Just a friendly conversation

Are selective citizenship interviews protecting Danish culture or harassing Muslims?

The Danish Parliament’s Citizenship Committee (Indfødretsudvalg), for the first time, has summoned individual applicants to interviews (DK). Some think it may be a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The vice chair resigned in protest.

About those tweets … Photo: fotor.com..

Denmark has an unusual procedure for granting naturalized citizenship. Twice a year, after applicants have fulfilled all the objective requirements, their names are placed on a bill that is voted into law by Parliament. The extensive requirements include nine years’ residence in Denmark, language facility, employment, citizenship test,¹ no criminal record, and a loyalty oath (DK) (by digital signature).

Even after clearing these hurdles, you’re not done until you shake hands (DK)² with a municipal official in a “constitutional ceremony,” which can be a sore test for Muslim women, who are normally forbidden to shake hands with men.

Some 2,000 people are listed on the current bill, and three of them were flagged by the Committee for interviews to ascertain whether their beliefs and attitudes comport with democratic Danish values. They were singled out mainly because of inflammatory remarks on social media.

Crusader against intolerance?

The leading proponent of this innovation is Committee Chair Mikkel Bjørn of the anti-immigration Danish People’s Party. Bjørn, whom I reported on last year challenging the administration’s gender-affirming healthcare policy, has made inflammatory statements of his own (DK) about Muslims. He argues that the interviews give Parliament a better opportunity to ensure that Danish passports aren’t issued to “terrorism-sympathizers and criminals.”

As Bjørn told Parliament last month, one of these applicants applauded the death of Lars Vilks, one of the Mohammed cartoonists, and protested the law banning burkas by posting “You should do something about your homosexuality instead" (DK).” The Committee received 1,700 pages of documentation about the three applicants.

A divided committee

In a confidential memo, the Ministry of Justice has questioned whether the interviews violate two articles of the ECHR: article 8, which “ensures the right to respect for private life,” and article 14, which prohibits discrimination. Committee Vice Chair Helene Brydensholt of the left-wing Alternative party, who resigned, criticized the interview process as being arbitrary and depending on the individuals on the Committee and their shifting moods.

The Committee consists of 17 members, nine belonging to the three parties in the SVM governing coalition. Of these, the Social Democrats’ citizenship spokesperson has endorsed the practice, while a Liberal Party member also expressed concerns and resigned. Mohammed Rona, the one member from the Moderates party, reserved judgment until after the hearings.

Have you committed any terrorist thought-crimes lately?

The interviews took place this past week. The Committee members were able to question each applicant (DK), for example:

“Should homosexuals be allowed to hold hands and kiss on the street?”

“If your child had a boyfriend or girlfriend who was not a Muslim, what would you say?”

“What do you think is the most important value in a democracy?”

The one woman applicant left the meeting room in tears. Peder Hvelplund of the Red-Green Alliance used his allotted time to apologize to the applicant for having him “dragged through a shameful process.” Afterward, he said it was the most uncomfortable, awkward, and intimidating experience he had ever seen in Parliament. Mikkel Bjørn, on the other hand, thought it had been a very good dialogue.

Choosing sides

After the hearings, the Danish People’s Party proposed that two of the three interviewees be removed (DK) from the bill’s list because they “expressed viewpoints and values that are not consistent with … Danish citizenship.” Rona disagreed (DK), saying he didn’t think the interviews were worthwhile or necessary and that he wouldn’t vote for an amendment to reject the two applicants.

The right-wing Liberal Alliance party wants to go even further: a screening for “democratic values” (DK) should become a standard citizenship requirement, and it is withholding support for the bill encompassing all 2,000 of the current applicants unless the administration agrees. What will the Social Democrats do?

The outcome of the interviews won’t be known until the bill is presented in Parliament on 19 December. If any applicants are denied citizenship, they will have no judicial recourse because the Danish Constitution vests authority to grant citizenship solely with Parliament.

When does a country owe someone citizenship?

Michael Barret, the editor of The Local, a leading English-language publication, questions the assumption that “Danish citizenship is a ‘gift,’ something you ‘earn the right to.’” He maintains that, if you’ve met the criteria and contributed to Danish society, “there comes a point when Denmark owes you citizenship–or at least a democratic voice,” and it is problematic for politicians to judge “whether or not you are democratic enough.”

Well, doesn’t completing the obstacle course of requirements—learning Danish language and culture, contributing to society by working—amount to “earning” citizenship? Whether an applicant’s respect for democratic values should be interrogated is different question. In a period with ethnic tensions and efforts to integrate “parallel societies,” investigating possible hate speech isn’t completely farfetched.

Denmark has seen a wave of antisemitic incidents (DK) since 7 October 2023, and Jews are warned not to wear religious symbols on the streets. In earlier opinion polls, nearly 40 percent of Danish Muslims thought Danish laws should be based partly on the Koran.

An earned gift

But as Barret notes, it’s not self-evident that politicians are the best qualified to evaluate applicants. When I applied for citizenship in 2016, I had to deliver the application to the local police and answer a few questions. That seemed reasonable and appropriate, although I had the advantage of being a “Westerner.”³ If these hearings are a publicity stunt, they’ve accomplished their purpose of underscoring the current administration’s hard line on immigration. Meanwhile, the practical lesson is the same one we tell our kids when they begin to apply for jobs: Clean up your social media history.

Although the EU Court of Justice has ruled against imposing unreasonable restrictions on citizenship applicants who have been long-term residents, there are no legal precedents that require sovereign nations to grant naturalized citizenship to immigrants. Arguments can be made for a moral claim to “earned citizenship,” but the determination rests with the policies of individual states.

1. The citizenship test itself has been controversial, varying in difficulty under conservative and left-wing administrations, with questions on topics ranging from historical monarchy trivia to contemporary pop-culture. Sample tests in newspapers have shown that many “ethnic Danes” would not have passed.

2. Introduced in 2019, the handshake rule (“without gloves, palm-to-palm”) has been controversial. In an opinion poll, it was opposed by 52 percent of the Danish population.

3. They like to see that people volunteer in foreninger (the popular recreational clubs and other associations). I learned that I’d earned Danish points in a stint as assistant coach of my son’s peewee soccer team.