Europe must not fall into Putin and Xi’s trap and withdraw criticism of the war against Ukraine

Russia uses what-about-ism as an excuse for violations of UN rules of war.

The media in the USA, Denmark, and on BBC report that today is the 20 year anniversary for America invading Iraq on false grounds and without a UN mandate.

No, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and yes, the war was terrible and had devastating consequences – for the people of Iraq and to a large extent for Europe.

The US went into Iraq without the approval of the Security Council – so did Putin when he invaded the Crimean peninsula and later Ukraine. Russia´s justification goes like this: the West does not obey by the rules that they claim everyone else must follow for world order.

Still, Europe must not fall into Putin and Xi’s trap and withdraw dritizism.

In the United States, we are seeing cracks within the Republican wing. Certain politicians, including the governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, who also has presidential ambitions, are agitating for the United States not to be involved in conflicts outside the country’s borders. The well-known policy of isolationism is alive and well.

Meanwhile, Russia’s Putin is happy to letting the discussion in America unfolds, the agenda fits perfectly with his discourse. We seem to be perfectly capable in the West to get lost in domestic political arguments about the war and completely miss the bigger picture of why or why not to get involved. If the political fractions in America keep quarreling, plays perfectly into his hand – without much effort, America helps him get his work done.

Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, said in early March on his trip to India that if the United States has the right to invade a country, why doesn’t Russia? In one sentence he argued that the West has no right to have a position on the war in Ukraine and is even partly to blame for it given past actions. According to the UN charter, neither the war in Iraq nor in Ukraine was legal – but that does not mean that Russia can justify the war in Ukraine with the US invasion of Iraq 20 years ago.

Totalitarian countries that are ideologically far from the West’s standards when it comes to democracy and human rights have found a rhetorical argument that we must be careful not to accept. Arguments and excuses that actions can be justified based on similar actions done in the past.

It’s like talking to a child who has gotten into a fight at school. “He started it,” says the kid, and thus says that his actions are justified. But it’s not what most of us teach our children – so why do we accept the rhetorical manipulation when it comes from grown-up politicians?

I am terrified of what will come out of the meeting between Russia’s Putin and China’s Xi. China could have cancelled the meeting after the ICC announced that Putin is a wanted war criminal as a response to the thousands of children who have been abducted and taken across the border from Ukraine to Russia. Putin is now wanted for human rights violations in 123 countries.

If Xi doesn’t touch the wrong doorknob, fall out of a window, or eat something poisonous, we’ll see him and Putin on a press conference announcing to the world they have agreed on new trade deals. Trade deals which – as now – means that the “goods” they trade can be taken apart and used in Russia’s warfare against Ukraine. Time will tell, how we in the West reacts to this – and the future will later judge those reactions.

Europa må ikke falde i Putin og Xis fælde og trække følehornene til sig

Rusland bruger whataboutism som undskyldning for brud på FN’s regler om krigsførelse.

Læs hele bloggen her:

Trump releases single with January 6. insurrectionists

With “Justice for All” Trump makes populist stunt.

Trump released a new version of the US national anthem on Friday. Branding and self-promotion are his hallmarks, but the fact that the single contains an attack on democracy and the judiciary is a matter that is lost in the single’s roaring ending: »U-S-A!, U-S-A!, U-S-A !« writes Desiree Ohrbeck.

They are standing under a huge American flag, slightly overwhelmed by the situation, sharing a microphone. Three girls, about eight years old with small, high-pitched voices. Out of tune, they sing the American national anthem – I’ve never understood why the country chose lyrics and a tune so difficult to sing along to. Meanwhile, parents raise from their seats, remove caps and hats and place a hand over their hearts.

I associate the American national anthem, “The Star-Spangled Banner”, with sporting events. At my children’s neighborhood swim team, the youngest swimmers take turns at home meet to sing before the competition. For me, the most beautiful version is Whitney Houston’s interpretation at the Super Bowl in 1991.

“Trump has repeatedly expressed support for the convicted rioters and has promised to overturn their convictions if he is elected the next president of the United States.

Much different is the disturbing emotions I am left with when listening to the single Trump released on Friday. If you click on the single, the video consists of a dark, still image of the American flag. Deep male voices roar-sing “The Star-Spangled Banner.” The choir is made up of prisoners, convicted after the attempted coup on January 6, 2020, and the profits goes to the prisoners’ families.

