78 PERSPECTIVES ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS | VOL 41 | 2023 ty. Whereas the Progress Party takes a clear stance against immigration alone, the DPP rejects both immigration and multiculturalism. The Party Program of the DPP as established in 2002 states, “Denmark is not an immigrant-country and never has been. Thus, we will not accept transformation to a multiethnic society. Denmark belongs to the Danes and its citizens must be able to live in a secure community founded on the rule of law, which develops along the lines of Danish culture” (Principprogram, 2002). Former party leader Pia Kjærsgaard went so far as to consider the idea of a multiethnic Denmark, “a public disaster” (Kjærsgaard, 1997). The DPP thereby established itself not only as a successor to the Progress Party but also as a full-blown metamorphosis of its anti-immigrant feeling. Even more influential than the DPP is the Social Democratic Party, Denmark’s most represented party for most of the twentieth century. In 2019, party leader Mette Frederiksen was voted Prime Minister, and the party also won 25.9% of Parliament seats in that election and 27.5% in the following 2022 election. Denmark’s most popular party has retained its power for the duration of what has been a particularly turbulent period for migration and security globally. Frederiksen, party leader since 2015, has been instrumental in promoting various anti-immigration policies and attitudes within the party and the Danish state. Under her leadership in 2016, the Social Democrats voted in favor of a law that allowed the confiscation of money, jewelry, and other valuable items from newly arriving refugees crossing the border. This law empowered the Danish police to strip search refugees and seize from their luggage any belongings worth over 10,000kr ($1450). The law was not received well publicly and even garnered condemnation from the United Nations Human Rights Council as well as comparisons to the treatment of Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe (“Denmark Faces Backlash…,” 2016). The legislation came into effect in February 2016 and had been used 17 times by Danish police as of June 2022 (“Danish Police…,” 2022). The Danish Parliament decided that the law should not apply to Ukrainian refugees (“Denmark Plans…,” 2022). In 2018, the Danish Parliament, of which the Social Democrats were the majority, passed a policy document, “One Denmark without Parallel Societies: No Ghettos in 2030,” that aimed to eliminate “ghetto areas” by 2030 (Risager, 2022). “Ghetto” is defined in this document as a community meeting at least three of five criteria. One criterion was that “the share of immigrants and their descendants from nonWestern countries is higher than 50%” (Nørgaard, 2018). The clear intent of this effort was to eradicate living spaces that overwhelmingly housed non-white people. Most recently in 2021, Denmark was the first European country to declare Damascus and neighboring regions “safe to return to.” The result of this conclusion was the revoking of residency permits for refugees from Syria (Denmark Declares Plans…, 2021). Political agendas and associated messaging such as these, enacted by the Social Democrats, have influenced social attitudes toward immigrants, in turn affecting the ways they are treated in their dayto-day lives. Social attitudes: “multiculturalism” and other dirty words Although justifications are sometimes attempted for Denmark’s anti-immigration political action, certain other historical and societal contexts suggest that those policies emerge from prejudiced ideas about who black and brown immigrants are. These prejudices are frequently conveyed through the media and use of language and can be best understood with some revealing examples. One well-known instance of the use of media and language to promote cultural bias is the Muhammad cartoon crisis of 2005. On September 30, 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published cartoons depicting a principal figure of Islam, Muhammad, in several different situations. Under the headline, “Muhammeds ansigt,” which translates to “The Face of Muhammad,” are 12 representations of the Prophet Muhammad, including Muhammad with a lit bomb in his turban and the Islamic creed shahadah2 written on the bomb as well as another representation of Muhammad on clouds as if in Heaven, greeting freshly arrived suicide bombers with text that translates to, “Stop, stop, we have run out of virgins!”3 (Henkel, 2010), clearly conveying a harmful and generalized representation of Muslims as suicide bombers and terrorists. Owing to both the perceived offensive nature of the cartoons themselves and Islam’s tradition of aniconism, the cartoons ignited protests in Muslim communities around the world. These cartoons came at a time of heightened concerns about Islamic terrorism and radicalism post-9/11 and revealed the image of Muslims prevalent in the Danish zeitgeist 2An Islamic oath that reads, “I bear witness that there is no god but God, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the messenger of God.” 3In reference to the reward of 72 virgins (known as Houris) promised to Islamic martyrs (called Shaheed or Shahid). Original text reads: Stop Stop vi er løbet tør for Jomfruer!
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTA0OTQ5OA==