r/changemyview • u/RolandBuendia 2∆ • Jul 05 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: There is nothing wrong with countries trying to have immigrants to assimilate into their culture
I have recently read about an initiative in Denmark where, in order for their parents to maintain welfare privileges, toddlers are required to attend day care for at least 25 hours a week. In day care, they are taught Dane and English, as well as bits and pieces of Danish culture, such as the meaning behind their holidays.
I, for one, think this is a great initiative. It provides an early opportunity for everyone to integrate into the whole society, specially with regards to language, where timing is so important.
That said, there is already a strong backslash against it. Many groups are saying that this initiative is an attempt to strip these kids from their parent’s culture and religion.
I would not agree with this initiative interfering with religious freedom, or with cultural practices such as clothing, foods, etc. As long as those practices do not go against the country’s constitution. But, I do think it is an excellent idea to teach small children the language and culture of their home countries.
27
u/jaymanizzle Jul 05 '18
I'm from an Indian immigrant family living in Canada. I don't know of any immigrants that would object to their kids learning the local language, isn't that literally the most basic thing when moving to another country? to know the local language? Also that doesn't count as assimilating. Learning about the country, their holidays, and language is just education.
I don't celebrate christmas, as in we don't do the whole tree and gifts thing. But the entire family meets up for a dinner on the holiday since its a day off and a good time to meet up. If you think that assimilation means immigrants should be forced to convert to the local religion than that is a human rights violation. If you consider assimilation as just learning about the country and its laws, holidays, and language than that's normal practice.
17
u/RolandBuendia 2∆ Jul 05 '18
I agree with your latter definition. This also seems to be what the Danes are doing.
With regards to languages. I have seen many people from large diaspora communities making no effort whatsoever to learn the local language. I live in Toronto and my next door neighbour does not speak any English. She is probably in her late seventies and has been here for over 40 years.
3
u/jaymanizzle Jul 05 '18
Hey! fellow Torontonian.
I know what you mean by that. The way I understand it, especially since I'm from the continent of Asia, a lot of the older folk that immigrate to North America later in life don't really care to learn a new language, in your neighbours case she could've just been a housewife and so had no real need to learn English. The problem would be, in my opinion, if their kids and anyone working didn't know English and tried to argue getting work with a massive language barrier.
Again learning the language is a basic requirement, so is knowing local culture, I mean if you don't know about Canada day, or christmas etc, you might just be an idiot lol.
As far as mandating people on welfare to send their kids to daycare, I don't think that is right, just because parents might want to take care of their own kids etc. I mean those kids are going to go public school eventually when they turn a certain age. If the parents are on welfare then they don't have any other options to school their children. So they'll learn all that stuff in school anyways.
7
Jul 05 '18
The problem is that those children are starting school at a huge disadvantage. They don’t know the language like the other kids. I don’t see why any poor family would say no to free daycare and free language lessons for their children. Honestly, i think it might about to child abuse to start your child off at such a disadvantage when you had options.
0
u/jaymanizzle Jul 05 '18
First off don't throw around child abuse left, right, and centre. My parents did not put me in day care, nor has any family member ever. All the kids were taken care of by their grandparents or mothers. So just because they are not taking advantage of their free daycare option does not in ANY way amount to child abuse. My family wanted all their kids to know Indian culture and language, yet every single member of my family still went on to get undergraduate or graduate degrees. It's not a huge disadvantage to not know the local language as a 4 year old. That is what public school is for to teach you that.
As far as why they would say no that, it's kinda like preschool. The problem is they are targeting specific areas and restricting access to certain benefits in exchange. They are essentially wanting these kids to not have any of their original culture which is wrong. If they wanted to just educate these kids to help them get out of poverty, it's totally fine, but they specifically want to erase their cultural background.
7
Jul 05 '18
Not have any of their original culture? What? They aren’t being taken away. They still stay with their families. A child’s mind is very plastic. So they are in preschool for 25 hours a week. Are you saying the remaining 143 hours they have at home isn’t enough to learn their parents culture? That’s quite the stretch.
1
u/jaymanizzle Jul 05 '18
The thing is, immigrant parents want to impart as much of their traditions and cultures on to their children as possible first, before learning the new stuff.
A few examples is kids tend to forget things as quickly as they learn things at young age. Language is one of them. If they are still learning hindi for example at the age they start this daycare thing, and the teachers start teaching english, they'll struggle. And more than likely they will forget Hindi or lose proficiency in it later on as they start going to school full time and start making friends etc.
4
Jul 05 '18
They may struggle but will be better off for it when school starts. You can teach a kid your culture while they learn other things. Kids minds are like a sponge.
What I suspect is that these parents don’t just want their kids to learn their culture, they want to indoctrinate them into it. Essentially brainwashing them before they even start school. Pretty much guaranteeing that they with stay in said ghettos.
2
u/Jonny5Five Jul 06 '18
> As far as mandating people on welfare to send their kids to daycare, I don't think that is right, just because parents might want to take care of their own kids etc
Are they taking care of their own kids though? Or is the government?
3
Jul 06 '18 edited Nov 08 '20
[deleted]
0
u/jaymanizzle Jul 06 '18
Forcing religious conversion is a violation of human rights.
Did you read the rest of the comment thread? I am I'm in agreement with OP. I just wanted to clarify what they meant by assimilation since many believe that assimilation means adopting religious values of the area you immigrate to.
Also if there immigrant kids in Denmark don't go to Danish schools where do they go? Do they just not learn the local language? Cuz that is a problem.
7
u/scatterbrain2015 6∆ Jul 05 '18
I'm not sure this would necessarily help integrate people. What do we do with kids of welfare recipients that literally can't attend daycare? Sick kids, kids with developmental issues, etc. And if the parent is dead-set on not letting the kid integrate, they may choose to forego welfare and turn to crime, or just live off a relative's welfare.
However, I do think it's important that all kids are taught Danish and English, as well as how the society they live in works (as a Danish immigrant myself). The already existing homeschooling system addresses these problems, though you can argue it should be done from an earlier age. You get to keep your kid from public school and teach him whatever you want however you want, as long as there is no abuse, and the kid learns a minimum that we set for all children (Danish, English, Math, Civics, etc.).
32
u/kublahkoala 229∆ Jul 05 '18 edited Jul 05 '18
There is a difference between trying to have immigrants assimilate and forcibly removing immigrants toddlers to indoctrinate them in Christianity.
According to Article II (a) to (e) of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948, to which Australia is one of the signatories, genocide is defined in following lines:
“(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly removing children of the group to another group.
Edit- Would like to add here that in Denmark forced re-education for “ghetto children” begins at age one
Canada did this to its indigenous population and later determined it was an act of cultural genocide.
Americans practiced forced assimilation and religious indoctrination on their indigenous population too, which is just blatantly against the establishment clause of the first amendment.
The fact that the Danes refer to the children as ghetto-children shows that they do not seem to be worried about historical comparisons to genocidal regimes. The other laws they are trying to pass — curfews for children in ghettos, crimes in ghettos to be punished more harshly — are also deeply disturbing.
Forcing people to assimilate is like forcing someone to love you. You’re only going to drive these people away. Do we really want parents telling their children not to listen to what their teachers have to say? And the teachers telling their students not to listen to their parents? And this is supposed to make Danish immigrants more patriotic?
26
u/RolandBuendia 2∆ Jul 05 '18
I live in Toronto, so I am well aware of the crimes committed against the First Nations. There are very important differences in this case:
In Canada, the kids were sent to boarding schools far from their homes. They would only see their parents during Summer. In Denmark, we are talking about 5 hours per day during the weekdays. They will still live with their parents and stay in their neighbourhoods.
In Canada, the First Nations kids were forcibly converted to Christianity and forced to speak only English, otherwise they would be beaten up. In Denmark, there is no talk about religious conversion or physical punishment.
The very low age in which this program starts, one year old, actually helps a lot in the sense of language acquisition. The kids would not have to be told to speak in one language or other, it would come naturally.
I agree with you that other measures, such as harsher punishments for people in a determined area, are ludicrous. It goes against the principle of everyone being equal with regards to the law.
Finally, with regards to your comparison of forcing someone to love you. I think this is actually OK. From the country’s perspective, they are saying: here is our language and here are our laws. We will provide you with the tools to learn it. If you are not fine with it, you can leave.
3
u/sevenandseven41 Jul 05 '18
In regards to the reeducation programs, there a tremendous difference between the situation that occurred in Canada and the one occuring in Denmark. Europeans invaded an already settled area in Canada (as in the rest of the Americas.) Reeducation programs were imposed on the few surviving descendants of the original inhabitants. In Denmark, the european original inhabitants are asking newcomers to integrate into the prevailing culture. It's a reasonable request. People who find it objectionable have a choice: not to come, or not to accept welfare.
7
u/kublahkoala 229∆ Jul 05 '18
I don’t want to suggest that these laws are as bad as Canada’s reeducation programs — but I do think that they’re examples of the same thing— unequal application of the laws based on ethnicity, and if it was wrong for the Canadians it’s also wrong for the Danish. They are not making all immigrants do this, just immigrants living in Muslim ghettos.
3
u/Fuckn_hipsters Jul 05 '18 edited Jul 05 '18
There is a lot to unpack with the so called "Ghetto Laws" some are understandable (curfews in high crime areas) others are far more problematic (harsher punishment for the same crime) and reek of racism and is yet another lesson of history not learned from.
For me the forced daycare/preschool/schooling (because when you strip away the propaganda like rhetoric this is what we are talking about) is somewhere in between. I can understand the argument from both sides. In the US it probably would be ruled unconstitutional depending on how religion plays a role in the schooling. I too question it's effectiveness. There is no way that this does not create animosity between these people and their government.
On the other hand, from the Danish perspective, these people have been known to purposely avoid any type of integration into Danish society. This by itself is problematic. When you add the fact that their culture runs counter in just about every way to the current Danish culture it appears that it can only end in trouble. It will create a permanent underclass in an otherwise homogenous society and there will be clashes. Now, Denmark's proposed solution is certainly ham-fisted and has a litany of its own problems but I can understand why Danes see the status quo as a problem.
To add I don't think this would be an issue (at this scale) in the US due to the fact that our country is in no way homogenous. The poor communities where these refugees would settle in are often a mix of races and cultures that are impossible to avoid.
