0

Is this new policy of Denmark consistent with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-denmark-immigration/denmark-to-school-ghetto-kids-in-democracy-and-christmas-idUSKCN1IT1EO

It seems to conflict with Title III:

TITLE III

EQUALITY

Article 20

Equality before the law

Everyone is equal before the law.

Article 21

Non-discrimination

  1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.

  2. Within the scope of application of the Treaties and without prejudice to any of their specific provisions, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.

Article 22

Cultural, religious and linguistic diversity

The Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.

Article 23

Equality between women and men

Equality between women and men must be ensured in all areas, including employment, work and pay.

The principle of equality shall not prevent the maintenance or adoption of measures providing for specific advantages in favour of the under-represented sex.

Article 24

The rights of the child

  1. Children shall have the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well-being. They may express their views freely. Such views shall be taken into consideration on matters which concern them in accordance with their age and maturity.

  2. In all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child's best interests must be a primary consideration.

  3. Every child shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis a personal relationship and direct contact with both his or her parents, unless that is contrary to his or her interests.

4

This hasn't been tested in court, but the Danish government could argue that it was consistent.

Title 3 requires "discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited." The policy applies equally to all people living in certain areas, therefore it could be argued that none of the groups here are being discriminated against.

It also requires that "Children shall have the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well-being." It could be argued that this obliges the Danish government to act for the well-being of the child, which includes being able to communicate in Danish.

Furthermore, Denmark is required to "respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity." Whether a challenge could successfully be brought about on these grounds could depend on how the policy is implemented. It is possible to teach Danish and Citizenship while respecting linguistic and cultural diversity. On the other hand, if the policy is implemented in such a way that causes cultural suppression, a successful challenge is more likely.

It is generally established that governments can discriminate to correct unbalances in society. For example, a government could legally offer a "STEM for Girls" program, that discriminates on the basis of sex, to correct the existing lack of balance in society. On this basis, the government is allowed to focus funds on particular areas. Such targeting is not generally illegal. Targeting Danish language education at non-native speakers of Danish is not in itself illegal.

The coercive nature of the policy may be challenged. But note that there is no indication that failing to enrol in the scheme would be a criminal offence. If the policy is implemented carefully it would make such a challenge harder.

  • Yet the government explicitly states that the policy is designed to target immigrants from non-Western cultures. I don't know much about EU law, but in the US it is common to argue in court that a law is discriminatory even though it is on-face blind to race or whatever. A frequent example is a challenge to congressional redistricting wherein it is argued that the districts were drawn to disenfranchise minority voters. (Given the absurd shapes of districts they come up with, it is not hard to believe, when the effect of decreasing power of certain groups is there.) – mbsq May 30 '18 at 9:05
  • Also, taking one-year-old babies from their parents for 25 hours a week seems contestable on the basis of Article 24. Also it's just ridiculous. – mbsq May 30 '18 at 9:10
  • 2
    Edited to refer to article 22 and "cultural suppression". It is equally true that a law may be implictly discrimintory, but I note that discrimination to correct imbalances is generally permitted. It is permitted to target non-Danish-speaking immigrants when providing Danish language education. Whether this amounts to illegal discrimination could depend on implementation. My answer is that the government would have several potential lines of defence to any legal challenge. If you have a link to the original policy, rather than a media summary that would be useful. – James K May 30 '18 at 9:24
  • Compulsory cultural and religious education for babies is not anything like having a special science scholarship for women. It's not a service being offered that the babies can willfully accept. If they were offering free optional day-care for expats, that would be a closer analogy. – mbsq May 30 '18 at 12:14
0

The matter is clearly debatable. Though "news" sources tend to paint this as controversial, there is a reasonable amount of evidence that the intent and effect is to reduce inequality and discrimination.

For an alternative viewpoint on the matter, see this answer which makes reference to a primary source on goals and progress on the Danish government web site.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .