Denmark - Government-issued destruction of homes

[Angst]

This thread is about ghettos in Denmark. The current government is attempting to break down with force upon clustered minorities' dwellings, hopefully to eradicate local law. If this inaccurate introduction catches your interest, please read the length of the OP.

EDIT: And I'm a tad tired, so please point out any nonsensical statements I'm making, and I'll fix it the first thing tomorrow night.

My questions for to you to regard:

1) Is this that unheard of? Has your nation done or thought about doing something like this? If it's normal for any government to take this kind of action, I feel embarassed.
2) What do you think about the issue?

~

I don't expect that people heard of this. I know how unimportant my home nation is to the world. However, I think this is very interesting, as the ethics of the following law proposal that my government is trying to get through.

Background information:

Denmark has a growing Muslim minority like many other European countries. Currently the minority counts about 500,000 people, or 9,5%, due to Wiki. As Denmark historically has been largely homogenous as an ethnicity, as the immigrants usually settle in the lower class, therefore proportionally making more crime, and as some practices of the Muslim minorities are considered medieval (Such as the treatment of women in some homes), the growing 'brown' population stirs quite a bit of racism in many Danish hearts. (Especially with the elderly and the lower class, but it's very much seen in many wealthy homes as well.) Incidentally, a nationalistic party with a questionable attitude towards race and a positive look on statual control and a powerful government - Even to Danish 50% income tax standards - has spawned and gained quite a bit of popularity in the last couple of years. The Danish People's Party, as its name is, is currently in a governing coalition with a few other parties. (Danish liberal parties - which are dirty commies in your eyes anyways.)

Here's the deal (Article):

Getting tough on crime not enough in socially disadvantaged areas,

Prime minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen responded strongly today to an opposition proposal to create ghetto police teams, saying that the problem goes much deeper than police intervention.

Recent unrest in Copenhagen’s Mjølnerparken and as well as in the Gellerup council housing estate in Aarhus has brought the issue to the political forefront.

The Social Democrats and Socialist People’s Party suggested this week that special task forces of up to 200 police officers be created to battle youth crime and violence in the socially disadvantaged areas.

But Rasmussen said the ghettos are so far removed from mainstream Danish society that it requires more than just a get-tough attitude on crime.

‘What it comes down to is that we have some areas where you can ask yourself the question whether it is Denmark at all,’ he said today during his weekly press conference. ‘Because Danish is only spoken by a minority in these places. Because children are allowed to play out in the street at night. Because Danish standards regarding security, equal rights, the legal system and respect for public authority don’t exist there.’

A government report last week indicated that the number of ghettos nationwide has increased from 25 to 45 in just one year. Rasmussen pointed out that the state had invested billions of kroner into the council housing areas over the past few years with little positive effect.

‘It’s going to require a comprehensive effort in the social, legal, educational and employment areas to solve the problem.’

Our Prime Minister is, along with the rest of the governing coalition, very certain that the Muslim ghettos in Denmark are dangerous and difficult to tackle as a problem. Danish People's Party has propagandized about local Sharia-rule and isolation from the neighbouring regions, causing a threat to Danish democracy to rise. As such, it should be handed more harshly than the opposition's suggestion of inserting more police.

Before we're moving on, I might grand you the Danish definition of a ghetto (The source is in Danish, I'm sorry.):

The definition is provided by the Social Ministry and is as follows:
- At least 50% immigrants and descendants of immigrants in the area.
- At least 40% of the inhabitants do not have a connection with either education or work.
- At least 270 per 1000 inhabitants who have earlier been claimed guilty in crime by a judge.

The government's solution is pretty simple (Apparently the article is half the same as the above, but I'll highlight the important.):

In his opening speech to Parliament last week, Løkke Rasmussen said that part of the solution would be to demolish some of the buildings, with several concrete suggestions due from the Liberals and Conservatives in two weeks.

“It’s no use just continuing to solve the problems as if it were one in (a provincial Danish town like) Hjørring or an area of detached housing in Hillerød,” Løkke Rasmussen says.

This quote has escalated since. The government plans to destroy several of the housings to spread out the minorities and make the areas more attractive for wealthy people. This is brilliant - Note that, of course, the people who have their homes taken from them are provided new housings instead. However, what a solution - in order to destroy the local government, destroy the homes and the social network, remove them from their comfortable homes by force and move them to places where they'll mix in and become true Danes. The funding from the national budget is, however, way too small to do the job. At all. The solution? See, Denmark has a system which basically makes renters pay additional taxes to a funding, which is used to build more housings. And a fun thing is, most of the gold comes from the owners of the homes that are about to be destroyed.

What I think about the whole thing:

- The destruction and reconstruction sounds effective.
- But it's unethical to use people's own money to forcefully remove them from an area.
- And it's undemocratic.
- And it's unethical all in all. People have the right to live where they choose.
- I support powerful governments quite a lot. However this whole racistic solution of force almost makes me pull a Godwin. Or a Stalin.
- I hope that this whole thing isn't necessary. It's so unconstitutional I really don't know what to do. Or perhaps it isn't. Of course, they're renters, but you shouldn't do this.
- If they do it, and it works out for the better, I'll forgive them and revise my worldview.

Also, Obama is communist.

 

[civver_764]

Maybe they should spend that money helping the people in the ghettos rather than destroying their homes...

 

[Lillefix]

Very interesting. I had no idea. It sounds a bit drastic though. Anyway, isn't it in Denmark they bus immigrant children to "white" schools? How's that project going? They consider doing that in Oslo too.

 

[Camikaze]

If I understand this correctly, these houses are government owned, yes? I assume that is what is meant by 'council housing'. So it's not like people are being evicted from houses that they themselves own, and it's not like they really do have a right to choose where they reside (at least, there is no such right here, anyway; you'd be lucky enough to get a spot on a housing estate, choice isn't a factor).

That said, it does seem a rather drastic, unfair and costly policy.

 

[innonimatu]

In Portugal the first sizable contingents of immigrants also settled in ghettos (for lack of a better word). But these were illegal constructions with no civilized living conditions, so its removal and replacement with social housing was not a political problem. Not particularly expensive.

The ghetto aspect of the problem wasn't entirely solved, in part because the new social housing occasioned new ghettos. But that is not much of an issue, the cultural differences between locals and immigrants are small compared with what the danes seem to be facing. Oddly enough, the few conflicts here which made it into the local news were between immigrants from Africa and gypsies within some neighbourhoods! Seems to be more about petty crime and its territory, sometimes overflowing to become a small "community issue".

I don't quite understand what the danish government wants to do. I assume that those are legal houses?

 

[Mansa Musa]

Many European countries have to examine why newly arrived immigrants are far more easily trapped in poverty as opposed to immigrants who migrate to Canada and the United States. Assimilation is helped if these people were upwardly mobile within their new society but that is not the case clearly.

 

[Angst]

Mansa Musa, that is a very straightforward thing that I haven't even considered.

Very interesting. I had no idea. It sounds a bit drastic though. Anyway, isn't it in Denmark they bus immigrant children to "white" schools? How's that project going? They consider doing that in Oslo too.

I'm not exactly sure what this is about. I haven't heard about it. Care to expand? Or is it all?

If I understand this correctly, these houses are government owned, yes? I assume that is what is meant by 'council housing'. So it's not like people are being evicted from houses that they themselves own, and it's not like they really do have a right to choose where they reside (at least, there is no such right here, anyway; you'd be lucky enough to get a spot on a housing estate, choice isn't a factor).

I'm very sure the houses must be government owned - so the state has plenty of legal right to do this. If the houses weren't government owned, I don't think they would even consider doing this in the first place. That is: Logic tells me they're government owned. They have to be in order for them to do this. Otherwise, I really don't know what to think.

That said, it does seem a rather drastic, unfair and costly policy.

Yes.

I don't quite understand what the danish government wants to do. I assume that those are legal houses?

In its very essence, the government aims to disorganize and destroy the local communities because the organization in those areas is sometimes independent from the Danish government or court. To do so, destroy their homes and build new ones - new, better homes will attract wealthier people, making a larger mix of societal classes. Also, spreading people out on a map means more physical distance, which means it's harder to organize. It's their logic, I guess.

The houses, however, are not the same as those you talk about in Portugal. They're just regular state-owned apartment blocks.

EDIT: @civver_764 - that's what the opposition to the governmental coalition thinks...

 

[FriendlyFire]

Wasteful.

Same problem here though. Sometimes public housing works and works well with second generation living there finding jobs and become well off. Government then generally "privitises" the properties selling them off. (Family homes in a suburbian enviroment)

Most failed government property are those huge building apartments and dense public housing. Far too much crime. Honestly dont know how to fix up this problem but demolishion is silly. We have now English test for citizenship dont know how to read and write ? Sorry no citzenship for you.
Some kind of carret and stick approach would probably be best. Say limit lease on public housing at say 6 years afterwhich rents go up to match commercial rate. Welfare linked to childrens education to ensure children have education, kid dosnt go to school you dont get any benefits.

add some carrets in like some scholarships, selective schools. extentions on public housing leases.

 

[Yeekim]

What? You mean, Danish government and general population ain't happy for this once-in-a-lifetime-opportunity to enjoy true multiculturalism?

 

[warpus]

Didn't they do the same thing to Christiana? It was called something like that.. and I'm pretty sure it was in Denmark

edit: found it

Christiania, also known as Freetown Christiania (Danish: Fristaden Christiania) is a self-proclaimed autonomous neighbourhood of about 850 residents, covering 34 hectares (85 acres) in the borough of Christianshavn in the Danish capital Copenhagen. From an official point of view, Christiania is regarded as a large commune, but its relation to the authorities has a unique status in being regulated by a special law, the Christiania Law of 1989 which transfers parts of the supervision of the area from the municipality of Copenhagen to the state.
Christiania has been a source of controversy since its creation in a squatted military area in 1971. Its cannabis trade was tolerated by authorities until 2004. Since then, measures for normalising the legal status of the community have led to conflicts, and negotiations are ongoing.
Among many Christiania residents, the community is known as staden ('the town'), short for fristaden ('the freetown').

So, apparently Christiania is still around.. how is it different from these other "ghettoes" ?

 

[Ayn Rand]

Britain went through several phases of "slum clearance" destruction and rebuilding. In my opinion it was unnecessary and a disaster. The government should leave these people alone and should only enforce serious ordinances such as fire prevention etc.

And ultimately, your country brought these Third-Worlders in, what did they expect to happen?

 

[Imrahil91]

The immigrants will probably get faster integrated if they are spread out around the country. And not much good comes from having them heaped up in these ghettos, it's actually been a disaster all over Europe. So I think it can be a great success if this actually leads to them spreading evenly all around the country.
It seems very wasteful to destroy a lot of homes just because of this though, maybe there's an alternative to that? And you would also have to build new government homes for them to move into.
It's all very authoritative anyway, but maybe the only solution to save the poor immigrants from moving from one hellhole just to start a new life in another hellhole.

 

[Imrahil91]

So, apparently Christiania is still around.. how is it different from these other "ghettoes" ?

Christiania is more about freedom and tolerance, not sharia law. And as far as i know, these immigrant ghettos are a much more increasing and severe problem than Christiania.

 

[Camikaze]

Yes.

This leads me to wonder what the motivation behind this is. Is it really designed as a crime fighting measure, or as a way to separate people of non-Danish ethnicity, because they are seen as non-Danish? Just how bad is crime in these ghettos?

 

[Angst]

So, apparently Christiania is still around.. how is it different from these other "ghettoes" ?

As Imrahil91 hinted, Christiania isn't really a ghetto. It's really just a city of semi-autonomous hippies. (And that autonomy mostly exists on paper anyways imho) They steal and are somewhat poor, but they're part of the Danish national image, actually, especially when you're a younger Dane like me. The only real problem down there is the easy access to drugs.

This leads me to wonder what the motivation behind this is. Is it really designed as a crime fighting measure, or as a way to separate people of non-Danish ethnicity, because they are seen as non-Danish? Just how bad is crime in these ghettos?

Danish media have had a discourse for a number of years about the problem of immigrants and how they ruin Denmark with violence, murder, robbery, drug sales etc. But in general, it's just popular and sensational articles. Crime has been on retreat for about twelve years now in Denmark, while the number of ethnical minorities is growing steadily.

Crime does exist in the ghettos, however, and at least that's where crime is at its highest. In the medias, it's like there's a constant salve of gunfire, but I've dated a girl in a ghetto and I've never heard a shot or been assaulted. So, there. But of course, this is mostly anecdotical - I can't find a source that crime is on its fall, but you can at least take my word that I read an article about it four weeks ago.

The whole thing wouldn't be possible without the focus on the Muslims and the fact that the said areas have a majority of Asian minorities. It's really an attempted solution to a growing Muslim population without proper Danish values - in the eyes of the current government, at least. It's not intented as a solution to crime in the lower class, that is.

Britain went through several phases of "slum clearance" destruction and rebuilding. In my opinion it was unnecessary and a disaster. The government should leave these people alone and should only enforce serious ordinances such as fire prevention etc.

I have mixed feelings about this: Because I'm happy you agree with my viewpoint, but I'm sad that my government seems to enforce the whole thing anyways.

And ultimately, your country brought these Third-Worlders in, what did they expect to happen?