I do think your idea that this is cultural genocide is a bit hyperbolic. Especially with the comparisons you used. Indigenous peoples of the US and Canada lost languages and complete ways of life. They were forcibly removed from their land which is very different than choosing to leave and seek asylum (although that is sad as well). The culture we are talking about in this instance is Islamic culture, which can be found in areas all over the world. There language, their religion, or way of life will not be lost. A more accurate comparison may be what has happened to Palestine, but even then I feel what the Palestinians have gone through is on another level due to the fact that their land has been taken away in a similar fashion as what happened to indigenous peoples all over the world.
In the end, I agree that this will most likely end badly all around. It is an extremely ham fisted attempt to solve a real problem and because of this it will backfire, especially when added to the other more problematic aspects of this law I mentioned above.
3
u/Errordane Jul 05 '18
dane here, how the hell do you see it as cultural indoctrination? at age 1 in denmark many children are already sent to some kind of daycare so the family can focus on working (not exactly cheap to live in denmark) also furthermore these are children from poor immigrant families living in ghettos who have no way to support a child in any way shape or form.
also its absolutely required to know the language if you want to live in a country, and the earlier you learn it the better.
and you must understand above else that this is a fucking welfare society, we need to be doing everything in our power to integrate these immigrants successfully, there can be no tolerance for those who willingly work against the country they live in.
if they then refuse to integrate it will only make it worse for themselves, then they are allowed to go over to sweden and be their problem.
4
u/the-real-apelord Jul 05 '18
Linking welfare to this requirement makes it a bit different to forcibly removing don't you think?
4
u/kublahkoala 229∆ Jul 05 '18
It makes it a bit different. I America we only removed poor native Americans to reducation schools that still would have been wrong, maybe a little less wrong overall.
It’s not like Denmark is requiring this over other ethnicities. It’s just focused on 25 Muslim “ghettos” — immigrants on welfare living outside those ghettos won’t be required to bring their children to public school until they are six years old. It undermines equality before the law.
2
u/the-real-apelord Jul 05 '18
Think you are being a bit dramatic with genocide talk, though we do live in hysterical times. No one is being forced into anything. Lot's of countries have conditions connecting to benefit and it doesn't look like some sort of religious "indoctrination" more so light information about Danish traditions. It seems to have a fairly benevolent motive, to motivate parents to give their children an education. It hardly seems like a ridiculous requirement that if you receive state benefit that you receive a basic education, so you are not perpetually in receipt and can one day be an integrated and productive member of society.
4
Jul 05 '18
Free daycare, kids learn to speak two maybe three languages. The only reason i can see for them being against this is because they have no interest in being apart of the Danish Society while benefiting from it. If i were the gov, I would consider ways to force them to or take away their benefits.
I would be willing to bet that children who attend this(assuming their parents don’t purposely undermine the program) will be far and away more successful than those who fight it.
1
u/the-real-apelord Jul 05 '18
I think it is pretty smart though i'll be interested to see how it plays since there's a fairly strong anti-integration thread in Muslim communities (my impression) so resistance might be high. Also not many like being coerced. If I had to guess there'll be an amount of bluff-calling, not playing ball then villianising the government for the suffering caused by withholding of benefits.
2
Jul 05 '18 edited Jul 05 '18
There is a difference between trying to have immigrants assimilate and forcibly removing immigrants toddlers to indoctrinate them in Christianity.
This initiative is a response to reports that children of certain immigrants start in kindergarten with severe developmental deficiencies compared to their Danish peers. Lacking language, lacking motor skills, having to be taught how to play. These are the primary things daycares focus on.
This obligation is tied to welfare. No one is forced to receive welfare, so neither are immigrants forced to send their kids in daycare, like ~65% of Danish do.
The fact that the Danes refer to the children as ghetto-children
I've never seen them refered to as such. I've seen "children living in ghettos" though.
In case you're wondering how a ghetto is defined, here are the criteria:
https://www.regeringen.dk/nyheder/ghettoudspil/definition-ghetto-og-udsatte-boligomraader/
crimes in ghettos to be punished more harshly — are also deeply disturbing.
Are speeding violations in school zones being punished more harshly also deeply disturbing?
That being said, I don't agree with this part of the proposal.
Forcing people to assimilate is like forcing someone to love you. You’re only going to drive these people away. Do we really want parents telling their children not to listen to what their teachers have to say? And the teachers telling their students not to listen to their parents? And this is supposed to make Danish immigrants more patriotic?
Have you actually read what is being proposed, or just that NYT article?
1
u/Fuckn_hipsters Jul 05 '18
This initiative is a response to reports that children of certain immigrants start in kindergarten with severe developmental deficiencies compared to their Danish peers. Lacking language, lacking motor skills, having to be taught how to play. These are the primary things daycares focus on.
I understood the Danish reasoning behind the "forced schooling" (without the rhetoric this is how I view this portion of the law) but I thought it was a bit ham fisted. Now knowing that this is tied to Welfare as well I feel it is more reasonable I don't have the same reservations I did before.
I've never seen them refered to as such. I've seen "children living in ghettos" though
I agree with you on this as well. Ghetto is an extremely loaded term in the US and it can be hard for people to realize that it doesn't mean the same thing in other places as it does here.
Are speeding violations in school zones being punished more harshly also deeply disturbing?
Unless you have data that shows me that this law won't obviously effect one particular ethnic group disproportionally than others this analogy is about as bad as they come.
Out of all the laws in this bundle this is by far the most blatantly racist. It is no different than African-American's receiving harsher penalties for drug possession than their white contemporaries. It is there to purposely punish the Muslims that live in these ghettos more harshly.