A few seconds into the single, Donald Trump’s characteristic voice is heard reciting “The Pledge of Allegiance.” All students, from Kindergarten through High School recite The Pledge of Allegiance every morning with one hand over their heart as they pledge allegiance to the American flag and America.

It is an honor to be invited to the school superintendent’s office to recite “The Pledge” for the whole school. The ritual represents a loyalty oath and an expression of pride in living in the United States.

Mixing the American National Anthem with the patriotic “Pledge of Allegiance” is a genius move. You have to hand it to him, Trump, that he knows how to play his cards to maximum effect. If one has aspirations towards populist national conservatism of the patriotic, not fact-based kind, it strikes a chord with those who think that convicted “freedom fighters” have not been treated with fairness in the justice system. Branding and self-promotion are Trump’s hallmarks. That there is an underlying, decidedly dangerous attack on democracy and the judiciary is a matter that is lost in the single’s roaring ending: “U-S-A!, U-S-A!, U-S-A!”

The single is called “Justice for All,” and is performed by the J6 Prison choir Choir. Trump has repeatedly expressed support for the convicted rioters and has promised to overturn their convictions if he is elected the next president of the United States.

In collaboration with the ultra-right and conspiracy theorists, Trump is the banner-bearer of a trend that views the convictions of the January 6, 2020 attempted coup on Congress as politically motivated and as an orchestrated persecution and an attack by the state on constitutional supporters.

Two minutes and twenty seconds. That’s how long the single is. After this, what does it feel like for parents and sports fans at thousands of sporting events across the country when the national anthem is sung by ordinary democratic-minded Americans who love their country? Will they see themselves as chess pieces in a game they have no desire to play in? I wonder if this summer, as I stand cheering on the side of the pool, ready with my camera, as my kids compete against a neighborhood swim team, I will be able to not let it affect me that yet another unifying American icon has fallen into the hands of those who would rather divide the country than unite it?

Trump udgiver single i samarbejde med fængslede kupmagere

Med singlen “Justice for All” har Trump lavet endnu et populistisk stunt.

Læs hele bloggen her:

Is H.C. Andersen and his fairytales the next to be cancelled?

To become wiser and change the future, we must dare to face the past without censoring it.

Regularly, literary writers have their texts dragged through the woke movement´s machinery. This time, the British writer Roald Dahl was the target, but when will it be Denmark´s national icon, HC Andersen? Drawing: Rasmus Sand Høyer

My son and I are reading “HC Andersen’s Fairy Tales & Histories + Complete collection prefaced by Johannes Møllehave” from 2000. The goal is to work through the book this year. We read a few pages every day and talk about the stories and about Danish words he doesn’t know, such as mill wheel, horse carriage, galoshes and wadsack. It is an excellent way to expand his Danish language skills and for his cultural understanding not to mention the quality time I get with him. We just finished “The Little Mermaid,” which my son dryly noted was “very different from Disney’s version.”

My kids loved reading Roald Dahl’s books when they were younger. The British author with Norwegian heritage is best known for “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” but published a total of 49 books for both children and adults. My daughter especially loved “The BFG.” Roald Dahl was anti-Semitic, racist, and a misogynist – traits I actively teach my children are unacceptable.

The way Roald Dahl described gender and obesity tells us something about him and his time that we can learn from today when talking to our children about how to treat each other.

There has recently been an enormous public backlash after Puffin, the children´s imprint of Penguin Random House, publisher of Roald Dahl’s books, announced that they would change the author’s language to make the books more inclusive. The publishing house hired the consulting agency Inclusive Minds, and it was decided that words like “fat” and “ugly” were to disappear, and content that had to do with gender, race, ethnicity, mental health, appearance, and weight would change. “Words mean something,” the publishing house wrote. “The fantastic world of Roald Dahl can transport you to different worlds and introduce you to the most wonderful characters. The books were written many years ago, and we regularly edit the language to ensure that it can be enjoyed by as many people as possible.’

The outcry was substantial – from literary figures such as Salman Rushdie, from the British royal house, and from freedom of expression groups, such as PEN America. So loudly did people protest, that the publisher pulled back and announced that the books would be available both in their edited editions and in their original form. The censorship controversy hits directly into a groping zeitgeist, where the fear of stepping on someone’s toes risks introducing self-censorship and compromise freedom of expression.

Where do we draw the line if we start canceling books and make them unavailable? Censoring or making things disappear because times have changed is a dangerous direction. Shouldn’t large parts of the Bible then be cancelled as well? How do you accept the art of the past when it is based on views we have moved away from? How do we make room for literature written in another time when the content holds viewpoints, we now find inappropriate?

We are finding ourselves in a time of change. Most of us can remember a world that looked somewhat different from the global society we live in today and this forces us to grabble with this topic.

That reality is, that we must find a way where diversity is embraced and where it is simultaneously ok that literature does not satisfy all viewpoints, skin colors, religions, or body sizes. Because if we start introducing censorship, if we start regulating what our kids and youth have access to – then we are moving frighteningly close to totalitarian societies we pride ourselves of being far removed from.

Should Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses” disappear, should books written with a British imperialist worldview? The balance is difficult – because what kind of literature is ok today if we simultaneously advocate freedom of expression and the importance of learning from the past as we move forward?

I don’t like seeing women depicted as cashiers if they could be research scientists or CEOs, as they now are in the edited Roald Dahl work, or to see someone being called “enormously fat.” The way Roald Dahl described gender and obesity says something about him and his time that we can learn from today when we talk to our children about how to treat each other and how a short time ago people looked at and mocked women and minorities. But the reactions to changing “mother” and “father” to “family” and the elimination of “girls and boys” to “children” and that phrases like “beautiful light skin” has been changed to “beautiful smooth skin,” shows that the woke movement is not backed by the general population.

When HC Andersen wrote “The Little Mermaid,” Denmark looked different. Denmark was a homogenous country, a country where Muslim headscarves, dark skin, and a diverse cultural population were not a natural part of the cityscape. If you wanted to experience the big world, you had to do like Andersen and go outside the country’s borders by horse-drawn carriage. The ideal of beauty was fair skin, blue eyes and blond hair.

And it is that reality, Andersen writes his stories from. Not the global world that surrounds us today. Therefore, the little mermaid is “the most beautiful of them all, her skin was as clear and bright as a rose petal, her eyes as blue as the deepest lake.”

Is this problematic? Is it something that should be cancelled the next time HC Andersen’s collected works are republished? No, because if we erase the past, we erase the possibility of conversations with our children about where we come from, what beauty is, how people before us were viewed. And we delete the possibility of taking a stand and making conscious choices based on a reflection on the world in which we find ourselves.

Hvornår begynder de at rette i H.C. Andersens eventyr?

For at blive klogere og ændre fremtiden er vi nødt til at turde se fortiden i øjnene uden at censurere den.

Læs hele bloggen her:

Denmark is funding anti-democratic organizations and religious groups

Freedom of expression should never be up for discussion – but government funding should.

A burnt Koran in front of the Turkish embassy in Stockholm. BBC News is showing the extreme right politician Rasmus Paludan on my screen. He couldn’t have timed his happening better. We have seen the play before, now follows an international crisis. The Turkish president Erdogan has already announced that he will be voting no to granting Sweden a NATO membership.

“Finally, we are even, Ritt!” was the title of a bar happening on the extreme left. Recently deceased Ritt Bjerregaard was Mayor of Copenhagen when the police cleared young squatters from a house because the municipality sold the property. The bar event prompted a storm of protests. The Youth Center where the bar event took place receives 2 million Danish Croner in public subsidy each year and some voices want that funding stopped.

“If you take away the financial support for political parties, you risk an American-like system. Trust me, you don´t want the political arena in Denmark to become like the USA, where politics is permeated by economic interests.

Distasteful and reprehensible – is a label fitting for both Rasmus Paludan’s and The Youth Center´s happenings. But they are both legal. And they both receive state funded support.

You can have more than one thought in your head at the same time in this debate. The subsidizes come from the same place, regardless of whether it is a budget in Copenhagen or state-funded support for political parties, associations, organizations, and religious movements.

We must never erode the rights we enjoy in a free democracy where we have freedom of speech. Period. However, this does not mean that we should aid movements whose aim it is to destroy the fantastic democracy Denmark is.

It makes no sense to support religious communities, organizations, and associations that has as a core value to overthrow democracy. To name a few, extreme right- and left-wing groups that work towards a revolution and want to take the fight to the streets, Jehovah’s Witnesses, who do not believe in democracy, but theocracy which also seem to be the attitude towards democracy some Muslim circles. The list goes on and on. Unfortunately.

So, what about the political parties who do not believe that democracy is the right form of government, parties running for parliament? Do we want to keep aiding them with subsidizes? Both the extreme left and right have groups fighting for a system that is not a democracy. If these political parties are eligible to run, they have met the democratic rules enabling them to work within the framework we have set for the democratic process. These parties should be supported financially, as is the case in today’s Denmark – because the foundation for society is based on the individual citizen’s experience of participating actively as part of our democracy.

If you take away the financial support for political parties, you risk an American-like system. Trust me, you don´t want the political arena in Denmark to become like the USA, where politics is permeated by economic interests. The question then is whether changes should be made to the requirements for running as a party. The more diverse the population in Denmark becomes, the greater the risk of seeing parties running, that do not want to continue the welfare and democratic model, generations before us have built is This topic is a discussion for another day.

We must be vigilant about the values and rights we pride ourselves on, especially when they are tested. We can do this by letting people enjoy basic rights to believe, speak, and think freely – but we do not have to make it easier for them to spew their venom by financially aiding them to practice their anti-democratic views.

Hypocrisy is never pretty. Apparently the hurt is greater when a newly deceased well-known Social Democrat is under fire than when a relatively new religion is mocked. However, one of the things that makes a democracy differ from totalitarian regimes is accepting positions that are not represented by the incumbents and to know that people with far-out opinions have the right to and can express their point of view.

The discussion is not about freedom of speech. In Denmark, and other democratic countries, citizens have the right to oppose political and religious ideas. You can demonstrate, you can be provocative, you can burn the Koran, you can draw Jesus Christ with an enormous erect penis, and you can mock a recently deceased politician, like Ritt Bjerregaard.

How about instead of financially supporting forces that aim to overthrow democracy, we redirect the support to groups and initiatives that work to support democratic values?

NGOs aid the Taliban if they stay in Afghanistan

If NGOs bow to Taliban’s newest demand, barring women from working with NGOs, they accept the regime´s misogynistic agenda.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban have once again found a way to curtail women´s freedoms and opportunities. After coming into power, the first thing they did, was to barre girls from going to school beyond sixth grade. Then, women were banned from going to college. Now, Taliban is banning female employees working with NGOs – the ban includes foreign women. Did I mention that girls and women above sixth grade are not allowed to sing in public? The completely male-dominated Taliban government wants girls and women out of the public eye and sphere.

Taliban wants women at the same infantile level they themselves belong to by introducing one misogynistic law after another. They cover their women, hide them away, deprive them of every opportunity to think, see and speak independently, and from singing and dancing – a clear strategy that makes the likelihood of organizing and rebellion minimal.

Imagine, if Western NGOs comply and bow to these horrible power-hungry, misogynistic types and allow themselves to be cowed and shod and submit to these outlandish rules. It would mean they accept the role as the cowardly dogs, dodgy Westerners and yes, the women, Taliban hate so much.

Millions are deprived of access to aid because of the Taliban’s cruelty. Meanwhile, Afghanistan’s Minister of Economy, Qari Din Mohammed Hanif, announced in a press release that those organizations not complying will have their licenses to operate in the country reevoked.

According to The Red Cross, Afghanistan is facing one of its worst winters with a starving population. Millions are forced to choose between heating their homes and feeding their families. We are looking at a humanitarian disaster. Still, taking a stand should not be a difficult choice. Looking at the Taliban´s history and the ever-tightening grip on Afghan women, it is unlikely that the Taliban will stop at their latest attempt. The West has no choice, it cannot bow down to the Taliban´s latest insanity. Imagine the victory these cloak-covered men would see this as, if they could make the good-hearted industry of the West jump when they say “jump”.

“Imagine, if Western NGOs comply and bow to these horrible power-hungry, misogynistic types and allow themselves to be cowed and shod and submit to these outlandish rules. It would mean they accept the role of the cowardly dogs, the codified Westerners and yes, the women Taliban hate so much.

Save the Children ‘s Norwegian spokesman, Neil Turner, has announced that his organization can no longer operate in Afghanistan. “We cannot help women and children without our female employees,” he said in a BBC interview the other day. “We have followed all the cultural norms; it is impossible to reach the Afghan women in desperate need without our 468 female employees.’

If NGOs choose to stay in Afghanistan under the new demand, they are aiding the Taliban – and the Afghan misogynist men. Afghan women will be left to their own devices in complicated childbirths and in other circumstances where men are not allowed to be present, while Western NGOs help little Ibrahim, Muhammed and Ali band-aiding their booboos and patching up Mustafa’s gunshot wounds.

I wonder what is going through the Afghan girls and women´s heads in the light of this new ban. What are their reactions to the fact that some organizations choose to stay – without being able and allowed to help them, those most vulnerable? The NGOs can invite men into their aiding tents for help – but not women, exactly as was intended by the greybeards.

