Ahem - I believe that is overstating the case just a little.
While “Dansk Folkeparti” (Danish People’s Party) is nationalistic as well as bloody annoying, I cannot agree that it’s fascist in any other definition than the ever-beloved “right-wing and we don’t like it”. Would you perhaps care to defend the assertion that it is, indeed, fascist ?
Oh, and it wasn’t “put in power”. Government seats are held by “Venstre” (“Left” - only it’s center-right) and “Konservativt Folkeparti” (Conservative People’s Party), definitely non-fascist parties. The nationalists sometimes act as part of the governments voting block in Parliament - sometimes not. That is the extent of their power.
The borders have been closed ? I beg to differ. Rules have been tightened, true. De facto refugees, repatriation etc. - but closed ?
As for the “second-class citizen” for people of non-Danish descent, would you care to provide a cite ? I’d be very interested.
There are troubling tendencies, but could we ask for little sense of proportion, perhaps ?
I knew that someone would eventually confront me about asking that question. Well why shouldn’t a communist be concerned with immigration do you think just because I embrace this political ideology that I can’t ask these sort of questions, I mean my jewish science teacher who is a socialist, is as concerned with immigration as the next person.
Certainly, you can ask the question. However, if you do so you are not a Communist (nor is your science teacher a socialist). Your position is inherently contradictory to Marxist thought.
To make distinctions about persons on the grounds of nationality, rather than class, and to still call oneself a Communist is rather like a Catholic denying the divinity of Christ.
A portion of those that voted for LePen are those who don’t like the idea of the EU. They don’t want to give up national sovereignty.
According to Le Figaro, http://presidentielles.figaro.net/derniers/20020422.FIG0406.html
Le Pen got the majority of his votes from the unemployed (38% of them voted for him). followed by blue collar workers, (30%), 20% of the farmers, etc. Interestingly as well, the majority of those who voted for him were male, 21% of men vs. 13% of women. He draws support from the uneducated. 22% of voters who have less than a high school degree, and 22% of those that have a high school degree. He only received 85 of the vote of those who have a college degree.
Their motivation was primarily lack of security: 74 of Le Pen’s voters vs. 58% of French people. 60% of Le Pens voters mentioned immigration, 60%, and the unemployment rate. The article goes on to state that 52% of them voted for Le Pen because of his stance on the issues and 47% of them stated that they did because he stands for a change.
The article was in French, this was my on the fly translation, with some mild summarizing.
The same article states that the crime rate in France has risen dramatically in the last few years and a portion of the French population seem to blame Muslim immigrants.
As this relates to the OP, I would say that it is a combination of both. Remember that Le Pen only got 16-17% of the vote. I think that he usually gets about this much. It is just that others got less than they usually get. Many stayed home because they assumed that Jospin would get more than he really did.
Those that did vote for Le Pen voted for the reasons stated above.
After looking through Le Pen’s website, he hasn’t made a secret of his dislike for immigrants he has just buried it in prettier language.
For those that equated Bush with Le Pen, that is an incorrect analogy. Le Pen is closer to Pat Buchanan. Bush would be analogous to Chirac.
Defining any of the ‘main stream’ Nationalist parties in Europe as fascist is contentious, I agree. DF like many others do however fulfill some of what I would call basic traits of Fascism such as,
a) a belief in National superiority
b) a belief in Nationality as being a birthright and not a legal status
c) a wanton willingness to restrict basic human rights of freedom of choice, most clearly visible in the persecution of Islam in DFs case, they want to restrict freedom of speech as well (while claiming the virtue and inalienable nature of the same) which can be seen in their call for censorship of rock and other youth oriented culture
d) an outspoken desire to increase state control through increased policing and criminalization of non desirable cultural organizations, again DFs persistent demand that Islamic organizations be banned as part of a long campaign that started even before 9/11 (after which it has become…let’s say repetitive to the point of tedious).
e) an outspoken agenda of homogenizing education and culture by banning certain religious, cultural or social concepts. DFs publications, speaches and programs contain many instances of this.
And reading between the lines I get the feeling that Mrs. Kjærsgaard et al wouldn’t mind seeing a little more state control in many places although they popularly denounce the administration of waste and wanton spending. OTH, that might be me being just a little too paranoid.
I’ll counter that with a question; isn’t that enough to qualify as power? In my view it’s too much power already, but I am sure that DF supporters would disagree with me.
Closed as in that Denmark will receive no more or hardly any more immigrants or refugees. Granted ‘no more’ is still a point of negotiation. With increasing repatriation the effect will be that while a small number of refugees will be let in, a large number are being repatriated which brings the net to zero or less. We other ‘real’ Europeans can of course still move in freely, but then again I’m not so sure that DF are all too happy about that given their view of the EU. Maybe ‘closed’ is stretching it, but the opening is narrow enough to be close to closed.
Maybe I am being about as lax in my definition of citizen as Dansk Folkparti are about ‘foreigner’. But, they have on many occasions voiced their desire to ‘repatriate’ second and third generation foreigners (they switch between immigrant and foreigner in their texts to the point of making me dizzy)…now given that I don’t understand what they mean by a foreigner I don’t know if this would mean passport carrying Danes or what, in my view that’s academic though. For instance I find that the following statement by party leader Pia Kjærsgaard comes a little too close to violation of fundamental rights of anyone granted residency in a country, hence verging on degradation to second class.
My abbreviated translation:
“Excerpt from Pia Kjærsgaards article in Politiken March 4 2002. …The Danish Peoples party hence recognizes that there are foreign people in the country that cannot and should not be repatriated due to having lost their connection to the home country or because they cannot return. These people should be given a choice. Either assimilate into the Danish quotidian life to Danish standards, hence becoming useful citizens – or join a repatriation program to leave the country as fast as possible with no right to return…”
I’m sorry… but that’s dictating people cultural choices and possibly violating their fundamental human right of choice of language, religion and what-not (depending on what ‘Danish standards’ means). I’d call that degradation to second class in as much as that it sets a different standard for these people compared to the rest of the ‘general’ population.
You ask for sense of proportion, and I agree we should have proportion. To read a little more into what the Nationalist parties say openly is to have a sense of proportion. As soon as you start dissecting away the popular ho hah they hide behind, it becomes apparent to me that they represent something a little worse than just troubling tendencies. The troubling tendency is that people are voting for them while others are laying down their right to vote.
Cite is DFs own homepage http://www.DanskFolkeparti.dk It’s a little tough if you don’t read Danish or command some kind of Scandinavian, but given the nature of the party they have as of yet decided to not provide their texts in any other language.
your original statement was that the “fascist “nationalists” were put into power last autumn”. I hold that to be rather misleading.
While they do have more seats than I’d have wished for, 22 seats out of 179 does not, IMHO, put any party into power. They aren’t even part of the government, fercryinoutloud.
I know that some people are pissed that the Social Democrats got toppled and try to tell it as if pitch-black jack-booted forces of reaction have taken over, but it ain’t so.
As for them being fascist - they’re populist. They know jack sh.t about what it takes to run a country and they merrily contradict themselves whenever they think they can gather popularity - they’re a protest vote. And I’d really like to see a cite for DF calling for censorship as a matter of party policy. (I’m sure you can find some of the individual candidates claiming the Earth is flat if they thought it would win them a vote.) DF is an unpleasant phenomenon, but they do in fact have limited influence.
Feel free to speculate on what they would do if they could, but keep that speculation separated from what they are actually doing. As has happened before when fringe parties get elected, they’re learning that political reality means compromise.
Denmark has been very reluctant about accepting immigrants since 1973 - as has most of Europe, btw.
A (very) small country with generous social benefits can’t run an open-border policy. Anyway, I believe that is well within any nation’s rights to set its own immigration policy.
Refugees are another kettle of fish, of course.
I would have believed repatriation is a good thing ? But yes: Denmark is tightening the rules to the point that she’ll fulfill her international obligations (EU and UN) - no more, no less - when it comes to accepting refugees into Denmark.
I believe I agree with the first half of that sentence.