...national pride'?

Is the implication that if someone does not demonstrate enough, ahem, 'live up to the obligation' of national pride, then they are unworthy of citizenship? What exactly is 'enough national pride'? Maybe singing the national anthem in a loud voice whenever it is demanded? Perhaps when stopped by the police? Or perhaps simply cheering wildly whenever the Danish national handball team scores a point would be enough? Whatever. What a complete joke.

This is the point when the writers have completely lost the plot. And where I have lost my respect for The Copenhagen Post's ability to write a meaningful editorial opinion.

So boys, do enjoy your freedom to express your opinion - but please, show the 'ultimate' respect for this freedom by not forgetting to engage in a bit of critical thinking while doing so. It serves us all so well.

The Danish island of Samsø was subject of a recent highly complementary profile in The Guardian, focusing on the incredible 'green' approach being taken by the inhabitants of the Danish island, who are now living 'off-the-grid'. Yep, no mainland electricity, the island is self-sufficient thanks largely to wind and solar power.

I've visited the island a couple of times, both visits occurred a few years ago, and I've been planning to get back every since. Samsø is an island whose reality more-or-less matches the romantic images phrases such as 'island life' can conjure up (assuming those romantic images involve Northern-Scandinavian type islands, of course). I mean, Copenhagen is also on an island, and I sometime jokingly refer to the idea of 'island-life' when talking about Life in Copenhagen because frankly this is not the sort of 'island life' people typically think about when using a phrase like 'island life'.

On Samsø, there's basically one small town of note, with a couple other smaller ones not so much of note. The best bet is to bring a bike (or rent one) to get around - but leave yourself plenty of time as it will take more than a day trip to get the most out of the island. Beaches are everywhere, there are some fantastic camping spots, it's as idyllic as anywhere in Denmark, and, the real icing on the cake, the island produces some of Denmark's most outstanding fruit and vegetables. Bring a pocketful of coins and be sure to stop at the farm produce stands dotting the roads of the island during the summer months to grab some mouth-watering produce. For example, I will always remember the eye-opening experience that a fresh Samsø onion (yes, an onion...) once provided me. Since that fateful day, I have found myself only able to cast a condescending eye upon mere supermarket onions, such a fresh onion snob I have since become. Okay, I may be over-dramatising just bit, but really, they are damn tasty onions.

So anyway, check out the article and the stunning accompanying pics. It's the kind of piece - particularly the photos - that's so compelling that if you're in right frame of mind, you mind find yourself fighting the urge to book plane tickets to Denmark (and ferry tickets to Samsø).

23,000 kroner x 0,0075% pay increase this year x 60,0% after tax
= 100 kroner per month (approximately)

or

23,000 kroner/160 hours x 0.0075% pay increase this year x 60,0% after tax
= 0.675 kr/hour (approximately)

Yes, a little bit of math to start this blog entry - please forgive my occasionally rational thought process. The outcome of these little calculations is essentially the reason why nurses in Copenhagen went on strike, and remain on strike several futile weeks later.

It's all about 100 kroner per month in salary (after tax) or .675 kroner an hour.

To put this another way: if you were offered 149.33 kroner per hour for a job, but demanded 150 kroner, would you turn the job down!!???

I'm not trying to be clever here, just a bit sensible!

Of course, the nurses union possesses, how shall we phrase this delicately, a questionable level of competence. This opinion, admittedly, stems from the fact that the author's girlfriend was once a nurse, though she gave up that profession some years back in frustration and has never looked back since (a decision which the author fully supported) thanks to chronic understaffing, questionable pay, and barely capable management. Thankfully, she was never a member of the union.

The same nurses union that nonetheless did manage to recently build themselves a rather swanky new headquarters right in the heart of Copenhagen on the waterfront.

Some background on the strike, which continues with no sign of a breakthrough in sight: the nurses union in Copenhagen came up with the idea that nurses should receive a 15% pay increase over the next 3 years. Now, to be clear, I am FULLY in support of this. In fact, I would suggest they should have demanded more.

Here's why:

Most importantly, I genuinely believe they deserve such a raise, which leads to the second issue, which is that the union's demand for 15% and negotiating tactics surrounding this demand were doomed from the start. If they had demanded 20% or 25% then there would have been something more meaningful to negotiate over.

You see, the Copenhagen Kommune had already offered the nurses a 12.8% raise over 3 years. That meant the 2 sides were a mere 2.2% OVER THREE YEARS (meaning a mere .75% per year) apart - or 100 knoner a month each year, or 300 knoner a month after 3 years. Please refer back to the math at the beginning of this post to understand the math behind this calculation.

The Copenhagen Kommune has chosen to be tough, and its the nurses who are getting screwed. They are the ones losing pay - because there is no way their strike pay (which is soon running out) is covering anywhere close to their full salary. And it will take them years to make up this lost salary even if their union succeeds with their demands.

Sadly, the nurses at this point have little to gain whatever the outcome, since there is barely anything on the table to win. Let's hope they come to their senses soon. And this is without even mentioning the affect all of this nonsensical posturing has had on the patients.

The Danish daily newspaper Politiken is currently running an outstanding - and much needed - campaign entitled 'Jeg er dansker' ('I am Danish'). It features daily photos of 'typical' and 'less-typical' Danes. These less-typical Danes have all to often, in recent years, been cast as something - anything - but truly Danish by a minority of Danish politicians (and their supporters). Sadly, these politicians at this point have all but managed to hijack not only the issues and agenda, but also much of the language of the ongoing 'discussion'.

Nowadays, when one hears talk in the Danish media of what (and who) is traditionally Danish and so forth, it is almost left assumed and unsaid that what this means is precisely as it has been defined - in a frustratingly monopolistic way - by this small xenophobic minority.

Of course, it didn't help that the one political party that tried to stand up against this issue with their heart and soul quickly fell flat and rather hard on their faces owing to their own inept clumsiness when put to the electoral test - and have since remained laying on the ground with heavily bleeding noses.

Anyway, well done Politiken. This is an issue which the volume needs to be turned up higher and higher in the coming months and years. Of course, if Politiken was really clever they should probably take out these same ads elsewhere, as readers of very liberal Politiken are probably the least likely to be the ones espousing the problematic viewpoints, or voting for the most troublemaking of the political parties in this area.

So here you have it, in a nutshell...

'I'm dreaming in the rain, yes dreaming in the rain...'

Of all things that could said to be 'Danish' (of which there are a fair number), perhaps there is none moreso than the belief that babies and young children should take their naps outdoors during the day. Yes, that means 12 months per year. It also means rain or shine. The odd thing is that I've live in the country long enough to begin to feel that it makes a certain amount of sense - though in all honestly I can't really explain why, it just kind of does after a while.

The procedure goes like this: bundle baby up, put baby in carriage out back somewhere - either by an open window or close to the door, but generally (these days) with one of those 'baby transmitters' that let's you know when the baby starts making noise. In bad weather cover the carriage up.

So heading out to work the other day, a little over an hour later than usual (big work party the previous evening, creating the need for an extra hour of sleep), I was amused to discover that there was not one, but in fact two quietly sleeping babies amongst the bicycle farm in our large common garden back garden (see picture below), one that is shared by some approximately 60 apartments. Apparently I'm too early leaving the apartment in the morning to witness this (popular) nap time in our yard on most 'normal' days.



Baby number 2 in the background - he was, in fact, just waking up as I was leaving...

by: Tim Anderson (timothyanderson2005@gmail.com)

There has been a lot of talk about the violence around Nørrebro lately. It can be heard on the streets, behind closed doors and not least of all from the talking heads in the media. It is essentially nonsense.

There has been something of an 'uprising' in Nørrebro over the past days, though the reality is it's the same old crowd generally found hanging out somewhere around Stengade and Griffenfeldtsgade (and sometimes around Blågards Plads later in the night). The police have a pretty good beat on the area (it's like 3 small streets) since there's always always a few people lurking around looking 'unsavory' - though I would prefer to use the term 'bored'. It's a feature of every city of any size.

Speaking of bored, that is a fair description for the media in Copenhagen as well. It's forgivable - they've got a lot of print space and air time to fill, and some weeks there's just not a lot going on. So when something happens, like a loud protest in Nørrebro, packs of hungry journalists and photographers are quickly dispatched (sometimes they arrive even before the events have begun, in anticipation) and producers and editors greedily lick their lips knowing there will be plenty of tasty morsels with which to fill airwaves and column inches.

The latest round started a little over a week ago when a car was torched and a couple garbage containers were lit on fire. This may sound a bit disturbing, but seriously it was pretty tame - I happened to be cycling by the incident when the garbage container was on fire. I wasn't alone - plenty of pedestrians and cyclists were in the area. And as (unintentional) proof of how innocuous it was (and overblown in the media) - even in one of the photo published by one of the major newspapers in Denmark, Politiken, intended to show how crazy the situation, a young couple could be seen sauntering by the burning overturned garbage bin holding hands (apparently passing by on a evening walk). Yet if you heard or read the media coverage you'd imagine the street was ablaze half the night, and the situation out of control.

There is precisely one purpose that these fires are started (and cars are torched) - and that is to get the police to show up. It's basically the equivalent of seeing a frog and poking it with a stick to make it jump. The fun is knowing there will be reaction, and having the power to provoke it. Nothing more, nothing less - it's not about theft and violence, and it's not about the Muhammad cartoons though it is always easy to mention those in the same breath as the fires.

One also must understand that in the area of Nørrebro in which this typically happens (as is the situation in the rest of Copenhagen), the nature of the urban layout means it is a relatively simple exercise for the police to patrol and control - and maintain a heavy-handed handle on the situation (which also tends to provoke things further, it must be openly acknowledged).

They just place their vehicles along all the side streets, follow the herd of demonstrators ('rioters'), both in front and behind and that's about it. Yes, windows can potentially get smashed and garbage containers can be set alight, but nonetheless there's not really any place for the protester to run - anyone trying anything stupid tends to get picked up by police almost instantly. Being in the area when something is going down isn't much of an issue either - a short detour of about one street will generally allow you to steer clear around the whole situation, even at its worst. It's certainly not a war-zone.

And one last point about those 'torched' cars: if you ever park your car on Stengade, you're an idiot anyway - no sympathy from this quarter if it gets damaged or worse torched one day. Seriously, find a smarter place to park - choose another of the hundreds of other streets in the city, plenty of which are extremely close by...

And of course, all of this subsequently makes a nice story for the lazy international media to grab ahold of, but that doesn't make their portrayal any more accurate or realistic...

So November 13 is the magic day - the culmination of what will be a whirlwind 20 days of flat out campaigning. There is a certain charm that is the election process in Denmark - I've been through a couple of them since living here. Within hours of an election call, the leaders of all the parties are assembled (even the minority parties with no seats in parliament) and debating the issues in front of the cameras for television.

Consider the mess in the U.S. where weeks are spent negotiating the rules of the debate, with each side trying to get the upper hand based upon their perceived strengths. Or in Canada where the few significant fringe parties (with no elected members of parliament) are endlessly pushing for the right to participate in any televised debates, and the mainstream parties are endlessly pushing for the right to exclude them.

No, in Denmark the whole process is characteristically quick and efficient, with the television station basically dictating the rules of the game - since no self-respecting leader would dare spurn the opportunity to join the live debates.

There is both a lot at stake in this election, or not much at all - depending upon where you sit and how you see things.

It seems that it would take an epic cock-up for the government to be unseated. Then again, when you've placed your bets on a racist party to prop up your government as an unofficial coalition partner (as this government has for the past 6 years in office), well, frankly all bets for the future are off.

It breaks down like this: the average Dane is loath to admit that a vote for either Venstre or Konservative, the 2 governing parties, is tantamount to jumping into bed with a bunch of racists. But it is.

Still, it's a sweet deal if you can stomach the racist stench. The government has done a commendable job keeping the economy purring over the past 6 years - by most accounts there is a overall shortage of qualified staff in Denmark, meaning companies are scrambling to find the employees the need to fill vacant positions. Which means Joe Average in Denmark has it pretty good, in spite of the high taxes (which the government has managed to slightly reduce, it should also be noted).

Unfortunately, on the human scale, this government is an embarrassment.

The act of virtually cutting off the flow of Iraqi refugees to Denmark over the past years, through neat little legalistic tricks that make it virtually impossible for such refugees to gain asylum here, while simultaneously Maersk, the largest Danish company, rakes in literally billions thanks to it's involvement in the war in Iraq (along with the recent presence of Danish troops in Iraq), is simply repugnant beyond what words can possibly express.