Girls and women are the future in countries with living-conditions far from the rights, opportunities, and economic possibilities women enjoy in the West. Hungry for knowledge, these girls risk being flogged for logging on to an online class, offered by a Western educational institution. Finding that the very part of the world they look up to, as a representation for equal rights and freedom, is willing to let the turban, tunic shirt dressed village terrorists dictate Western representatives to work and obey in accordance with the Taliban’s view on women – that must be incredibly demotivating.

Hjælpeorganisationer hjælper Taliban, hvis de bliver i Afghanistan

Kvinder og piger betaler prisen, når nødhjælpsorganisationer bøjer sig for Talibans krav om, at kvinder ikke må arbejde for dem.

Læs hele bloggen her:

Jehovah´s Witnesses violate the rights of children

Exclusion of minor children is in violation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child

Norway’s State Administration has settled a case in which it determines that children’s rights are violated when Jehovah’s Witnesses practice their exclusion methods. Children are exposed to negative social control and are held accountable within the organization´s closed legal system – and are judged as adults. All children deserve the same level of rights, not just Norwegian children.

If you are registered as a “recognized religious community” (Act no. 1533 of 19 December 2017 on religious communities outside the national church) in Denmark, you have a number of financial advantages regarding (property) tax and VAT. In addition, members can donate a tax-dectable amount.

In Norway, brave members of Jehovah´s Witnesses contacted the authorities because they felt trapped and did not dare to leave the sect for fear of the personal consequences it would have. Yesterday, Norway’s State Administration announced to the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization that the religious freedom of the members is violated when the organization expels its members. The decision does not mean that Jehovah’s Witnesses will disappear from Norway. They can still practice their religion, they just no longer get millions of tax crowns every year, and then they lose the right to seal marriages.

In October, Jehovah’s Witnesses in Norway were warned that the financial state support was about to end. On the same occasion, the organization was asked whether it wanted to change its exclusionary practices so that it could continue receiving government support. To that, the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization replied no. At the same time, the organization hired a high-profile lawyer.

Jehovah’s Witnesses practice what was previously known as “excommunication” and has since changed name to “exclusion,” probably to create an illusion to the public of a softer punishment.

But excommunication is exactly the same as exclusion. In practice, it means that you are dead to your family and former friends. I know how it works, because I have experienced it myself. If you are walking in the street and pass someone you have known since you were a child, he must pass you by without acknowledging you. If you call home, your parents must hang up immediately. No contact, whatsoever, is allowed. If you become desperate and show up outside your parents’ doorstep, they must must close the door on you – the treatment of an excommunicated member is the same, no matter how old or young he or she is. Imagine how many excommunicated members die from suicide or go back into the cult – not to mention those who do not dare to leave for fear of the treatment they know they will have to endure.

That is precisely why Norway has now had enough. It is inhumane to treat especially children and young adults like this. When I confronted my mom with this, I was told that had made the choice when I chose to be baptized and therefore knew the consequences when I chose to leave the sect. To be clear, I was baptized two weeks after my 14th birthday, had not yet had my first period, had never been in love, or kissed a boy – in short, I had accepted restrictions, I had no understanding of.

The sect strongly encourages you to get baptized as early as possible – after that you are reliable for your actions according to their rules and restrictions. You are held accountable for your actions on equal terms with adults. I have heard of children as young as 8 who have been baptized – and judged as adults when they start asking questions or breaking the sect’s rules.

There has been a citizens’ proposal to deprive Jehovah’s Witnesses in Denmark of their recognition as a religious community. Unfortunately, not enough signed the petition for the Danish Parliament to consider the proposal.

That’s a shame. On the one hand, Jehovah’s Witnesses are immensely happy to receive the economic benefits that the Danish state provides, on the other hand, such a state-supported economy is de facto a symbol of accepting the inhumane, sectarian doomsday cult’s practice, which, with its Gestapo methods, forces the members to rat on each other – with severe personal consequences.

So, what has been Jehovah’s Witnesses reaction to the decision in Norway? Ironically, they state that they are a persecuted minority, that their freedom of religion is challenged, that they are the victims of a crusade that tries to make the lives of the witnesses as difficult as possible, and pressure them to change the interpretation and practice of the Bible’s message, which they of course “have no intention” of doing. It is tragicomic to see how their manipulative rhetoric trickery is turned upside down.

My hope is that more countries will look to Norway as a pioneering country – not only when it comes to financial support and lucrative tax-exemptions for Jehovah’s Witnesses, but for all religious communities, cults, and sect organizations that take children and young people hostage and use social control contrary to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and general common sense. The state must play a greater role – especially in democratic countries. After all, we can only expect more insane religions and sects on our doorstep in the future.

Børn skal ikke straffes som voksne – men det bliver de inden for Jehovas Vidner

At udstøde mindreårige børn er i strid med Børnekonventionen

Læs hele bloggen her

Zelenskyy gave the speech of his life in Congress: We want one thing for Christmas – victory

Zelenskyy is rhetorically strong – but is the US willing to donate more funds?

“Your money is not charity, it is an investment in global security,” said the President of Ukraine in his speech to the US Congress.

Judging by the breaking news live streaming on CNN, journalists coverage, politicians’ buzzing anticipation in Congress, as well as President Joe Biden they are all fully aware of the important crossroads the Western world is facing.

In general, there has been support across the political isle in the United States. But some sent a clear message through their absence. Some Republicans chose to stay away, and that is not necessarily good for Ukraine’s resistance nor for Europe’s security. Even if we don’t want to think about it, we may be facing World War III and a battle for Western ideals of freedom.

“The Ukrainian president painted a picture of roaring bombings every day for months, blood, freezing temperatures, death, and destruction. But he also painted a picture of a population that is strong and fights for its freedom with the same perseverance Americans showed when they fought Nazism in Europe.

America is Ukraine’s most important ally. Of course, President Zelenskyy is well aware of that. He is also aware that some resistance have begun to show on the Republican side of the political spectrum when it comes to allocating military funding and aid to Ukraine.

The American population is regularly impressed by Zelenskyy´s quoting of former presidents such as Kennedy and Washington in his speeches. Yesterday, was no exception, when he quoted Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The Ukrainian president painted a picture of roaring bombing every day for months, blood, freezing temperatures, death and destruction. But he also painted a picture of a population that is strong and fights for freedom with the same perseerance Americans had when they fought Nazism in Europe.

It may have been the most important speech he has ever given—perhaps even the most important speech he will ever give. He balanced between being grateful to the American people while asking for more guns, ammunition, planes, and tanks. The US has given 1.8 trillion dollars so far. That’s 12 zeros, but that’s not enough.

Zelenskyy made it clear that he is not asking for American soldiers on the ground. Ukrainian soldiers will fight against its attackers itself – but they need more military material.

For me, the strongest message was that we must stand together and fight for freedom, for democracy, for the freedom of the mind – against terrorism and put in what is required in the fight for freedom. PUT-IN, as Zelenskyy said. He definetely did not sound like a man who is ready to sit down at the negotiating table – he is anything but a shadow president, as the MAGA-republicans call him.

The world will be a better place if Ukraine wins – now and in the future. Ukraine’s fight inspires the whole world, and standing together, globally we must fight to protect freedom and international laws, was the message. This war determines and defines the world that future generations will live in. The countries of the world are too interconnected and dependent on each other for a war like this – he stated as the applause resounded.

Standing up for freedom, investing in democracy by helping Ukraine should be on every freedom-loving, democratic country´s Christmas list.

Slava Ukraine!

Zelenskyj holdt sit livs vigtigste tale i USA: Vi ønsker os én ting til jul – sejr

Zelenskyj er en stærk retoriker – men er USA villig til at donere flere midler?

Læs hele bloggen her:

World Cup in Qatar: Dictatorships 1 – Democracy 0

The soccer World Cup was one big victory lap for authoritarian regimes.

“I don´t give a shit! I’m here to watch soccer,’ the Danish soccer fan said on TV.

He was in Qatar to watch the Danish national team play and was asked by a journalist how he felt about the debate about human right violations in the autocratic desert state.

To the democratic-minded journalists who focused on the atrocities – thank you. The Western World Cup journalists who focused on the conditions in Qatar did their best to shine a light and raise awareness, but unfortunately they lost the debate. The rest of the world doesn’t seem to care. The western values have lost, helped by FIFA, who lashed out at Europe and the West, accusing us of double standards and hypocrisy. In the Arab part of the world, that announcement was received with gloating smocks.

If we roll over and denounce our values to enjoy 90 minutes of yelling, high adrenaline, and testosterone-filled roars over 22 young men running around a field, I worry for our democracies in the future.