The problem isn't only allowing entry. The problem is that coming into Denmark is somewhat simple (The laws have become much more strict the last couple of years, but it's still somewhat doable) while it is ridiculously difficult to get Danish citizenship, get introduced to Danish circles and be taken serious when you wish to be included in the Danish society. Of course, there are plenty of stupid people, but that happens when you enter a land of ex-homogenity.

 

[wolfigor]

- The destruction and reconstruction sounds effective.

Probably it is.
There is effect of negative spiral when a getto i created: immigrants meet only other immigrants, and get minimal exposure and minimal need to try to conform to the country's conventions.
The more they entrench in their "difference" the more it gets difficoult for them to integrate in the larger society outside the ghetto.

- But it's unethical to use people's own money to forcefully remove them from an area.

The houses in discussions are council houses (owned by the government, given away at low rent, and financed by public taxes) so the people money we are talking about is the money of danish taxpayers.
The people living in the "ghetto" gets a subsidized rent well under the market value.

- And it's undemocratic.

Not really... they do not own the houses and don't pay a normal rent.
The house owner (the state in this case) have all the rights to control what happens to the houses.

- And it's unethical all in all. People have the right to live where they choose.

Not really... they have the right to live where they want but they don't own the house where they live and they may be evicted if necessary.

- I support powerful governments quite a lot. However this whole racistic solution of force

It would be much more racist to give up on them: to maintain the ghetto is to build de-facto apartheid.
At least the state is trying to do something to help people to integrate and enter in full the social life of the country where they live, else you'll have pockets in your countries with separate law and social standards.

In general it's good for integration to spread and mix people: immigrants will have more opportunity to integrate and danish will have more opportunity to appreciate a different culture.

Said this, I wouldn't like to be living where the people from the "ghetto" will be transferred.
Usually when that happens property prices fall down together with the quality of life in the area.
It's the "broken window" effect:
if you live in a place where everything is clean and well maintained, it will be a big step for anybody to break anything.
But as soon as there is one broken window, to break a second one is a small step...
bringing council houses (with the higher percentage of criminality and bad behaviour) in the middle of high-income areas sometimes works really well, but sometime help to bring down what originally was a nice place.

 

[Brighteye]

I had a nice chat with a chap called Sean Bailey yesterday. He grew up in tough conditions in London, and has been a little influential with regards to youth poverty. He's a Conservative.
I agreed wholeheartedly with his assessment that youth poverty is simply poverty. It's a trap, and it's due, in part, to ghettos. The same applies to cultural segregation, not just to financial segregation. Ghettos of poor immigrants are simply a perfect trap that foster crime, poverty and segregation. His phrase was "it's not a glass ceiling: it's a lead one!".

 

[storealex]

I disagree with some parts of your analasys, lord joakim.

These are areas where Danish law is set aside by thugs. The Police even admits that they don't enter the ghettos, unless in force and for a good reason. Same thing with the Firedepartment. All symbols of authority are under threat from stonethrowing when they enter some of these ghettos. Sure, national crimerates are going down, but gangrelated crime and shooting is going up. The immigrants are grossly overrepresented in crimestatistics. Something has to be done.

 

[Angst]

I disagree with some parts of your analasys, lord joakim.

These are areas where Danish law is set aside by thugs. The Police even admits that they don't enter the ghettos, unless in force and for a good reason. Same thing with the Firedepartment. All symbols of authority are under threat from stonethrowing when they enter some of these ghettos. Sure, national crimerates are going down, but gangrelated crime and shooting is going up. The immigrants are grossly overrepresented in crimestatistics. Something has to be done.

But tearing up building complexes?

I'm agreeing that it's effective. And I think there might not be other solutions to it. But there's no sufficient funding, and I don't think it's a right thing to do. Especially

The reconstruction will not only hurt immigrants. As the apartments are cheap, and actually are peaceful, from what I've experienced myself, (And it's what I read in a couple of ordinary articles as well.) it also attracts students and elderly people, and the lower class in general. They will be forced to move out as well, and people don't care about them, since they're not brown.

I've also read articles where many of the ghetto-dwellers say that the people who throw stones at the police are often the same few gangs, and that it results in badmouthing and harassment from the police towards the wrong people, very often.

Personally, I support more police. Since that's actually what many innocent dwellers ask for as well. And more contact.

If this is the plan that is to be done, then sure, be with it. I think it's outrageous. But I won't beat anyone up, as it probably would work. That's how I feel.

I'm not exactly talking about it not being a good, effective idea. (Although it I think it could be done cheaper.) But I think it's immoral. It's still wrong.

 

[storealex]

If that's what it takes... It's not like we're killing people...