It took a study showing the children of those refugees who have made it into the country, only to become ensnared in the prison-like holding tank Sandholm (where they are left to languish while their claims lay in limbo often for years at a time), have an unfortunate tendency to develop mental problems during the tediously long asylum process, to finally high-voltage electric cattle prod the government into allowing these families to relocate away from this squalid place while their claims are decided. Of course, they still won't be permitted to work, lest they actually start contributing measurably to society.

And who really wants to talk about welfare (as the Social Demoncrats, the primary opposition party seem to want to), when everything else is rolling along in such a swell manner, pesky refugees and distinctly zenophobic immigration policies aside?

So we probably haven't seen the back of Anders Fogh Rasmussen just yet. But let's see what happens. You've been warned.

Intent on subjecting myself to another few weeks of pain and torment integrating myself better into Danish society, I recently signed on for another round of Danish classes. A combination of extended out-of-country traveling and the demands of a new job mean two years have passed since the last time I sat myself down at least twice a week to agonizingly memorize the 15 sentences of Danish (among other things) required by K.I.S.S (Copenhagen's Intensive Language School) for each class. Actually, I enjoy learning Danish, but I'm not a natural at languages, so it's a lot of work and very time consuming - and provides a fair amount of amusement for others, though not myself, as I stumble and stutter to form meaningful sentences. And that's not to mention the cost, call it a tax for living in a foreign country, on my social life as I dedicate some 15 hours of class and study time in the evenings each week. It's a lot.

But, an unwanted reprieve was at hand, just in the nick of time.

Much to my dismay my language school of choice, KISS, a private language school that receives the bulk of it's funding from the local Copenhagen government (who pay for most of the students, myself included), has effectively been forced into bankruptcy this past week by the overzealous lot at Copenhagen Kommune. It's the consequence of a simmering dispute, over some 4.5 million kroner (600,000 Euro) that the local government claims K.I.S.S. owes, that has now boiled over.

The escalation of the dispute began in July when funding to K.I.S.S. was cut off quite suddenly by the local government. Unsurprisingly, K.I.S.S. disputes the amount it is claimed it owes.

The story goes, very loosely, like this:

K.I.S.S. was receiving some 8,000 kroner per student enrolled from the Copenhagen Kommune, and the Kommune in turn received 18,000 per student from the national government to pay K.I.S.S. - got it? So quite a profit was being made by the local kommune. But K.I.S.S. claimed it couldn't balance the books while being paid this amount of only 8,000 kroner. Furthermore, a change in legislation meant the local government could no longer pocket the difference - the 10,000 kroner profit it made on each K.I.S.S. student. It should be noted that the local government runs it's own language schools - language schools that are not nearly as highly rated as K.I.S.S. in terms of the performance of their students, but for which the municipality receives 18,000 per student (significantly more than the 8,000 kroner K.I.S.S. receives). Hence why I, and many other, opt for K.I.S.S..

After a lengthy fight, the amount paid to K.I.S.S. was increased to 10,000 kroner per student, and K.I.S.S. was able to balance the books, at long last. Shortly thereafter came the letter informing K.I.S.S. it was time to pay all the money back that it owed, apparently from the times when it couldn't balance the books. That amount, claims the municipality, is some 4.5 million kroner.

There's obviously plenty of politics at work here, perhaps from both sides. There is surely a way to find a way to resolve this dispute - without closing the school.

Of course, out of all of this it's the students, such as myself, who suffer.

The K.I.S.S. method of teaching is absolutely unique (and Steen Christiansen, the head of the school, owns the copyright). I can attest first hand that it works (I made it to level 5 of 11). It's tough, much like being in the military (I imagine), but effective. If you can't keep up, you are booted out. That is, you are obliged to continue repeating each level until you pass. I've done that too.

I'm not sure how this will end, but I can tell you this much: my stated ambitions for my stay in Denmark of 'becoming Prime Minister' (well, you see, that was what I told my 'Danish Integration Officer' while answering one of at series of irrelevant questions I was obliged to answer during the recent 'integration to Denmark' interview that I was obliged to attend - I had to tell him something!), if not derailed, have certainly been delayed. But I'm a patient guy.

We'll see how this unfolds, this story is not over. I'll keep you updated.

Or check out http://www.kisscontinue.dk/ for the latest updates.

An amusing article about Christiania (and it's much discussed pending, or possibly pending, demise) appeared in the Comment is Free section of The Guardian the other day ('Farewell to Freetown'). Check it out if you have a few minutes.

Even if containing a few basically minor factual inaccuracies, it's a pretty solid and original analysis. It's always nice to get a bird's eye perpective on issues so close to home and see them cast in a different light.

I liked her suggestion that as a consequence of Danish society, being so relatively homogenous and universal in it's approach to "housing, education, homewares and even clothes" that "the flesh itself is the only remaining beacon of individuality". Hence, the popularity of tattoos (and interesting hair styles) here.

I think it's true - I'm pretty sure the per capita average of people with tattoos in Denmark is one of the highest in the world, though I can't prove it.

When this 'universal approach' is combined with the values of efficiency and casualness, so prized in Denmark, you end up with a sort of explanation for Christiania's existence as the casual side of efficient Copenhagen - but with otherwise shared values. Meaning, in truth the two aren't so far apart.

"Put simply, the Christiania/Copenhagen divide is no more than a geographical illustration of the tattoo principle. In this binary world, Copenhagen is clean-cut, civil, stylish, cool. Christiania is scruffy, loose, warm, old school. Both pride themselves on being tolerant, community-focused and environmentally friendly. Their residences, which seem the antithesis of one another, are in reality living out the same essential principles."

And also I like her simplified analysis of Christiania as a a "microcosmic study of social evolution" - how Christiania's self-government emerged out of the necessity to provide the basics that such an open society, as perhaps originally envisioned, couldn't, regardless of whatever romantic spin is put on the way Christiania's society is structured.

"The process by which an internal government developed to regulate the freedom shows how residents were forced to compromise their anything-goes approach in the same way that all communities first find their laws. It was an organic occurrence, fuelled partly by the necessity of presenting a united front to the larger city, and partly by the effects of the drug trade. The liberated town required rules on how it would stay liberated, and though still relying heavily on the goodwill of its citizens to create welfare and respect property rights, a ruling council was made responsible for creating schools and daycare centres to service the generation born within their borders."

Still, it sucks to see that dusk is likely starting to fall on Christiania, even if it will be quite some time yet before darkness sets in, once and for all.

By: Tim Anderson (timothyanderson2005@gmail.com)

With the threat of a possible election hanging over the country, and not-quite-but-essentially-election style posters appearing on billboards around the city, I decided it was time to come clean and acknowledge that here in Denmark, there is a problem of integration that must be politically dealt with.

In countless Danish political and non-political circles, it has been pointed out over and over again in recent years that there is a small problem of integration in Denmark. At this point that one could be forgiven for believing that what they were hearing was in fact an old vinyl record skipping skipping skipping.

But here’s the reality: there is a certain much-discussed minority group that has begun to establish themselves in this country, yet try as society does this minority group continues to have grievous problems adapting to the culture that surrounds them here – on the streets, in the schools, in the bars and cafes - and even behind closed doors in the privacy of home.

And this it is often said - and frankly I must agree - is a real problem. Because it causes, how shall we say it, a certain disease that is very uncomfortable. It’s very disturbing to have to co-exist with. It’s a bit like desperately yet futilely trying to get oil and vinegar to mix – try as you do, shake shake shake, inevitably after a short period of time it’s right back to the same situation – the oil incapable of integrating itself in any meaningful way with the vinegar. The two remain visibly apart. And that sucks.

So I’ll come out and say it openly: how exactly can we get this small minority, the Dansk Folkeparti and its supporters, to integrate into Danish society? How exactly does one to get this minority group that so stubbornly refuses to see the obvious, to understand that the way they insist on leading their lives and how they insist others should lead theirs, the things they believe in, and the viewpoints they espouse have little, if anything, to do with the values of Danish society?

In fact, I must admit that I sometimes fear that one day this minority may even insist upon covering their faces on the streets in order to shield themselves from the obvious reality that surrounds them, that they nonetheless so fundamentally disagree with. And if they ever did do that, it would surely make an already sticky situation even stickier.

So this is a call to action: I say we need to force these Dansk Folkeparti people to integrate into Danish society!

I suggest to begin with, we move them to the housing centers that already exist for this purpose - for integrating those refugees who are new to Denmark and have never previously been exposed to Danish culture.

Why not start with the center located, rather uselessly, about 15 kilometers outside of Roskilde quite in the countryside, just on the other side of a forest? Maybe being apart from Danish society in this manner will finally allow these stubborn individuals to see the error of their ways and at last adopt the values that will allow them to gracefully fit into this great country.

Of course, I acknowledge that it may not work. I mean, consider the flexibility and ingenuity these refugees have shown in getting themselves from these distant lands where they were born to the far shores of Denmark. It’s a degree of strength and character that the Dansk Folkeparti and its supporters have never demonstrated they possess. Still, it’s worth a shot, no?

If nobody will stand up and say it loudly and proudly, the perpetual problem of integrating these outsiders into Denmark will remain unsolved. Because if nobody will deal with it, a real risk exists that the consequences may slowly tear this wonderful Danish society apart. Which is precisely why we must now be ceaselessly vigilant in our efforts.

*A special thanks to very deceased Jonathon Swift for inspiring this part of the title. My proposal is, of course, far more modest than his more famous one.

Something I've been after for quite some time is some statistics on the birth rate in Denmark, which I finally stumbled upon at www.populationeurope.com.

You see, I'm curious because although the endless talk in the media across Europe, when it comes to population, is about how the population in basically every European country is set to drop owing to ever declining birthrates (not taking into account immigration, of course), I've long been wondered how this could be true of Denmark.

After all, there is a seemingly endless parade of kids running around Copenhagen with their parents (or getting pushed around in baby carriages). To put it more bluntly, in Copenhagen BABIES AND YOUNG CHILDREN ARE EVERYWHERE! I've never seen anything like it in any other major city. Anywhere.

And if it is like this all over urban Copenhagen, where the birthrate should be at the lowest relative to smaller cities and more rural areas, how must the birthrate be in the rest of the country? Which has lead me to wonder how Denmark could possibly be suffering from the same declining birthrate trend that is so much talked about?

If you want to download your own detailed copy detailing the current demographic trends across Europe (including non-EU countries), you can do so here. It makes for interesting reading - I learned a few things.

Firstly, Denmark with a birth rate in 2004 of 1.78 children per woman (which when statistical manipulated for complex reasons best summed up as 'because sometimes it's necessary' becomes 2.0 children per woman). That's pretty close to that magic 2.1 replacement number, so often talked about. It is also a number well above the EU-25 country average birth rate of 1.5 children per woman (or, if you prefer the statistically adjusted European average of 1.67).

Secondly, of the more developed European countries, only France and Ireland have a higher birthrate - with Sweden, Norway, Finland and the Netherlands almost at the same level as Denmark. Funny isn't it, that all the so-called 'socialist' countries have such a high birthrate? Ireland being the exception, a non-socialist country, likely has it's own explanation - it is still catching up economically with the leading countries in Europe, and has had a historically high birthrate - one that has been dropping radically over the last years, so expect it to leave the 'high birthrate club' very shortly.

Thirdly, and this is rather significant, since 1990 Denmark's birth rate as increased (from 1.67 to 1.78). Only France, the Netherlands and Finland have experienced an increase in birth rates over this time, the rest of the developed European countries have seen a decrease.

Finally, and purely out of interest, the average age at birth of mothers in Denmark was 28.4 years old (in 2004).

I've long noted on this blog (for example, here) that Denmark is a pretty good place to have kids. And there are reasons for this. Unlike in many countries, there is thankfully NO stigma, or undue 'pressure', a woman feels for getting pregant before finishing her studies and establishing a career (or for being pregnant but not being married). Before she has a steady job, regular salary and a ring on her finger, if you prefer.

Because in Denmark, sensibly, it is assumed that as long as you support such studying mothers (and, of course, make sure the father's pay their bit as well), they'll surely manage to establish a solid career in due time - once they are able to put the kids into daycare (usually after about a year) and get their studies finished. It doesn't really matter if there is a husband, or equally as likely in Denmark - a boyfriend, at home - it's assumed these young mothers will generally do just fine regardless. And by in large they do.

Funny that - a few other countries could surely learn a thing or two from this simple but effective approach.

In fact, you might be saying to yourself, that it seems like a simple and screamingly obvious way to raise a declining birth rate, doesn't it? Especially if you are a government that professes to care about such things, as many claim to. It takes a solid daycare system, as Denmark has, and the assurance that mothers will receive an adequate level of social support while they are caring for their babies.

Because in the long run these mothers will more than pay that support back in taxes - and if they somehow don't (yes, highly unlikely...), well, their kids surely will. So it's a pretty safe assumption to make. And you want them to succeed for exactly this reason.

Because when you imply (by offering wholely inadequate support) that young mothers who are single, or at least haven't quite established a career, are stupid for getting pregnant so young - and leave them to suffer for it - well, in the end everybody suffers from this approach, don't they?

An evil Canadian seal pup killer hard at work...

I'm not really in favour of killing baby seals either, but one must wonder what exactly one should do in order to follow the instuctions given on these posters that have been stuck-up randomly around Copenhagen for the last three or four months ('Boycott Canada').

Maybe stop putting maple syrup on your pancakes? Or stop buying albums of the horrendously bad French-Canadian singer who once represented Switzerland in the Eurovision song contest? I'm running out of ideas now...

I'm not really sure who is responsible for them, but I'm sure these posters are making a big difference. Really.

Ah, I've got it! I don't know why I didn't think of it before. As I really am against the killing of baby seals, from this day forward, I vow never again to succumb to tempation and order another succulent McSealpup Sandwich, or similarly named menu item, from any well-known and less-known fast-food chain anywhere in the world (especially in Canada). I think I can manage that. And I guess the sealskin boots will also have to go...

Which suddenly makes me think of this classic Simpsons clip.

by: Tim Anderson (timothyanderson2005@gmail.com)


'You destroyed our party-house quite some time ago and we want...um, well, uh...to protest that it wasn't really a nice thing that you did'

Wandering home yesterday evening, I came across this week's Ungdomshuset protest. They happen every Thursday, so it's not that novel. Still, it was mildly amusing to watch for a short while.


'now class, after today's lesson on how to stage an effective demonstration, for homework I'd like you to go give it a try...'

I have mixed views on these protests. On one hand, I really like the spirit of the ongoing demonstrations in the name of the now demolished Ungdomshuset ('Youth House') in Copenhagen . I like that there is a group of young people still standing up and making noise about what happened - not necessarily because I think the government was entirely without rights to do what they did - there was a justification for kicking the inhabitants out of the building and allowing the new owners who had bought the place some time back to demolish the place.

However I also think it was a boneheaded move on the government's part - one that pretty much anybody knew would create a backlash resulting in more reoccurring trouble than it was worth.

Because Ungdomshuset was an outlet and a symbol. And it still is. It's not like most regularly frequented the place. In choosing to target a symbol, the government was asking for a backlash. It's not like your average 14 to 16 year old (the average age of the protesters, these days) typically has more pressing matters to attend to on any given Thursday evening. Rather, the demonstrations are cheap entertainment for them and a chance to hang out with their friends.


if you missed it this week, feel free to join next Thursday...

I especially love the 'Jagtvej' stickers, designed to look like street signs, that have been stuck on countless street signs all around Copenhagen ('Jagtvej being the street where Ungdomshuset was located on). But then I've always had a soft spot for clever street art, cultural spamming, ad hacking and so forth.


'it's easy to get to our place - just go down Jagtvej until you get to Jagtvej, turn left, then take your next left on Jagtvej, continue 100m to Jagtvej, then take another left when you come to Jagtvej...'

I also find it amusing that the police take these protests so seriously - it really encourages the dissenters to keep staging them - but then again, just like the young protesters, it's not like the police in Copenhagen have that much else to do that is more pressing, most of the time. At least the police don't wander around the entire time with their riot helmets on - they just keep them close by at their side.



On the other hand, one must also acknowledge that it's really just protest for the sake of protest. There is nothing the government will ever realistically do that would or could satisfy the supposed demands of those protesting. Personally, I hope the protesters eventually just find another venue - persumably a somewhat derelict place - to call their own and start staging events there. Just as they did at the old Ungdomshuset.

Anyway, perhaps my favourite moment, in watching today's protest, was watching a handful of protesters following around a few rather obvious plain-clothes policemen (obvious, since they were wearing very visible ear-pieces) with a big sign that said 'civil betjent ('civilian officer'). After a while, the police couldn't resist grabbing the sign, breaking it in two, and slapping one of the guys holding it with a fine. Surely an overreaction on their part, but like said, they're also pretty bored most of the time.

The Ungdomshuset protests will eventually taper off and stop, but not for some time yet.

'l'm going to give this plain clothes officer a hard time'


'And for giving us a hard time, we'll give you a fine! How do you like that?'...