Sports and politics have always been inextricably intertwined. But focus have changed. Now, the focus is not on money for underprivileged states. Instead, identity and an awareness of privilege. FIFA signaled that it is time for Europe to have a diminished role and that the arrow of influence and power should be pointing elsewhere. Europe was once, due to its colonial empires etc., the villain and must apologize for thousands of years before it can allow itself to criticize the conditions in non-democratic states. So, FIFA is turning its interest towards authoritarian states – I would be suprised if Saudi Arabia doesn´t get to host the World Cup in 2030.

There has been a shift in the debate. Democracy versus autocracy has become the overarching theme and FIFA seems to have picked sides – in favor of autocratic states. Democracy-minded states are facing resistance when trying to focus on human rights violations, and Qatar’s PR machinery have succeeded in bringing together large parts of the Arab and Muslim world and dominate the narrative. Even sports journalists initially concerned with human rights ended up writing more about soccer and less about human rights at the end of the World Cup.

Europe’s values were attacked and tested during this World Cup final. Should it have escaped anyone’s attention, democracies are under attack. Apparently, most people in the free Western democracies are indifferent to the conditions women and children and critical voices have to endure, as long as it does not affect their everyday life. We seem to be confident that we will never have to fight for our democratic values in our part of the world. But we are wrong. Meanwhile, thousands of innocent people lose their lives far from our hemisphere, but we don´t care as long as we can gobble down hot dogs and chuck IPAs, and feel entertained.

It’s that easy – if you choose to close your eyes. But doing so is ignorant, selfish, and not particularly far-sighted. The stakes could hardly be any dirtier. History repeats itself – Berlin should never have had the Olympics in 1936, despite a heated public debate in Denmark at the time about the conditions in nazi Germany. Clear minimum requirements should be in place for who is worthy of hosting major sporting events – and in that context, authoritarian states have to be left off the ranking list.

So what does the future look like for major sporting events? – Belarus, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar have already been granted major sporting events in the near future. So cheers! – sporting events are on their way to take place in dictatorial autocratic states with arenas of human life on these countries conscience.

VM i Qatar: Diktaturstater 1 – Demokrati 0

VM i fodbold var én stor sejrsrunde for autoritære regimer.

Læs hele bloggen her:

Will Danish public schools be the next ideological battleground?

In the US, worried parents are taking over school boards. Could the same happen in Denmark?

It is a good thing, students learn about their country’s less beautiful areas of history. It is a good thing, attention is being targeted on oppressed groups, minorities, and vulnerable populations. It is part of a student’s school education to learn that life and history are nuanced and that all groups in society are not always treated equal – only by learning about the past can we look forward and try not to repeat the sins of the past and maybe even contribute to making the world a better place.

But it is problematic when the scales tip and focus is only on the sins of the white man and a country’s violation of fundamental humanity. A clear-eyed approach in dealing with multiple elements of the past should include teaching both the oppression of Native Americans and the ancestors of African Americans and the incredible progress that American history offers.

“The Danish public schools have an enormous responsibility for graduating democratically minded citizens who will take part in the Danish society – in a country that is held together, primarily because its so homogeneousity.

Not many places in the US are like that. Where I live, the school children know about countless Indian tribes, but hardly know why they celebrate Thanksgiving . And that’s problematic, because if we don’t know our own history, how can we relate to it? How, then, do we create a generation of citizens without guilt and shame, but with a nuanced awareness of the past, to gain the courage to go out into life uniting, side by side, with young people from other nationalities, cultures and socio-economic backgrounds to make life and society a better place?

Having an informed opinion about statues that symbolize oppression, books in school libraries that preach that a family consists of a father and a mother and a couple of blond kids – in a world that is constantly changing, is forming an opinion to a version of life, that is not one-eyed.

But when the attitude to what a family looks like is rooted in antiquated religious notions with Stone Age views, the Geist, many parents have when it comes to their children’s schooling, can be dangerous.

In the US, we see this especially clearly in rightwinged Christian circles, who try to get certain books banned from school libraries. This is particularly the case with books that have sexual scenes, or books with themes of homosexuality or other LGBTQIA+-community-related themes. Librarians and teachers live a life in fear these days – is school board members find they have exposed their kids to content that goes against their Christian beliefs they highjack the boards and change curriculum and library content according to their beliefs.

The school boards have great power in American schools and are elected for an entire school district, not to an individual school as is the case in Denmark. In America, you have to be an American citizen to run for the school board, in Denmark you just need to be a parent at the school to run. Fortunately, the structure of school boards in Denmark is different, otherwise that would be the blow and decline for a homogeneous Danish society.

The Danish public schools have an enormous responsibility for graduating democratically minded citizens who will take part in Danish society – in a country that is held together, primarily because of its homogeneousity. The Danish democracy is beautiful and works well, and fortunately the school board model also bears its mark.

Still, the individual schools will be challenged and tried in the future. There will be forces trying to shape the public schools in a direction that has a strong focus on religiously based values. Hopefully the implementation or imprinting of various radical teachings will not be able to take over or infiltrate the individual public school. Danish democracy is strong and, in contrast to the USA, the focus is on community and shared basic values, that might be the saving grace for the Danish public schools – and for Denmark.

Bliver folkeskolen den næste ideologiske kampplads?

I USA overtager rabiate elementer skolebestyrelser. Kan det samme ske i Danmark?

Læs hele bloggen her:

Someone aught to listen to what Mohammed has to say, when Denmark and the European Union are discussing immigration policies.

Europe is experiencing an influx of migrants and refugees that is on par with 2015 and 2016.

EU politicians have been called to an emergency meeting in Brussels. Does the European Union have control over its borders? Can the EU solve the refugee crisis? Should solving the refugee and migrant policies be up to the individual country to deal with?

“Could you please tell your newspaper’s readers what I think about asylum camps?” Mohammed asked as my Uber ride with him was coming to an end.

I was on my way to the airport and, as always when I’m around strangers, I struck up a conversation. Mohammed was originally from Sudan. In Africa, he stayed in four different camps, including one in Burkina Faso, before he was granted asylum in the United States.

“I have family and friends in Europe. I’ve been to Holland, I’ve been to Norway, and I’ve also been to Denmark,” he said. “How did you experience the situation with immigrants and refugees in the countries you visited?” I asked.

“Europe has been naive and brought the wrong people into their countries.” It is not the first time I hear immigrants, refugees, and people in search of a better life in a new country express themselves like this.

“The Europeans are no longer as happy about people coming to their countries, especially not the welfare states to the north.”

“Why do you think that is so?” I asked.

“Your country should make camps in the Middle East and Africa and select those they want, instead of the chaos that is going on now, where young men and extreme Islamists have full access.” The words came as if he was stating the obvious.

“If I say something like that in Denmark, Mohammed, I’m called racist and considered inhuman.” Mohammed looked at me confused. Then he burst out laughing. “You are not a racist”, he laughed, shaking his head.

“The European asylum policy does not work now, nor will it in the future, if the model is not changed.

“It’s about seeing people as equals. Of course, you should receive help if you need it. But the system must be fair.” It felt liberating to be able to speak freely, not least because Mohammed had actually experienced an asylum program, many Danes see as inhumane, racists, and against human rights.

“Views like that ends up in racism in the population! When the wrong people enter a country and ruin it for the rest because they behave badly or don´t work, when they live off other people´s taxes, then the European populations eventually turn against us.” Mohammed’s deep voice rose, even though I was sitting a few inches from him. “Of course, you have to be thoroughly vetted before you can be sent to a country that has been designated for you. Partly it ensures that those who need asylum get it, and you make sure it´s the right ones, you let in.”

The European asylum policy does not work now, nor will it in the future, if the model is not changed. Approximately 70% of asylum seekers in Europe who have their case dismissed do not leave Europe. Denmark takes in more asylum seekers and refugees than the average in European countries.

In the future, there will be more climate refugees on top of war refugees, and people in search of better economic conditions. Furthermore, population growth in Africa is of such an explosive nature that in a few years one in three of the world’s population will be African. It makes perfect sense that Denmark is considering sending people who come to the country illegally to a safe third country while their case is processed.

The tone was light, a sense of intimate familiarity had developed between us in the time it took to drive from my home to Sea-Tac. When we parted, Mohammed asked if he could give me a hug.

“I didn’t think you could look me in the eyes, shake hands, and give a hug to a woman as a Muslim,” I cheekily said. “That is another thing that many Muslims in Denmark insist on, must be respected.”

Mohammed spread his arms: “Those who are like that have completely misunderstood Islam,” he stated.

We hugged and I thanked him the conversation and the drive, all the while thinking that someone should listen to Mohammed and other reasonable people like him so that Europe can thrive with its new inhabitants now and in the future.

___

Måske burde Mohammed have noget at skulle have sagt, når Danmark og Europa diskuterer asylpolitik?

Europa oplever en tilstrømning af migranter og flygtninge, der er på niveau med 2015 og 2016.

Læs hele bloggen her: