The history of the first interviews about Danish mentality

Juman is a volunteer lawyer at Refugees Welcome and was the only legal assistant for one of the 3 much discussed interviews with the citizenship committee. Here she describes the process, and some ...

"Would you ban the Muhammad cartoons if you could decide legislation?”

This was one of the questions from a member of the citizenship committee to an applicant for Danish citizenship during the famous 'voluntary' interview with the committee on December 4th. The applicant fulfilled all the objective criteria to obtain Danish citizenship - including legal residence in Denmark for over 8 years, 3 1/2 years of full-time work and passed tests in Danish and citizenship tests. Nevertheless, with only one week's notice, he was summoned to an interview with the committee to be assessed on his "Danish mentality" and views on democratic values.

The interviews

As a bystander to the conversation, I was shocked by the questions that were asked. Hans Andersen's question stood out in particular. Not only because it was irrelevant – in Denmark it is not up to a single person to ban something, but a democratic majority – but also because of its ironic undertone. How can a government that has recently limited freedom of expression by banning burnings of the Quran think that the right to show cartoons of Muhammad is a test of "Danish mentality"?
 
It all seemed like an attempt to put the applicant in a bad light. But it also raises a bigger question: What exactly is "Danish mentality"? If you ask that member of the committee, this means accepting Mohammed drawings – but not Quran burnings. Does this mean that Danes who believe the opposite do not have the right mindset?

"You say all the right things,
but I doubt that you mean it"

This was a closing question from another committee member, Thomas Skriver Jensen (S). The applicant had nervously stammered his answers to all questions, but was here faced with a form of mistrust which cannot be contradicted. How can anyone defend themselves against such a claim?

To me, this question sums up everything that is wrong with the process. How can an applicant prove his will to be a Dane? When all the requirements are met and this is still not enough, what is required? Instead of assessing applicants on clear, objective criteria, Danish citizenship is reduced to a test based on the committee members' personal attitudes. It is a democratic and rule of law problem.

Much ado about nothing?

In the end, all three applicants will be granted their citizenship after a nerve-wracking and highly confusing few weeks, where they were subjected to unpredictable and chaotic processing and political proposals flew through the air. Liberal Alliance put forward a few radical proposals for tightening the requirements, while the Danish People's Party and the Conservatives tried to remove 2 of the applicants from the list by means of an amendment to the original citizenship bill. The government admittedly rejected it during the second reading, but at the same time introduced a new and potentially even more problematic initiative: an expert panel must investigate the possibilities for a permanent screening scheme.

The idea of ​​a screening scheme may sound appealing to some, but it is unlikely to make the process fairer or more transparent. On the contrary, we risk introducing another layer of subjective assessments, where the committee can select the positions they find acceptable and reject those they do not like, even if they are within the framework of the law.
 
However, it is not a new thought, but something that was already put forward as a wish under Inger Støjberg (V) in 2018 and was mentioned in the current circular from 2021 under Mattias Tesfaye (S), but which has never been investigated or put into action. Kaare Dybvad Bek (S), who will set up the investigation, points to a large number of practical, ethical, economic and legal questions: "How far back in time?" Which media? Is it only while people have been in Denmark? What if there are other people who have the same name or people have created a fake social media profile? How do you check that you don't confuse several different people? Which words should be screened for? How do you make sure that those words are legally sustainable in the way that they are not only things that are related to Muslims, for example. After all, it will have to be a screening which has a factual starting point'.

Inquiry from a citizen

How did the whole thing start? It started when a private citizen had seen the list of people who met all the criteria and were thus ready to obtain Danish citizenship by law. This citizen apparently chose to spend a significant amount of time going through their Facebook profiles and then found 3 people who had written something that provoked him – even though their statements were within the scope of the law.
 
Zenia Stampe (R) has found this citizen. He has written in public that 'Muslims have an underdeveloped and inbred low culture and should not be allowed to live in Denmark'. Furthermore, he believes that it should be legal to beat one's children and that 'youth workers should endure a slap in the behind'. On that basis, it seems likely that he has only examined Facebook profiles of applicants with names that suggest a Muslim background. Something similar can be said about the chairman of the Citizenship Committee, Mikkel Bjørn (DF), who has repeatedly asked the minister questions about applicants' activities on social media and, among other things, have problematized posts written in Arabic or the use of a Palestine flag as a profile picture.
 
This apparently selective approach raises serious questions about the legal certainty of the process. When individual applicants are selected on the basis of their names or presumed background, a distortion is created that goes against the principle of equal treatment. It should not matter what ethnicity, religion or background an applicant has, as long as they meet the objective requirements of the legislation.
 
On the basis of the citizen's inquiry, the Social Democrats members of the committee suggested that interviews should be held with those concerned about the positions they had expressed, and have their "Danish mindset" tested. Thus, no legal basis had been adopted for the new procedure, which was also referred to by the chairman as "a pilot project".

Refugees have a special right

Citizenship has always been an important topic for us at Refugees Welcome, as the Refugee Convention requires states to facilitate refugees' access to new citizenship. Something that Denmark does not live up to. We became involved in this case from the start, when one of the applicants contacted us and asked to have one of our lawyers join him for the interview. However, there was doubt as to whether it would be allowed, as the letters stated that the applicant had to appear alone. However, I was granted permission as we applied in advance. A well-known lawyer was denied access to accompany another applicant, probably because it was unannounced. Sound recording was another matter. I chose to ask the committee members if anyone had any objection to me recording the conversation – and when Hans Andersen (V) objected, even if he was the only one, I decided not to, so as not to harm the applicant.
 
The chairwoman for Refugees Welcome participated in the debate on national radio and TV, and Politiken brought her op-ed about the subject on December 2nd.

Chairwoman Michala Clante Bendixen (in the middle) protested together with the organisation Fair Statsborgerskab in front of Folketinget, while the first interview took place.

Freedom of speech or mind control

The statements on Facebook that led to the interviews were about homosexuals, the police, Mohammed cartoonist Lars Vilks and the death of Saddam Hussein – but all were within the scope of the law. One of them was posted 10 years ago, while the applicant was still in the asylum centre.
 
The questions that the committee were, among other things, about what the applicant would do if his daughter fell in love with a non-Muslim, or if he saw two men kissing in public. The committee had also found quotations which the applicant was not prepared for. He applications were also asked about their position on Sharia law in relation to Danish law, even though the quotes from Facebook had nothing to do with it.
 
This newly invented practice raises several serious freedom of speech problems. Firstly, it calls into question whether the applicants' freedom of expression is really respected when fully legal statements, which may even be years old, are used to cast doubt on their Danish state of mind. It risks creating a culture where some people end up being restricted in their right to express themselves freely for fear that their views may later be used against them, even if those views are within the bounds of the law.
 
Questions about a daughters' potential boyfriend or the sight of two men kissing are both transgressive and irrelevant in relation to the applicant's qualifications as a citizen. It expands the role of the state to monitor and assess the personal attitudes of individuals.
 
Finally, there is a problem with the coherence of the committee's questions. When applicants are asked to explain positions on Sharia law, even if their previous statements do not touch on the subject, it signals a bias that undermines the credibility of the entire process. It creates a slippery slope where specific groups risk being held responsible for stereotyping and generalizations.
 
Personally, I do not share the applicants' views and find them both distasteful and offensive. But even if I don't share their views, I fight for their right to express them. A rule of law shows its worth in how it treats those it doesn't like – and you don't do that by letting subjective and biased assessments decide their future. Enforcing free speech and equal treatment means respecting lawful speech, even if it provokes or causes discomfort. It is a fundamental prerequisite for a society governed by the rule of law.

Rule of law and democracy

If we insist on talking about "Danish mentality", perhaps we should first clarify what it really means – and whether it can be defined at all. A democracy should have room for a wide spectrum of attitudes, also on democracy as a form of government, as long as it is within the framework of the law, not harming others.
 
The legitimacy of the interviews carried out can be questioned, as they are not mentioned in the legislation and thus appear to be an arbitrary practice. The committee claims that the interviews are voluntary, but how can they be when the applicants face a committee that has the power to reject their application without reason?

The process should be transparent and clear so that applicants know in advance that such conversations may take place. Suddenly launching a pilot project without clear guidelines has a huge impact on the applicants. We are talking about people and their future. Being called in based on a single citizen's Facebook findings also raises questions of selectivity. If the selection is arbitrary or based on one's own prejudices, it may be in violation of human rights.
 
To maintain rule of law, the process should be clear, predictable and free from subjective judgments and informal initiatives. But fundamentally, it is a completely wrong mix of legislative and executive power when a group of parliament politicians have to act as case managers with their individual, personal sympathies as the only guideline.

Read more about Danish citizenship here:
• Op-ed by Michala Clante Bendixen in newspaper Politiken 2024 (Dan)
• Facts article about rules and practice for citizenship by Eva Ersbøll 2023 (Eng)
• Danish Institute for Human Rights about citizenship and statelessness (Dan)
• Article about citizenship and democracy by Michala Clante Bendixen 2022 (Dan)