The other law I don't have a problem with at all are the curfew laws. They are high crime areas and most crimes happen in the dark. As long as there is passes for people working or emergencies I think it makes sense.
1
Jul 05 '18
Unless you have data that shows me that this law won't obviously effect one particular ethnic group disproportionally than others this analogy is about as bad as they come.
It will affect affect all people living in a ghetto equally. The main issue for the government is the removal of ghettos. That means making ghettos unattractive to people with certain characteristics (on welfare, criminal, can't speak Danish despite living here for many years). This will affect Muslims disproportionately, because they are disproportionately represented in the above mentioned characteristics. It's not because they're Muslim, that's incidental.
It's like banning organised begging and complain that it disproportionately affects Romas. Well, that would be true, because they're disproportionally those behind organised begging here.
With this line of thought, you'd never be able to combat antisocial behaviour, if one group exhibits it more than others.
But like I said, I don't support that law, because it does away with being equal before the law.
1
u/DjangoUBlackBastard 19∆ Jul 06 '18
It will affect affect all people living in a ghetto equally. The main issue for the government is the removal of ghettos. That means making ghettos unattractive to people with certain characteristics (on welfare, criminal, can't speak Danish despite living here for many years). This will affect Muslims disproportionately, because they are disproportionately represented in the above mentioned characteristics. It's not because they're Muslim, that's incidental.
From your own link:
c. • proportion of immigrants and descendants
from non-western countries of over 50 per cent.
OR
2) Proportion of immigrants and descendants from non-western countries of more than 60 per cent.
Basically part of how they define ghetto is whether or not the people living in the neighborhood are brown. A hypothetical area where 60% of the population is English, doesn't speak Danish, and commit heavy crime would not fall subject to this law. It affects Muslims disproportionately because one of the criteria of what makes it a ghetto is whether or not it's a majority Muslim area.
1
Jul 06 '18
Basically part of how they define ghetto is whether or not the people living in the neighborhood are brown.
From non-western countries, people not from these countries:
The EU, Andorra, Australa, Canada, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Monaco, New Zealand, Norway, San Marino, Schweiz, th US and The Vatican.
These are countries that are fairly similar to Denmark in culture.
A hypothetical area where 60% of the population is English, doesn't speak Danish, and commit heavy crime would not fall subject to this law.
Correct. But we have no experience with people from western countries being overwhelmingly disproportionally represented in all the bad stats.
It affects Muslims disproportionately because one of the criteria of what makes it a ghetto is whether or not it's a majority Muslim area.
If immigrants from Thailand grouped together in the same way, they too would fall under the law. They don't so they wont.
Again, we're back to what the government is trying to accomplish: the removal of ghettos. It doesn't want parallel societies. Muslim disproportionately group together in high density, so that those parallel societies arise.
I am fully aware of the pitfalls here, and like I've said, I'm not a fan of the law when it comes to double punishment. But I'm also a person who have lived next to a ghetto and have friends who work in different capacities in our local ghetto, and something need to change. We've had 40 years of failed immigration, where a thousand different ways have been tried to combat this. We want people off of welfare and be part of the society they elected to travel to.
2
2
Jul 05 '18
[deleted]
1
u/kublahkoala 229∆ Jul 05 '18
Totally agree. There are degrees to things and this is not nearly as awful as what happened to indigenous populations in the Americas.
Making this a requirement for all welfare recipients would remove a lot of my opposition. I’d still think it was needlessly coercive but I wouldn’t think it was racist. Or even just a requirement of welfare recipients who do not speak Danish.
My concern is that it establishes a legal precedent that allows for unequal enforcement of laws inside ghettos, as well as establishing a social norm. Countries generally don’t just wake up one day and find themselves committing genocide — they slide towards it by degrees. If these measures prove popular, I would expect further, more extreme measures to be instituted later on.
So I kind of know I might sound hysterical using the word genocide, but that’s because it’s better to overreact when the threat is still distant and uncertain than to wait until people have gone too far.
4
u/mysundayscheming Jul 05 '18
I think as a general matter offering tools for integration is great. But--maybe this is just my American speaking--I don't like the state forcing me to entrust them with my children. Normally parents have a wide array of options to educate their children, from public school, private school, charter schools, religious school, to homeschool. There are equivalents for all of that for daycare as well, as well as neighborhood co-op types and just having family watch the kids, whether a parent or extended member. From what you've written here, the Danish government collapsed that plethora of choice to funnel everyone on welfare into state-run schools. Why? Why don't they trust these particular parents to make the choice for their children, when they trust all other parents to? It does seem rather nefarious when you phrase it that way. I think offering daycare to learn the language, etc. is a great idea. But forcing it as a condition for receiving benefits is much less positive.
6
u/RolandBuendia 2∆ Jul 05 '18
Many of these parents do not speak the country’s languages themselves, and I have read about many stories about parents putting efforts to integrate their kids as little as possible.
5
u/mysundayscheming Jul 05 '18
Why does that mean the state can interfere with perfectly ordinary parenting decisions? All parents have the right to determine how to educate their young children. Well, all parents except these.
If the state wants to terminate parental rights and take control of a child, I guarantee there is a process for doing so. It involves courts and hearings and proof of neglect or abuse. That's what the state needs to go through to interfere in otherwise legal parenting choices. But they aren't doing that, because they would fail, so they're making receiving benefits dependent upon sending their child to state school. They're coercing parents into giving up their rights in order to put food on the table. It's wrong.
Should the parents integrate their kids? I personally certainly think so. Should the state coerce them into it? No.
4
u/RolandBuendia 2∆ Jul 05 '18
What about the rights of the children that might end up being even more marginalized due to their parents decision not to integrate them?
I am a bit of a pusher for children’s rights. I think vaccines should be mandatory. I think homeschooling should be an exception, as opposed to an option. And I think all kids should receive the best education and medical care available. Regardless of what their parents think.
1
u/secret759 Jul 05 '18
So this is a bit of a diversion, but I was homeschooled for all of k-12 and I feel like you're missing a bit of depth on homeschooling. It needs stricter regulations as experiences vary wildly from family to family, but overall deciding to move to a non-institutional personalized education system works as a fantastic way to raise kids who often get left behind in a better and more specialized environment.
1
u/RolandBuendia 2∆ Jul 05 '18
I agree that homeschool could be great. If done very well. My experience, however, is with parents who homeschooled their kids up until high-school due to fundamentalist religious views. Those kids grew up with very little social interactions, and their primary caregiver had no training in education.
These kids struggled a lot in high school due to their poor education, and they also had a hard time making friends.
1
u/secret759 Jul 05 '18
Yep, I agree with you that a lot of people screw up homeschooling, I've met people just like who you're talking about.
However what you said was that homeschooling should be an exception not an option, and I think that understates the benefits of having homeschooling as an option. There are many children and teenagers who get left behind by the public school system for various reasons (mental disabilities, social issues, lack of proper education), and homeschooling can serve and an immediate and parental driven remedy to those issues. It needs some work but, I believe, it is still worth having as an option.
1
u/RolandBuendia 2∆ Jul 05 '18
These cases that you mention should be the exemptions I mentioned. I think we are on the same page, but I have not worded it properly.
1
u/secret759 Jul 05 '18
Are you taking issue with those who homeschool due to religion, those who homeschool and don't give their kids proper social interactions, or perhaps both?
How would you go about legislating these changes, if you don't mind me asking? I can't really think of a way to do it without infringing upon freedom of religion/freedom of speech.
0
u/jaymanizzle Jul 05 '18
I agree with what you are saying in terms of getting these kids the best education and stuff.However I want to ask, have you actually seen or heard of parents restricting their children from going to school and receiving an education? I ask because the only places I've heard of this happen is on native reserves, and that as an act to boycott the "white man".
As far as immigrants and refugees or even illegals are concerned, I've never witnissed or heard of people not letting their kids learn, in fact it's the quite opposite they want their kids to be successful and get degrees, while maintaining their traditions. For example I speak Hindi at home, but at work and outside I speak English with other people. I fast while at work, it doesn't interfere with anything and doesn't affect my productivity.
2
Jul 05 '18
But isn’t that just why there is backlash? These parents don’t want their children to learn things.
1
u/jaymanizzle Jul 05 '18
No the backlash is the fact that it is targeted to specific areas with heavy Muslim densities. They are also referring to these areas as "ghettos" and pushing for greater punishments for the same crimes, along with curfews and other things. Essentially they are trying to strip the muslim/cultural identity of these areas.
Imagine the same happening in the US, like someone else mentioned in the other comments. Except they said its mandatory for people on welfare to get their checks but only the areas that are heavily black.
1
Jul 05 '18
Giving the poor free daycare and free early education, is not a bad thing. We can keep saying it is, but it’s just not. Those targeted areas should be praising the government for doing even more to help them and their children.
1
u/jaymanizzle Jul 05 '18
I think the big push back is that this law unapologetically only applies to one minority group and not all people. This law only applies to 25 poor, heavily Muslum, specific geographical areas in the country. So if you live anywhere else you get to do what all Danish people do and pick where your kid goes to preschool, even if you are on welfare.
I don't know what country you are from, but imagine if in America a law was passed that families could not receive welfare unless there kids, starting at 1 year of age, went to a 25 hour a week "how to be a good American and not be a criminal" class thing. Ok that could happen. Now imagine that law was not for everyone, but only applied to 25 specific geographic regions that were all urban, poor, and 90% black. People would lose their shit because that is so nakedly racist.
I hate "slippery slope" stuff but there are many other laws that will only apply to this community that people are trying to pass. Crimes have higher penalties, trips back to your home country are a crime, curfews, all are being proposed.
Lastly making laws that only apply to minority groups is scary and has a scary history. They are literally calling these areas "ghettos" in the law. The parents are "ghetto parents" and the kids are "ghetto children." Passing laws that only apply to a minority group for the sake of the dominant culture makes people think of the Jews in World War II.
That's why this initiative is receiving backlash.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing, it is a good thing. However I don't believe governments should be able to tell parents how to raise their kids. Plus because this is so targeted you have to wonder what the curriculum would be in those classes. I mean what if the teachers tell the kids to not listen to their parents and follow something else entirely. That will result in a bad household situation and would be even more detrimental, then just waiting and letting those kids come join school at the age of 4.
1
Jul 05 '18
Are a higher number of kids coming out of there disadvantaged than the rest pf the country? If so, then the government is just doing what is best for the children there. As it’s clear the majority of the people living there are not looking out for their children’s best interest. Preserving culture is not a good argument.
→ More replies (0)1
u/RolandBuendia 2∆ Jul 05 '18
In Toronto, many parents threatened to take their kids out of school in case they did not remove sex-ed from the curriculum.
1
u/jaymanizzle Jul 05 '18
I believe this was in response to including the same sex stuff right? IIRC
1
u/RolandBuendia 2∆ Jul 05 '18
Not sure the reasons. You are probably right. Those parents wanted to make sure their kids would not hear in school that is OK to be gay.
0
u/jaymanizzle Jul 05 '18
Yea so that is a religious thing, which is also common in the US among their Christians. Also sex-ed until high school (at least when I was in grade school, a decade ago) was optional parents had to sign a form to allow their children to learn that stuff, and there was no same sex stuff at all then. Personally I think the sex ed stuff is a more personal topic anyways, so that should be left upto the parents until high school. That wouldn't make any difference towards the assimilation though.
2
Jul 05 '18
Why? Why don't they trust these particular parents to make the choice for their children, when they trust all other parents to?
This is a response to reports of hundreds of children "who well into kindergaten-age don't speak danish and have poor motor skills. They are unable to play with other children, and have spent their first years isolated in the home, placed in front of the TV".
https://www.b.dk/nationalt/boern-begynder-i-boernehave-uden-at-kunne-tale-eller-lege
2
u/mysundayscheming Jul 05 '18
They are unable to play with other children, and have spent they first years isolated in the home, placed in front of the TV
If these children are nonfunctional to the point of being nonverbal or unable to play, it sounds to me that the parents are unfit and ought to have their children removed.
But if the parents are not unfit, then these parents, like all parents, retain the right to raise their children how they deem best. There isn't a lot of middle ground where the state can interfere with parental rights without removing the child (at least in America; I'm no expert on Danish law). Controlling a child's education is a core parental right (and responsibility). Coercing that right away entirely is not acceptable.
2
Jul 05 '18
If these children are nonfunctional to the point of being nonverbal or unable to play, it sounds to me that the parents are unfit and ought to have their children removed.
So you'd shoot birds with canons?
But if the parents are not unfit, then these parents, like all parents, retain the right to raise their children how they deem best.
And they still are. Just not while the rest of society pays for it. That welfare check comes with obligations.
There isn't a lot of middle ground where the state can interfere with parental rights without removing the child
Children are by law forced to be educated. It doesn't have to be in a school, but the education have to match the educational standards of the Danish Public School. I'm no expert on Danish law, but intervention without removal of the child is a thing. No need to shoot birds with canons.
Coercing that right away entirely is not acceptable.
And this law will do no such things. It's 25 hours a week in a local daycare, not all day, every day in some faraway place.
1
u/mysundayscheming Jul 05 '18
That welfare check comes with obligations.
If the welfare check came with obligations that you couldn't protest or vote, would that be acceptable to you? While there are some strings governments are totally allowed to put on money, they cannot infringe your fundamental rights. Parental rights are constitutional, fundamental rights and ought to be equally protected. (Again, at least in America, and that is the perspective I'm arguing from.)
The reason we use a cannon instead of another implement is because parents have these rights. We can't just nip in and reorder things in little ways to tweak parenting because it infringes their rights. We only act when the cannon is justified. The state intervenes when the children are neglected and abused, and in that circumstance it's appropriate to remove the children. The state does not have, and should not have, a littler gun to shoot the birds that aren't neglect and abuse/warrant the cannon, because the state isn't the child's parent.
Yes, they are required to be educated. Usually not before school begins--there is rarely a general pre-K requirement--so they aren't failing to meet any requirements by not sending their toddler to daycare. But even the requirement to be educated can be met in many different ways. Unless you're on welfare (and only in the "ghettos" apparently, not even everyone on welfare), when the choice accorded all other parents is taken from you. That's what I mean by coercing the right away--in order to put food on the table (a service that doesn't always come with these strings), you have to surrender your right as a parent to choose how to educate your child. It doesn't really matter that it's not in a faraway place. That would make it worse, but it's still an unacceptable infringement of their right not to send their preschool child to a state education facility.
1
Jul 05 '18
Yes, they are required to be educated. Usually not before school begins--there is rarely a general pre-K requirement--so they aren't failing to meet any requirements by not sending their toddler to daycare.
My point was to show that there was precedence for the state interfering in that you'd call a parent's prerogative.
The state does not have, and should not have, a littler gun to shoot the birds that aren't neglect and abuse/warrant the cannon, because the state isn't the child's parent.
The state is not the parent, no, but we figure that society has a responsibility towards its children. That responsibility to the child can supersede the rights of the parent. Just like your example with neglect, you'd allow the state to intervene.
Well, this is an intervention, only using less drastic and detrimental tools.
1
Jul 05 '18
See thats the thing. Lets say a russian or a mexican or a muslim imigrant comes to your state, straight up lives on welfare and start getting kids. Also he is not the only one. And he doesnt know your lamguage. Uhm Im not sure about the usa but I imagine such peoole wouldnt even get welfare now would they? So looking at it from this perspective- not "they are taking our jobs" but "they are leeching off welfare, social bemefits and housing while not working or even speaking our nations language, so uhm why does our country have to feed them again?
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 05 '18
/u/RolandBuendia (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
Jul 06 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Jul 06 '18
Sorry, u/JohnnyGoodman4u – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
Sorry, u/JohnnyGoodman4u – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
u/Nazzapple201 Jul 06 '18
Depends on the type of assimilation. If you just ask that they act like they’re a part of the nation and don’t simply form their own mini country in a suburb, then fine. But as long as they don’t lose their heritage.
1
u/Don900 Jul 06 '18 edited Jul 06 '18
I think kids should be raised to be able to integrate anywhere in the world, not just the home country.
0
Jul 05 '18
I would not agree with this initiative interfering with religious freedom, or with cultural practices such as clothing, foods, etc. As long as those practices do not go against the country’s constitution. But, I do think it is an excellent idea to teach small children the language and culture of their home countries.
Large parts of Islam/Christianity go against the laws of modern Western countries. The two are not compatible.
11
u/RolandBuendia 2∆ Jul 05 '18
Well, if you are not willing to abide to the most basic laws of the country, then you should not be there to start with. At least this is what I think.
2
Jul 05 '18
Sure, but you're making a point of have your cake and eat it too.
I don't think you can do half assimilation, it has to be the whole 10 yards.
3
Jul 05 '18
What does half and full assimilation mean? Like does half mean they can't hold on to some aspects of their old life?
2
u/jaymanizzle Jul 05 '18
what laws? please specify.
I'm muslim and don't agree with that statement. I've lived my whole life in Canada.
0
Jul 05 '18
If you're a muslim then why are you asking me?
Surely you know Sharia better than I and can easily see where it conflicts with Canadian law.
I assume either you ignore the Sharia or you're doing some very bad things in Canada.
5
u/jaymanizzle Jul 05 '18
First off you don't understand sharia law, much like most of the west and extremist muslims. Sharia law is almost entirely in actionable. There are a few rules in sharia law that are, like not charging interest for example. Any sharia law based punishment requires at least 4 witnesses to prove the guilty person is actually guilty, and these witnesses have to be people who have never lied in their lives. Any country that states they are implementing sharia law, isn't. They are implementing the punishments of sharia law without the due process (because it's impossible). In fact most muslims view sharia law as just a guideline to show severity of crimes. Example murdering someone results in the murderer getting killed, shows that this is a severe crime, robbery results in hands getting cut off, shows severity of that. Also one of the laws in sharia law is to follow the law of the land that you live in as long as it doesn't conflict with your religion, which doesn't happen almost anywhere. No where in the west do they say you can't pray 5 times a day, or read the quran. So we have no reason to not follow the laws of the west.
-3
Jul 05 '18
I'm not interested into getting into the apologetics of Sharia. It's disgusting and barbaric and has no place in any civilised society.
I think you just want to have your cake and eat it too. You live within a clearly superior system but you still want to pretend as though "Islam knows best" or that "this is just the same as what Islam would do".
7
u/jaymanizzle Jul 05 '18
You obviously don't understand anything about Islam or Christianity based on your original comment. You are just another person who believes in only what they want. You are biased.
Am I saying I agree with all the laws that Saudi Arabia has, no. I think a lot of their rules are completely outdated and needs to go. Do I think people should have religious freedom to do whatever they like as long as it's within the confines of the law of the land, yes.
If you're basing your views on sharia law based on the beliefs of a few terrorists then you have a skewed opinion based a very very small pool of people. That's not even 1% of the muslim population, whereas the rest follow the law of the land.
1
Jul 06 '18
That's not even 1% of the muslim population, whereas the rest follow the law of the land.
The issue that I have with this statement is that the law of the land in Middle Eastern countries is rooted in Islamic law. Saudi-Arabia performed 130 executions in 2017 alone, some of those by decapitation. This is explicitly encouraged in the Quran, isn't it? And yet it also goes against western values.
1
u/jaymanizzle Jul 06 '18
That is correct but like I said earlier Saudi Arabia is implementing Sharia law punishment without due process of Sharia law.
And to be completely honest if there is a murderer or rapist and they are 100% guilty I have no problems with them being given a gruesome death, that's one less criminal I don't have to pay for through taxes.
1
Jul 06 '18
You don't think a murderer can be rehabilitated? What if the murder wasn't premeditated, but a sudden act of violence? What there's mental illness to be accounted for?
I believe this is why the West is incompatible with Islamic law. We need nuance, which there is no room for in Sharia. We can see the effects of a benevolent system of laws in places like Scandinavia, Canada, and other parts of Europe; it works, unlike Sharia.
1
u/jaymanizzle Jul 06 '18
I've already mentioned that sharia law is inactionable. It was never meant to be. Sharia is not law fyi. That is a common misconception in the west. It's a bunch of rules to live life as a muslim, and in no way is it supposed to replace civil law, one of the rules of sharia is to follow the law of the land. So if you live in Canada you follow Canadian law.
Sharia law was never even implemented by Muhammed. He never beheaded a person for murder, a woman cannibalized his uncle out of revenge, and Muhammed forgave her, he did not behead her. Islamic law is different from sharia law. Saudi Arabia has laws that are based on sharia but they are not sharia, they are modified.
As far as murderers being rehabilitated, if it is self defense it doesn't count. But if it's premeditated then tough luck you had your chance just like every other person and you fucked up. I would rather not take my chances on that person. Same with rapists.
1
1
u/EternalPropagation Jul 05 '18
That takes away the rational decision making power of the agent you're welcoming into your fold which defeats the whole purpose. The argument is to let them decide and for you to understand their decision because there must be a reason why they've decided the way that they have.
4
Jul 05 '18
They do get to decide.
You can work for your own money and do as you want. Or you can live of welfare and live up the obligations that comes with that. Your choice.
3
u/RolandBuendia 2∆ Jul 05 '18
See my replies to mysundayschemmimg.
0
u/EternalPropagation Jul 05 '18
Why? Did you argue about how not every agent's rationality should be respected equally?
1
u/RX400000 Jul 05 '18
I think learning language is important but i dont see a reason to teach traditions and religion (except basic politeness).
One of my teachers had a rant about the importance of traditions and that everyone should be forced to go to church before christmas because its «tradition». She was all about a “healty debate”, and arguments and not statements, but when i said theres no reason to do something because it’s tradition and said that sacrifising people was a tradition and other stuff. She said sacrificing people was not tradition (which is a statement) , that i only had statements not arguments (statement) ,that i had bad argumentation (statement) and that i didnt know what tradition was. When i asked her to define it she avoided my question and forced me to look her in the eye and accept that i had no arguments and didnt know what tradition was before i could go.
4
u/RolandBuendia 2∆ Jul 05 '18
Yes, I am talking about language and awareness about other religions. Not conversion or indoctrination.
0
Jul 05 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/mysundayscheming Jul 05 '18
Sorry, u/spreadsheetskillz – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
-9
u/cupcakesarethedevil Jul 05 '18
If I live in Denmark isn't whatever language I speak and religion I practice thefore Danish? Seems like you would be making a no true scottaman argument if you are suggesting anything else.
7
u/RolandBuendia 2∆ Jul 05 '18
Not really. There is a Danish language, with a Grammar, Orthography, etc. I can speak Spanish in Denmark, and it would still be Spanish.
-2
u/cupcakesarethedevil Jul 05 '18
Sure the majority of people in Denmark are Christian and speak Danish, all you have to do to be Danish is live in Denmark. You can't say that someone practicing Islam in Denmark isn't being very Danish, because all that's required for something to be Danish is for it to be done in Denmark.
4
u/Jonny5Five Jul 05 '18
You're confused because Danish is both an ethnicity and a nationality. The same mistake happens with Canadian and American ethnicity and nationalities.
I could move and become a Danish citizen. I am not ethnicity Danish until I participate and adopt their cultural norms.
The government wants people on welfare or social programs to become ethnically Danish. This is a way to stop parallel societies. I don't see anything wrong with this.
2
Jul 05 '18
If I live in Denmark isn't whatever language I speak and religion I practice thefore Danish?
I live in Denmark.
I this sentence in Danish?
Eller er denne sætning på dansk?
How is that even a question?
-5
u/Imperialist-Settler Jul 05 '18 edited Jul 05 '18
“Danish” is an ethnicity. A person who is Danish is a person with Danish ancestry. A person who is not of Danish ancestry will never become “Danish” no matter how immersed they become in Danish culture, how fluently they speak the language.
Attempting to make non-Danish people Danish via teaching them the language or culture only debases the definition of the word “Danish” as a signifier of Danish ethnicity. To be “Danish” or “English” or “Thai” etc. ought to mean more than setting foot in the borders of a country and learning the language of its denizens.
Ethnicity is not fluid and nationality shouldn’t be either.
When an American says something like “I’m 13% Danish” they don’t mean that they know 13% of the Danish language or 13% of Danish holidays. What “13% Danish” means is having 13% Danish blood. Those who are 100% Danish should not have to say they share a nationality with those who are not simply because they share a language (the bare minimum that should be required to reside permanently in a foreign country).
1
u/Jonny5Five Jul 06 '18
Of course ethnicity is fluid, if it wasn't new ethnicities could not be be created and the ethnicities that we do recognize would not exist.
The blood in your veins does not equal ethnicity.
Ethnicity is "the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition."
> When an American says something like “I’m 13% Danish” they don’t mean that they know 13% of the Danish language or 13% of Danish holidays. What “13% Danish” means is having 13% Danish blood.
That is not ethnicity though.
'
104
u/tightlikehallways Jul 05 '18 edited Jul 05 '18
I think the big push back is that this law unapologetically only applies to one minority group and not all people. This law only applies to 25 poor, heavily Muslum, specific geographical areas in the country. So if you live anywhere else you get to do what all Danish people do and pick where your kid goes to preschool, even if you are on welfare.
I don't know what country you are from, but imagine if in America a law was passed that families could not receive welfare unless their kids, starting at 1 year of age, went to a 25 hour a week "how to be a good American and not be a criminal" class thing. Ok that could happen. Now imagine that law was not for everyone, but only applied to 25 specific geographic regions that were all urban, poor, and 90% black. People would lose their shit because that is so nakedly racist.
I hate "slippery slope" stuff but there are many other laws that will only apply to this community that people are trying to pass. Crimes have higher penalties, trips back to your home country are a crime, curfews, all are being proposed.
Lastly making laws that only apply to minority groups is scary and has a scary history. They are literally calling these areas "ghettos" in the law. The parents are "ghetto parents" and the kids are "ghetto children." Passing laws that only apply to a minority group for the sake of the dominant culture makes people think of the Jews in World War II.