The Danish approach to migration, integration and gender equality – gendered
debates about forced and arranged marriages and the veil
Birte Siim: email: Siim@ihis.aau.dk
What is the problem?
The objective of the paper is to explore the Danish experience with gender equality,
multiculturalism and respect for diversity with a focus on gendered debates about forced and
arranges marriages and the veil. The paper discusses the Danish approach to migration and
integration and gender equality from a comparative Nordic context using an analytical citizenship
frame.
What is the problem with the Danish – and indeed Nordic approach to migration and
integration? One debate is about the relation between the welfare state and cultural homogeneity.
Some scholars argue that the problem is a question of legitimacy of the welfare state being eroded
by migrants. One argument is that cultural homogeneity is a precondition for the solidarity that is
the essence of the welfare state and that multiculturalism has a negative influence on solidarity.
Jørgen Goul Andersen (2004, 2006) has called this the ‘culture thesis’, which is challenged
by the ‘institutional thesis’ claiming that values are influenced not by culture but by the political
institutions of the welfare state. He finds no evidence for the culture thesis although he sees
Denmark as the worst case when analysing the impact of immigration on welfare support, because
social rights are based upon citizenship/residence and immigrants have not done well on the labour
market (Goul Andersen, 2004, 2006). Kymlicka (2006) agrees that there is a potential conflict
between ethnic diversity and solidarity but suggests that in many circumstances it is possible to
pursue both economic redistribution and cultural recognition. The evolution of Canadian politics
suggests that multicultural policies and social redistribution can present a stable political
equilibrium (Kymlicka, 1995; 2006).
Another debate is between gender equality and cultural diversity sparkled by Susan Moller
Okin’s challenging article (1999): Is Multiculturalism bad for women? Okin claims that
multiculturalism is gender-blind and her article emphasises the negative role of religion and
patriarchal oppression in minority cultures. This is a universalistic approach to multiculturalism that
fails to address the contextual nature of institutions like family, religion and the public-private
divide. It can be criticised because it makes culture and religion the cause of women’s oppression
1
and treats minority women as passive victims of their culture. Anne Phillips (2006) has recently
introduced an alternative approach to culture arguing that we need a new discourse about culture ‘a
multiculturalism without culture’. I suggest that the meanings of family and religion in women’s
lives is an empirical question and that issues related to gender equality, multiculturalism and
women’s rights should be explored through cross-national analysis.
The paper analyse the intersection between political institutions, discourses and culture from
a citizenship frame. The gendered debates about marriages practices and the veil explore the tension
between gender equality and respect for diversity in greater detail and illustrate how cultural issues
are framed from the Danish context. The first section introduces the citizenship frame and discusses
the challenges from migration and ethnicity to the Nordic welfare and gender models characterized
by universal social citizenship, participatory democracy and ‘women-friendly’ policies (Hernes,
1987). The second section focuses on the perceived tensions between gender equality and diversity
in the Danish and Nordic approach to migration and integration and discusses the barriers and
potentials to include minorities in society. The third section explores the gendered debates about
forced and arranged marriages and the veil. The conclusion sums up the tensions between gender
equality and multiculturalism from the Nordic context and discusses the potentials and barriers in
the Danish approach to integration and to what extent the official understandings of gender equality
tend to exclude, marginalise and assimilate minority perspectives on gender equality.
The Scandinavian context – welfare, gender and migration
Globalisation and migration has recently sparkled a debate about trans-national citizenship.
Citizenship was developed within nation states and arguably we need to add a new trans-national
dimension that regulates entrance to the territory for migrants and refugees (Soysal 1994). The
European integration processes illustrate that national histories, institutions and belongings play a
crucial role for the interaction between majority and minorities and for the formation of politics and
discourses directed towards minorities (Yuval-Davis, 1999). This has inspired studies about nationbuildings, national traditions and self-understandings (Hettne, Sørlin & Østergård, 1998) and raised
important questions about the relations between nationalism, ethnicity and gender.
Citizenship is contextual (Siim, 2000) and situated and is expressed in ‘spaces and places’
(Lister, 2003) and the citizenship frame have been an inspiration for comparative studies of welfare
state/social politics, political participation and belongings. In Koopmans & Statham’s institutional
frame (2000) citizenship is perceived both as a form of membership and ‘as a specific cultural
2
imprint on nationhood functioning as a form of symbolic closure restricting the ability of migrants
to join the national community’ (Koopmans & Statham, 2000;19). The focus is on the political
opportunity structures that different institutional frames give to citizens, non-citizens and minority
organisations from a comparative European perspective. The model1 and identify 4 ideal types
ethnicity regime: 1) Ethnic segregation, for example the German tradition, 2) Ethnic assimilation, 3)
Republican monism, for example the French tradition, and 4) Pluralist or multicultural citizenship,
for example in the Dutch and British tradition (Koopmans & Statham, 2000; 18-22).
Another example is Fiona Williams’ (1995) comparative framework that addresses the
tensions race/ethnicity, gender and class in welfare states. Her article integrates race, ethnicity and
migration into comparative social policy analysis of class and gender. Williams introduces a
framework with three interrelated dynamics underpinning the development of welfare states: the
family, work and nation and the objective is to analyse this dynamics from both a historical and
comparative perspective (Williams, 1995, 149-154). Both models can contribute to illuminate the
challenge from migration and to reflect upon the specific the intersection of gender, class and
ethnicity from the Danish context. One question is how to place the Nordic countries and whether
Denmark has a specific ethnicity/migration regime. Another question is how to analyse the relation
between migration/multiculturalism and gender equality.
One of the new challenges to the Nordic welfare model is to analyse the problems with
migration (Brochmann & Hagemen, 2005), another is how to analyse the intersection of migration,
multiculturalism and gender. The Nordic countries are thought to belong to the same welfare regime
and gender model but have developed different migration regimes. Sweden is though to be the most
multicultural Nordic country, which has recently adopted dual citizenship (Gustavssen, 2003) and a
separation of State and Church. Norway and Denmark have moved in a different direction. Some
aspects of the Danish migration regime resemble the German tradition of ‘guest workers’ while
other aspects are closer to the pluralist tradition, for example migrants’ democratic rights to vote in
local elections (Togeby, 2003). From a gender perspective one key question is what the dual
1
They differentiate between a formal-legal and a political-cultural dimension: The former is a formal and legal basis for citizenship,
the vertical dimension, which places a regime between an ethno-cultural – jus sanguines - and a territorial – jus soli - pole. The latter
is a political-cultural, the horizontal dimension, which places a regime between cultural monism (assimilation) and cultural pluralism.
The formal basis for citizenship address questions like: How difficult is it to achieve citizenship and how many rights do non-citizens
have? How extensive is anti-discrimination legislation? The political-cultural dimension address questions like: how open is a society
to cultural diversity not only formally but also in reality. It includes the recognition of cultural diversity on the following areas: a)
the educational system (e.g. the right to minority schools & special education), b) the police and the military (e.g. exceptions from
uniforms), c) the media (e.g. minority programs in foreign languages), d) religious behaviour and other religious questions (e.g.
minority burial ground, cemeteries), ethnic minority representatives in politics, the labour market (e.g. affirmative action
programmes) and cultural demands for achieving citizenship (e.g. language tests)?
3
breadwinner model, ‘women-friendly’ policies and strong gender equality discourse means for the
integration of ethnic minorities, specifically ethnic minority women
Patriarchal family forms and Nordic gender equality norms
The Nordic countries have been perceived as a gender model for other countries to follow. They
have developed a dual breadwinner model and a strong discourse about gender equality in both
public and private life (Siim, 1988), and gender equality has become institutionalised in public
politics as the official political discourse (Bergqvist et. al. 1999). The Norwegian political scientist
Helga Hernes (1987) claimed that the Scandinavian welfare states with a relatively high degree of
social equality had the potential to become ‘women-friendly’ through social policies in relation to
childcare, health care and elderly care. Feminist scholarship has illuminated similarities and
differences in the Nordic gender equality models and discussed potentials and barriers to gender
equality (Bergqvist et. al 1999). The Nordic approach to gender equality has been criticised for
being biased because it is presented as a universal model for other countries to follow (Borchorst &
Siim, 2002).
The Nordic governments have recently adopted different policies and discourses towards
migration, but feminist research indicates that there are similar tensions in the Nordic welfare
regimes between equality and respect for diversity and similar conflicts between the cultural values
and norms of ethnic minorities, including the diversity of family norms (Siim, 2003; Bredal;2004).
Post-colonial feminists have challenged the notion of ‘women-friendliness’, because it hides the
diversity between women of different race and ethnicity (los Reyes, Molino & Mulinari, 2003).
This approach has raised critical questions about the inclusion of minority women in society as
equal citizens in the Nordic countries. The dual breadwinner model and strong gender equality
norm can be interpreted as a potential for equal treatment of young migrant women, but it may at
the same time be a barrier for respecting the diversity in family cultures, norms and values. There is
a strong normative power connected to the official gender equality discourse (Borchorst & Siim
2002) that tends to exclude, marginalise and assimilate minority perspectives on gender equality
(Los Reyes, Mulinary & Stoltz, 2003). And during the 1990s both the political developments
(Holm, 2004) and media debates have contributed to reinforce the border between them and us
(Andreassen, 2004).
There is no systematic research about the intersection of gender, migration and
multiculturalism in Scandinavia. Migration research has generally been gender-blind and gender
research has tended to neglect ethnicity and race. The recent report from the Nordic Council about
4
the implications of failed migration for the future of the Nordic welfare state gives a good overview
of research in the five Nordic countries (Brochmann and Hageman 2005). It concludes that in spite
of policy differences the present marginalisation of ethnic minorities on the labour market and in
society is the major problem for all but unfortunately it neglects gender relations.
The Danish approach to migration and integration
Denmark has a civic model characterised by a cultural monism, a rather strict requirement for
citizenship of 9 years and a people's church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church. The Danish political
institutions present a mix of the dominant citizenship models - ethnic assimilation in the German
tradition and cultural pluralism of the British and Dutch traditions (Koopmans & Statham, 2000;
18-29) and public policies may be positioned between the ethnic assimilation and the cultural
pluralist pol (Togeby, 2003).
The final report from the Commission of Power and Democracy (Togeby et. al,, 2003)
concluded that problems with inclusion of migrants and refugees in democracy and their unequal
citizenship represent a major challenge to the universal welfare state and active democracy. And the
recent report from the Danish Welfare Commission (2005) indicates that the biggest problem is the
exclusion of migrant women on the labour market.
Migration issues include both asylum policies that regulate entrance to the territory and
integration legislation, i.e. the rights and obligations of those living legally in the country. Since the
general stop for migration in Denmark 1973 people have arrived as either refugees or family
members to migrants, and today the migrant population is about 6 % and the biggest groups of
Muslims are refugees or immigrants from Turkey, Yugoslavia, Pakistan and Somalia.
Denmark can be described as an extreme case because the country moved from being one
of the most liberal to being one of the most restrictive migration regimes between 1983 and 2002
(Siim, 2006). The political regulation towards migration became gradually more restrictive as the
formal naturalisation laws made access to the country for migrants more difficult. At the same time
public policies intensified efforts to integrate those living legally in the country, and Denmark
adopted its first Integration legislation in 1998 under the former Social-democratic-social liberal
government of Poul Nyrup Rasmussen. The Danish case can illustrate how the move from en open
to a strict immigration regime had dramatic effects on the discourse and regulation of ‘familyunification’ (Grøndahl, 2003). During the 1990s governments turned to immigration laws and used
5
the issue of forced marriages to legitimise a stricter immigration control in relation to family
members.2
Migration and integration have been taken up by the media since the 1970s (Andreassen,
2004) and during the 1990s it gradually become the most important issue for the population (Goul
Andersen, 2006). Increasingly cultural issues including the right to practice your own language,
religion, dress and behaviour have become sites of conflict between the majority and minority
groups (Siim, 2006). Finally migration became politicised as a key issue in the electoral campaign
in November 2001 and contributed to the change of power from the Social-Democratic and socialliberal government in power since 1993 to the Liberal and Conservative government supported by
the Danish Populist Party (Dansk Folkeparti). After the election the liberal/conservative coalition
government adopted restrictive asylum package in 2002, including new rules that restricted the
rights to family unification, and new principles about ‘integration’. The following section gives a
brief overview of key elements in the Danish approach to integration.
Anti-discrimination legislation3
The country is relatively homogeneous in relation to religion, language and ethnicity, and
immigration of guest-workers only started in the 1960s. The people's church is privileged by the
state as it is the only religious organization that can receive state subsidies or funds directly through
the tax system. Members of others faiths have argued that the system does not provide religious
equality and is unfair. Yet, allowing other religious organizations to be given the same status and
privileges as the Evangelican Lutheran Church would require changes to the Constitution.
The Danish Constitution guaranties freedom of religion (§ 67). According to the
Danish penal code hate speech is illegal according to paragraph § 266 b. This paragraph is
commonly known as the racism paragraph [racismeparagraffen]. It prohibits “threatening, insulting
or disgracing statements or propaganda against a group of people because of their race, skin color,
national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.”4 The statements have to be public or uttered or
printed with the intention of circulation to a wider group of people. Very few people have been
The “24 year provision” in the Danish Alien Act § 9 (from 2002) requires that both spouses must be 24 years before they can get a
residence permit to marry a non-citizen is exceptional has been widely criticized but there have been similar proposals and debates in
Norway (Bredal, 2004). In Norway the government in the beginning had another strategy based upon National Plan of Action on
Forced Marriages from 1998 that focused on both prevention and remedy (Bredal, 2004), but both strategies were motivated by
women’s rights.
2
3
The material in this section includes material from the country-report for the VEIL-project by Rikke Andreassen, June, 2006
Mandana Zarrehparvar, Ligebehandling, status og fremtidsperspektiver, (Institut for menneskerettigheder, 2005), 33, original text:
”forbyder truende, forhånende og nedværdigende udtalelser og propaganda mod en gruppe personer på grund af race, hudfarve,
national eller etnisk oprindelse, tro eller seksuel orientering”.
4
6
found guilty of this paragraph. Often the consideration to constitutional right of freedom of
expression has weighted more than the paragraph 266 b. Initially this law was passed in 1939, as a
reaction to the political situation in Germany. The law was revised during the mid-1960s, where it
was expanded to protect all people previously it had only been protecting Danish citizens. It was
revisited again in 1987 where it came to include sexual orientation.
Denmark also has the Law Prohibiting Discrimination because of Race etc. [Lov om
forbud mod forskelsbehandling på grund af race m.v.] This law states that ”Nobody because of their
race, skin color, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation must be discriminated by
differentiating in service or admission to all public places and premises, like transportation, hotels,
restaurants, cafés, theatres and parks.” The law was passed in 1971 and revised in 2000.5
In 1996 the Law against Discriminatory Behavior on the Labor Market [Lov om
forbud mod forskelsbehandling på arbejdsmarkedet m.v.] was passed. This made it illegal to
discriminate in employment, including discrimination in hirings and firings, against people because
of their race, skin color, ethnic origin, religion or faith, sexual orientation, age and disability. In
2004 the law was change and a board of appeal [Klagenævn] was established for complains
regarding discrimination in employment.6
In 2003 the Law about Ethnic Equal Treatment [Love om etnisk ligestilling] was
passed. The law aims at preventing discrimination and promoting equal treatment for all regardless
of race and ethnic origin. It prohibits discrimination in all private and public sectors including
health services, social services, education, access to housing, etc. The law also established a
Complain Committee for Ethnic Equal Treatment [Klagekomitéen for Etnisk Ligebehandling].7 This
law does not include discrimination because of religion, and in situations where discrimination
against veiling is interpreted as a religious discrimination it is not included here.
Furthermore Denmark has ratified several international laws preventing
discrimination. The UN declaration of Human Rights of 1948 states: “All humans are born free in
equal dignity and with rights”, and all people are entitled to these rights “without any kind of
discrimination because of race, color, gender, language, religion, political or other opinion, national
5
Mandana Zarrehparvar, Ligebehandling, status og fremtidsperspektiver, (Institut for menneskerettigheder, 2005), 34, original text:
”ingen på grund af sin race, hudfarve, nationale eller etniske oprindelse, tro eller seksuelle orientering må diskrimineres ved blandt
andet betjening og adgang til alle for offentligheden bestemte steder og indretninger, såsom transportmidler, hoteller, restauranter,
cafeer, teatre og parker”.
6 Mandana Zarrehparvar, Ligebehandling, status og fremtidsperspektiver, (Institut for menneskerettigheder, 2005), 34.
7 Mandana Zarrehparvar, Ligebehandling, status og fremtidsperspektiver, (Institut for menneskerettigheder, 2005), 36.
7
or social origin, wealth, place of births of other kind of societal belonging.”8 These antidiscrimination rights are further elaborated in different UN conventions including the UN
convention about civil and political rights (1966), the UN convention about financial, social and
cultural rights (1966), UNESCO’s convention about eliminating discrimination in relation to
education (1960), UN convention to end racial discrimination, UN convention about discrimination
against women (1979), UN’s child convention (1989), and UN’s convention about migrant workers
and their families (1992). Denmark has ratified all of these conventions except the latter.
The European Human Rights Convention (from 1953) also underscores antidiscrimination and equal treatment, and imposes on the European member states to promote human
rights, including anti-discrimination. The Council of Europe passed an additional protocol to the
European Human Rights Convention in 2000; this prohibits all kinds of discrimination in relation to
gender, race, color, language, religions, political or other opinions, national or social origin,
affiliation with national minorities, property, birth, etc. The protocol also demands that the member
states initiate arrangement aiming at preventing discrimination. The European Union has also
passed directives aiming at eliminating discrimination. In 2000, the Employment directive
regarding equal treatment in relation to occupation and employment as well as the Equal Treatment
directive about equal treatment to all regardless of race or ethnic origin. These two directives
demand the member states to implement laws which will prevent discrimination and ensure equal
treatment in the private as well as the public sectors.9
Policy debates and policy solutions - Danish exceptionalism?
The political opportunity structure for migrants to gain equal citizenship is ambiguous. From 1981
to 2002 Denmark moved from the pluralist pole towards an emphasis on assimilation of minorities
to Danish values. During the 1990s the ‘migration’ issue became a growing public concern (Goul
Andersen, 2004), and the coalition government of social democrats and social-liberals gradually
adopted restrictive migration policies and at the same time strengthened efforts to integrate
immigrants and refugees living in Denmark. This development was exacerbated after the victory of
the Liberal-Conservative Government, November 2001.
8
Mandana Zarrehparvar, Ligebehandling, status og fremtidsperspektiver, (Institut for menneskerettigheder, 2005), 29, original text:
”Alle mennesker er født frie og lige i værdighed og rettigheder” and ”uden forskelsbehandling af nogen art, fx på grund af race,
farve, køn, sprog, religion, politisk eller anden anskuelse, national eller social oprindelse, formueforhold, fødsel eller anden
samfundsmæssig stilling”.
9 Mandana Zarrehparvar, Ligebehandling, status og fremtidsperspektiver, (Institut for menneskerettigheder, 2005), 29 ff.
8
The first Danish Integration Law presented by the coalition of Social-Democrats and
Radical Liberal Party and adopted by Parliament in 1998 intended to coordinate the previous
legislation. It had an emphasis on equal participation with other citizens in political, economic,
work, social, religious and cultural life with an emphasis on economic self-sufficiency and
understanding Danish cultural values and norms. The law states that the formal objective of
integration is ‘equality’ in a broad sense but at the same time economic self-sufficiency is the
overriding principle of integration. Integration policies should contribute to; 1) give newly arrived
foreigners the possibility to participate equally with other citizens in political, economic, work,
social, religious and cultural life; 2) contribute to economic self-sufficiency; and 3) give the
individual an understanding of Danish cultural values and norms. It has been noted that the Danish
approach to integration is based upon conflicting principles that can be used to legitimize both
assimilation and discrimination (Ejrnæs, 2001; 3).
The broadly defined Danish integration policies make an assessment dependent upon their
application and local implementation. This is true for the principle of ‘economic self-sufficiency’ as
well as for ‘understanding Danish values and norms’. The labour market is seen as the key to
integration and the high unemployment among migrants compared to ethnic Danes has raised public
concerns about the costs of integration for the universal welfare state (Report from the Welfare
Commission, 2005). Policies directed towards improving integration on the labour market may be
positive, if it is based upon an active labour market policy and public programmes that help
migrant’s access to the labour market. It can also be a punitive principle that attempts to force
migrants to take a job by lowing cash benefits if the problem is a lack of qualifications compatible
with the needs of the labour market, or if discrimination is the main problem. Knowledge about
Danish values, norms and language may be interpreted both a valuable resource and as a means
towards assimilation to Danish values if it is based upon punitive tests.
Scholars generally agree that integration has since 1998 moved from the pluralist pol
towards an increasing emphasis on a more restrictive legislation premised on assimilation of
minorities to Danish values and the Danish way of life (Togeby, 2003; Hedetoft, 2003, Siim, 2006;
Mouritzen, 2006). In 2002, the new Liberal-Conservative government adopted a strict ‘Immigration
Package’ that included two important elements: 1) Married partners are only allowed to be united if
they are more than 24 years and if they have stronger affiliation with Denmark than any other
9
country. 2) Social assistance was replaced by a new ‘introductory grant’10 for the first 7 years. The
grant is much lower than the amount given to people on social assistance [kontanthjælp]. The ‘start
help’ was presented as a tool to integrate refugees on the labour market, but it means that refugees
can only gain the right to full and equal cash benefits after 7 year in Denmark.
The policy is highly contested. The official claim is that the grant is a positive incentive to
create more jobs, but research has documented that the main effect has been to increase poverty
(Ejrnæs, 2003; 233). It can be interpreted as an isolated attack on the social rights of refugees that
will change their social citizenship (Goul Andersen, 2006), and as a form of discrimination that
reduces their economic resources. But it can also be interpreted as a general n attack on
universalism and as a breach against the equal treatment principle in the human rights conventions.
In the report about the Danish national Reform Programme 2005 and the Gender aspect of
the Danish Employment strategy for the EC, Ruth Emerek concludes that the key-word for Danish
politics is economic incitements, and problems with making work pay is continually discussed by
the government and in the media (Emerek, 2005). Denmark has high employment rates – above the
Lisbon target for both men and women – 79.1 percent for men and 70.5 % for women (s 5). Male
migrant have an employment rate lower than 55 % and female migrants from non-western countries
en employment rate lower than 40 %. The gap between the employment rate for Danish and migrant
groups are therefore among the highest in Europe (Udlændinge- og integrationspolitikken i
Danmark og udvalgte lande - Baggrundsrapport, 2004).
Emerek (2005) has analysed the two government programmes intended to integrate migrants
on the labour market: Flere i arbejde (More people in work) from August 2003 and En ny chance
for alle (a new chance for all), from June 2005 have both reduced cash benefits. The report refers to
a recent report from the SFI (the Danish Institute for Social Research) commissioned by the Danish
government that finds that the ceiling over cash benefits has not resulted in more cash benefit
receivers having been employed (Graversen & Tingaard; 2005). The SFI report concludes that an
economic incitement will have poor employment effects for persons having other problems than
just unemployment, for example health problems.
The objective of the first programme Flere i arbejde was to create new jobs on special
terms, of reducing the unemployment rate for the long-term unemployed and of including nonDanes/migrants on the labour market – women as well as men. It used a strong financial incentive
10
The low grant to refugees represents a break with the principles of the universal welfare state. It was first introduced by the
previous government headed by the Social Democratic Party in 1999 but lasted only 13 months, because it did not have the intended
effect to integrate refugees on the labour market (Ejrnæs, 2003;224-225)
10
of making it less profitable to on social welfare by reducing cash benefits. These financial
incentives were tightened with further limitations to obtaining cash benefits in En ny chance for
alle, a recent agreement between the government, the People’s Party and the Social Democrats. The
agreement is aimed at reducing social assistance for families with only one person attached to the
labour market, and persons on cash benefits will have to demonstrate that they are part of the work
force11. One of the stated objectives of this agreement is to integrate migrant women on the labour
market but the effect could be to punish migrant families. This new program was clearly directed at
migrant families, because 3 out of 4 married couples on cash benefits have immigrant background
although they form less than 10 percent of the population. The Social Democratic Party was
originally part of this agreement but recently withdrew claiming that the new rules would hit the
wrong persons.
Gendered Debates
In this section the focus is on two gendered debates that have both contributed to construct the
border between ‘them’ and ‘us’ – between ethnic Danes and ‘ethnic minorities’. The first is the
debate about forced and arranged marriages and the second is the debate about the headscarf. They
both illuminate the trend towards assimilation and stigmatisation of minorities. They point towards
conflicts between the official discourse, empirical data and minority women’s self-understanding. I
suggest that the tensions between gender equality, women’s rights and respect for minorities is
especially acute in Scandinavia, because the dominant discourse of gender equality has become part
of the national identity (Andreassen, 2004; Siim, 2006)12.
Discourses about forced and arranged marriages and gender equality
According to Anja Bredal the political struggle about ‘integration’ has been interpreted as
discursive struggle between Women’s Rights and Immigration Control (Bredal, 2004). Forced
marriages and “honor related violence” became the subject of public concern in Norway, Denmark
and Sweden in the nineties (Bredal, 2005). The three countries all express a strong concern about
11
If one of the spouses in a family where both receive cash benefits (a universal benefit means tested towards family income) has not
worked at least 300 hours within a period of two years, the person will lose the right to cash benefit, and the other spouse will receive
a family allowance (Emerek, 2005).
12
This conclusion is supported by two recent Ph.D.-dissertations: Rikke Andreassen (2004) “Gender, race, sexuality and Nation”
has analysed the Danish news media communication about Visible Minorities from 1970 -2004. Anja Bredal (2004) “Vi er jo een
familje. Arrangerte egteskap, aytonomi, fellesskap blant unge norsk-asiater” (We are after all one Family. Arranged Marriages,
autonomy and community among young Norwegian-asians). The following analysis of gendered debates is inspired by their
conclusions.
11
gender equality, women’s rights and oppression of girls in patriarchal families, but there are also
remarkable differences in the Scandinavian policies and discourses about forced and arranged
marriages. Denmark has adopted strict action plans against both forced and arranged marriages,
while Norway’s Action Plan is directed solely against forced marriages. In Sweden the Action Plan
is not targeting specific groups but is directed against the general oppression of girls in patriarchal
families.
According to the official Danish discourse and the policies of the governing political parties
gender equality has already been achieved and patriarchy is solely a problem for minority women
(Andreassen, 2004). In Denmark, the public debate about how to prevent forced and arranged
marriages is part of the “immigrant debate” and was polarised from the start (Grøndal, 2003).
The government referred to growing number of cases of forced and arranged marriages arguing that
the known cases were only the tip of the iceberg and accused critics of being afraid to admit facts
for fear of being charged with discrimination. Critics of strict regulation claimed that there were
only a few reported incidents of forced marriages and complained about media generalisations and
stigmatising of minority groups (Grøndal, 2003, Andreassen, 2004).
The Government “Action Plan for 2003-2005 on Forced, Quasi-forced and Arranged
Marriages” from August 2003 is one illustrative example of the official political strategy. The
initiative expresses the dominant discourse that the overall objective is not only to prevent
marriages that involve force, which is against the law, but also to prevent all forms of arranged
marriages, including marriage between cousins. The document identifies the main problem as a
value conflict and a clash of culture between the Danish majority norms of gender equality in
‘normal families’ and the cultural tradition of forced and arranged marriages that leads to
oppression and lack of self-determination for minority women.
The discourse about the clash of cultures is constructed by telling a story that ignores the
differences between forced and arranged marriages and the diversity within normal Danish families.
This means that not only forced marriages, which is against the law, but also arranged families is
addressed as a political problem in need of political regulation. This rhetoric is stated in the title and
it is constructed by means of arguments, which stresses that forced and arranged marriages have the
same negative effects in relation to self-determination, cultural conflicts, force and lack of
integration. The document uses references to the Norwegian and British Action Plans against
Forced Marriages and to the Human Rights Convention of 1948 and Danish Law against forced
marriage to help to blur the difference between forced and arranged marriages.
12
The lack of differentiation between forced and arranged marriages in the official Danish
discourse is problematic for many reasons. First it tends to stigmatise the marriage practice of many
migrant families and idealise the marriage practice of ethnic Danish families. Secondly, it ignores
the complexities of generational and gender problems in minority families and thus makes all
minority women potential victims of their own culture. According to Bredal (2004), the Norwegian
and Swedish Action plans present alternative attempts to solve the conflicts with more emphasis on
preventive strategies and dialogues with minority families on the level of social practice and daily
life.
The empirical evidence presents a much more complex picture. One example is a recent
investigation of forced and arranged marriages based upon both quantitative and qualitative data
from the five largest immigrants groups in Denmark (Schmidt & Jacobsen; 2004). The report makes
a distinction between ‘forced marriage’ defined as a marriage ‘where young persons have not been
informed of the marriage or it is against their wishes’ (Ibid: 6) and ‘arranged marriage’ based upon
consent, i.e. if the young persons have been informed or agree to the marriage. The study found that
the influence of parents should not be exaggerated, because only a relatively small group of the
young persons (14 percent from Pakistan, 4 per cent from Lebanon and 2 per cent from Turkey) had
not been involved in their own marriage (7). The report concludes that marriage in many minority
families is perceived as a collective process, which should be defined as an arranged – not forced –
marriage, because it is often negotiated and thus both parents and young people may have a right to
objections.
Qualitative research has also documented the complexities around marriage practices. One
example is Rushy Rashid’s book (2000) about her experience with the Pakistani marriage practice
that tells about her two and a half arranged marriages and divorces. Rushy’s story tells about her
attempts to balance between two worlds. She describes herself as a ‘pakidane’ and her story is a
about the struggle for individual autonomy combined with a strong family loyalty and love for her
family. She is well-educated and became known as the first TV-host on Danish television of
migrant background and she has protested publicly against the generalisation of migrant women as
‘oppressed’. Rushy is Pakistani born in 1968 and came to Denmark to live with her parents and
younger brothers when she was nine years. She tells that she accepted two arranged marriages with
men of Pakistani background that her parents had chosen for her but she points out her parents
supported her each time she decided to get a divorce. She is a well-educated and active young
woman that was a member of migrant youth associations CEMYC and Soldue, and she had a job in
13
the Danish Center for Documentation and Advice about Discrimination. On the back of the book
cover it says that she has tried to live both as a Pakistani and a Dane, but it has not been possible for
her to combine the dream of Danish way of living with traditional Pakistani gender roles. She had
been forced to choose and has chosen ‘the Danish way’.
An example with a different morale is presented in a study with activists outside
Copenhagen (Siim, 2003). In an interview one of the informants, Sevil, who is an active teacher,
told a story about Turkish marriage practices with a more positive conclusion. Sevil describes
herself as a ‘Danish-muslim’ and she combined a strong personal autonomy with an equally strong
family feeling. She has decided to wear a veil for religious reasons, and she tells that she has
experienced her family and her religion as a resource not a barrier for her in her education and her
work. She is married to her Turkish cousin and has a young child and she lives close to her family.
She is also the leader and creator of a voluntary association with the objective to empower minority
women in a local community outside Copenhagen. She claims that she chose her Turkish cousin
herself when she fell in love with him at 16 during a vacation in Turkey and that her parents
accepted her choice. They insisted on a marriage contract that stated that she could continue her
education when they were married. Sevil’s story claims that it is possible to balance between the
values from the Danish and Turkish way of life.
There may be real conflicts between Muslim marriages according to the Sharia and the
Danish divorce legislation if it is not accepted that Danish legislation is superior to religious rules.
According to Farhwa Nielsen, consultancy to the National Association of Women- and Crises
Centrers (LOKK) some women are in practice caught in indissoluble marriages if the husband does
not accept Danish divorce laws. Rubya Mehdi who is professor in Islamic Law at Copenhagen
University therefore argues that all Muslims should sign a declaration that the husband and wife has
the same access to divorce like in Norway (Politiken, 26.0.06).
I find that the issue of forced and arranged marriages cannot only be interpreted as ‘clashes
of cultures and religions’ but also expresses tensions between the individualist Danish family
tradition and practice and the more collective family orientation of many migrant groups. The
restrictive integration legislation has created a strong pressure towards cultural assimilation that
contributes to exacerbate conflicts between minority and majority groups about cultural values
connected with family forms and gender roles. From this perspective the Danish gender model
based upon a dual breadwinner model and a highly individualist family model contribute to make
14
the issue of forced and arranged marriages an arena for acute political-cultural conflicts between the
majority and minority.
Debates about the headscarf13
In Denmark, Norway and Sweden there is no public regulation of wearing a veil or any other
religious symbols. The issue is about the right of women to wear a headscarf to work and employers
have the right to ban the veil in private companies. The political debate about the headscarf is
framed as a case of indirect discrimination at the labour market that was resolved in court. The court
decision inspired a broader public media debate about the meaning of the scarf. In Norway the
debate is also about women’s right to wear a headscarf to work, but here the issue is gendered and
the bans in the workplace have been ruled to be in a violation of the Gender Equality Act. For the
Norwegian Gender Equality Ombud it is the discriminatory effects of the ban of headscarves on
women employees which have been at the forefront, and the main argument has been the individual
women’s to non-discrimination in the labor market (Skjeie, 2006). In Sweden, the Ombud against
ethical discrimination, Margrethe Wadstein, has stated that it belongs to the religious fundamental
rights to wear a headscarf.
In the following we look at two of the four legal cases where Danish employers’ refusal to
hire veiled women have ended in veiled employees having taken their employers to court (Siim,
2006), because the other two of the four cases ended in re-conciliation (Andreassen, 2006). The first
case was raised in 1998 by a young Muslim girl, Islam Amid, who wanted to do an internship in a
big department store Magasin as part of her school education. The employer sent her home, because
she would not take off her headscarf that she claimed she wore for religious reasons. The High
Court argued that even though she was under education she was still protected by the new antidiscrimination law and could not be dismissed solely on the ground that she wore a scarf – for
religious reasons. The ban on headscarves was interpreted as an indirect discrimination towards a
specific religious group (Hansen, 2003; 243) and the employer was given a fine of 10.000 DDK.
This case was the first Court case and the Magasin sentence let several chain stores and companies
to change their previous practice of not hiring veiled women. FDB, DSB (the national railrods),
13
For a more detailed analysis of the debates about the veil see Andreassen 2006. Rikke Andreassen has written a preliminary
country report as part of the VEIL-project, Values Equality and Diversity in liberal Democracies. I have included part of the material
from the Court cases in this paper. The analysis will be included more systematically in the final version of the paper co-authored
with Rikke Andreassen.
15
IKEA, Mac Donalds, Unibank (now Nordea) and Magasin for instance gave up previous
requirements for prohibiting veils14.
A young girl, Najla Ainouz, who had been employed in a department store chain Føtex for
five years, when she decided to wear a headscarf, raised the second case. The employer argued that
she did not live up to the general dress code of the supermarket, which demanded that employees
had to be ‘professionally and nicely dressed’. Her trade union, HK, argued that she was the victim
of indirect discrimination. In 2003 the High Court acquitted Føtex because it found that the
dismissal was legal because the supermarket had a uniform and the ban on the headscarves was a
general ban on all forms of political, religious and cultural symbols. This sentence was appealed
and the case was taken to the Supreme Court that confirmed the decision in January 2005.
According to Frans Harboe, Head of Staff (Koncernpaersonalechef) for Dansk
Supermarked, veiling has always been prohibited for employees at Dansk Supermarket, but
because of the Magasin case, Dansk Supermarked, saw a need for specifying this prohibition, hence
the introduction of their clothing regulations. The reason behind the clothing regulations was, that
employees must signal their affiliation with the store in question and that employees appear as
neutral as possible (Andreassen, 2006; 25).
Human Rights lawyers were surprised that the Court accepted subjective not objective
arguments like safety and health as reasons to ban religious headscarves. They found that the
argument that employees must appear ‘identical’ could be discriminating not only for religious
minorities but also for minorities with a different skin colour as well as for handicaps. This gives
private companies the right to decide whether it is against their ‘dress-code’ to wear headscarves.
Some companies have adopted multicultural policies that accept the scarf, while others have a ban
on headscarves in their shops.
The French law inspired a parliamentary debate in May 2004. Danish People’s Party (Dansk
Folkeparti) has made a proposal for passing laws prohibiting veiling in public institutions
(Andreassen, 2006). There has also been a media debate as well as a debate among feminists. The
media portrayal of ethnic minorities is generally negative and it became important in the last
election debate, when the liberal-Right government gained power supported by the Populist
Peoples’ Party, who wants to restrict immigration. The debate is highly gendered, with young
Muslim men constructed as violent and young Muslim women as oppressed and victims of their
‘culture’ (Andreassen, 2004).
14
See Andreassem 2006; 19.
16
The issue of the headscarf in the media raises important questions about how minority
women are represented in the dominant discourse and in the media, and about how do they present
themselves? Rikke Andreassen’s (2005) recent investigation shows that minority women are
portrayed different from the Danish majority. They are often shown with a scarf even though the
majority of them do not wear a scarf, and the media does not tell about different motives for
wearing the scarf. For many ethnic Danes gender equality is manifested in women’s free choice of
clothes and the scarf becomes a symbol of minority women’s oppression by their ‘culture’.
According to Andreassen the portrayal of ethnic minority women as wearing a headscarf plays an
important role for the construction of ethnic Danish women’s identity as not oppressed and as equal
with men. She concludes that the scarf becomes a symbol that organises, constructs and negotiates
gender equality, nationality and identity.
Dorthe Staunæs’ has looked at the different meanings of the headscarf for minority girls in a
study of local school life (2004). She finds that the decision to wear a scarf for some girls can be
interpreted as a form of empowerment and a means to negotiate your own identity and for others as
a means to be included in ethnic Danish communities. Often young Muslim girls by positioning
themselves as ’honourable’ – symbolised by wearing a scarf are allowed to participate in school
activities that they would normally be banned from. The study challenges the dominant perception
that the headscarf symbolises oppression and shows that the meaning of the headscarf for the girls is
both situated and contextual (Staunæs, 2004; 153-189).
The issue divides feminists and has recently inspired a public controversy about a TV-host
with a headscarf hired to host a debate program “Adam and Asmaa”. One group “Women of
Freedom” wants to ban the veil in public places and has started a campaign against the decision that
they find symbolizes acceptance of the oppression of women, while another group “Feminist
Forum” congratulated the decision as a symbol of the media accept of diversity (see Andreassen,
2006).
To sum up: The debates about family-unification and the headscarf are contextual and tell
different stories about representation, discrimination and identities of minority women. They
illuminate the conflicts between patriarchal oppression in ‘traditional’ cultures and the dominant
discourses and norms about equality (Mørck, 2001; Prieur, 2002), and they illustrate that there is
often a contrast between the portrayal of minority women in political life, public discourses and the
media and their own self-understanding on the level of lived citizenship.
17
Reflections on the intersection of gender and ethnicity from the Nordic contexts
Globalisation and migration represent new challenges to the Nordic welfare states. The Nordic
countries are perceived to belong to the same model of welfare and gender, and it is rather
surprising that Denmark and Sweden have moved in opposite directions in relation to migration. In
spite of the differences in multicultural policies, a recent report concludes that integration has failed
in all the Nordic countries and it points towards similar problems with the marginalisation of ethnic
minorities at the labour market and in society. This raises questions about the limited effects of
public policies and about the need to develop alternative strategies to reduce structural inequalities
of minorities tied to the labour market.
Feminist scholarship has started to analyse the conflicts between the Nordic gender equality
model, the strong gender equality norm and patriarchal traditions in many migrant families (Prieur,
2003, Siim, 2003). In spite of the Danish exceptionalism with migration and family-unification,
gender research has identified common problems in the relation between the Nordic gender equality
norm, equal rights and respect for cultural diversity. They indicate that there are limits to the
dominant approach to welfare and illustrate that the women-friendly social policies do not include
all women (de los Reyes & Mulinari, 2005).
The studies point towards the need more comparative Nordic research of the interaction of
family, welfare and nation and about the interaction between the majority norm, institutional
practices and structures and about the intersection of inequalities attached to gender, class and
ethnicity in everyday life. Arguably we need more research about the potential and barriers of both
Nordic institutions and gender equality culture for the inclusion of migrant women as equal
citizens? Is a strong universal welfare state a potential or a barrier for the equal citizenship of ethnic
minorities? What are the potential and barriers of the Nordic gender equality model for recognizing
cultural diversity, including the diversity of family forms and gender equality norms?
The qualitative studies illustrate that we need research that is sensitive to how the conflict
between equality and diversity is constructed in daily life and to how young women and men
negotiate the diversity of family traditions and gender equality norms in their private and public
lives. It is a challenge to develop strategies that respect the right to diversity of religion, culture and
values and are sensitive to the diversity of family cultures and equality norms without accepting a
patriarchal family forms with unequal treatment of daughters and sons and husbands and wives. The
cultural studies of minorities’ norms and values need to be connection with more institutional
studies of the functioning of welfare institutions and integration policies.
18
From a normative perspective the studies illustrate that Nordic scholarship need to discuss to
what extent the official gender equality discourse and policies and dominant gender research
contribute to exclude, marginalise and assimilate minority perspectives on gender equality. The
arguments in this article is first that it should be a democratic obligation for the political system to
give minority women equal citizenship rights, recognition and influence in their daily life and in
politics. Secondly, it should be a moral obligation for gender equality politics to respect the equal
values and cultural norms of minority women and to support them in their struggle to develop
strategies that enable them to choose a third way that bridge between majority norms and minority
values concerning gender equality.
References:
Andreassen, Rikke (2006). Preliminary country-report, Denmark. June, 2006 written for the VEILproject, Values, Equality and Diversity in Liberal Democracies. Debates about Muslim Women’s
Headscarves.
Andreassen, Rikke (2005). The Mass Media’s Construction of Gender, Race, Sexuality and
Nationality. An Analysis of the Danish News Media’s Communication about Visible Minorities
1971-2004, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of History, the University of Toronto.
Bellamy, Richard, Dario Castiglione & Emilio Santoro eds. (2003). Lineages of European
Citizenship. Rights, Belonging and Participation in Eleven Nation-States, Basingstoke:
Palgrave/Macmillan.
Bergqvist C., A. Borchorst, A.D. Christensen, N. Raaum, V. Ramnstedt-Silén & A. Styrkasdottir
(ed.) (1999) Equal Democracies? Gender and Politics in the Nordic Countries, Oslo: Universitety
Press
Borchorst, Anette & Birte Siim (2002).”The women-friendly welfare state revisited” pp 90-98 In
NORA, Nordic Journal of Women’s Studies, No. 2, vol. 10.
Bredal, Anja (2006). “Vi er jo en familie”. Arrangerte ekteskap, autonomi og fellesskap blant unge
norsk-asiater”. Thesis, Institut for Samfundsforskning.
Bredal, Anja (2004). Tackling Forced Marriages in Norway and Denmark: Between Women’s
Rights and Immigration Control, chapter of the PhD-dissertation (Check).
Brochmann & Dölvik, Grethe & Jon Erik Dölvik, (2004). “Is immigration an enemy of the welfare
state? Between human rights and realpolitik in European immigration policies”, forthcoming in
Managing Migration: A Policy Agenda for Economic Progress and Social Cohesion. Washington
DC: Migration Policy Institure.
19
Brochmann, Grethe & Anniken Hagelund (2005). Innvandringens velferdspolitiske konsekvenser.
Nordisk kunnskapsstatus (The welfare political consequences of migration), Copenhagen, Nordic
Council of Ministers.
De los Reyes, Paulina, Irene Molina & Diana Mulinary (2003). Maktens olika förklädnadar. Kømn,
klasse og etnicitet i det post-koloniale Sverige. Stockholm: Atlas
Ejrnæs, Morten (2001). Integrationsloven – en case, der illustrerer minoriteters usikre
medborgerstatus, AMID working paper Series 1/2001.
Ejrnæs, Morten (2003). ”Andenrangsborgere fra begyndelsen” in Fenger-Gørn, Carsten, Kamal
Qureshi & Thøger Seidenfraden red. (2003). Når du strammer garnet – et opgør med mobning af
mindretal og ansvarsløs asylpolitik, Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag, pp.212-234.
Ejrnæs, Morten & Marianne Skytte (2004). Etniske minoriteter ig socialpolitik” i J. Elm Larsen & I.
H. Møller, Socialpolitik, Kbh.: Hams Reitzels Forlag
Emerek, Ruth (2005). The Danish national Reform Programme 2005 and the Gender aspect of the
Danish Employment Strategy, Final report.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1999). Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Fenger-Gørn, Carsten, Kamal Qureshi & Thøger Seidenfraden red. (2003). Når du strammer garnet
– et opgør ,ed mobning af mindretal og ansvarsløs asylpolitik, Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.
Fraser Nancy & Axel Honneth (2003). Redistribution or recognition? A political- philosophical
exchange. London/New York: Verso.
Fraser, Nancy. (1997): Justice Interruptions. Critical Reflections on the “Post-socialist” Condition.
London: Routledge.
Goul Andersen (2006). Immigration, Solidarity and Citizenship, Key-note paper to the
Globalisation and the Political Theory of the Welfare State and Citizenship conference, May 4-5,
2006, Aalborg University.
Goul-Andersen (2004). Immigration and the Legitimacy of the Scandinavian Welfare State: Some
Preliminary Danish Findings, Key-note paper to the 13th Nordic Migration Conference,
Aalborg/AMID, 18-20-Novermber, 2004.
The Government’s Action Plan for 2003-2004 on Forced, Quasi-forced and Arranged Marriages,
15 August, 2003.
Grøndahl, Marianne (2003).”Familiesammenføring – fra verdensrekord til verdensrekord” in
Fenger-Gørn, Carsten, Kamal Qureshi & Thøger Seidenfraden red. (2003). Når du strammer garnet
– et opgør med mobning af mindretal og ansvarsløs asylpolitik, Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag,
pp.184-211.
20
Gustafson, Per (2005). “International Migration and National Belonging in the Swedish Debate on
Dual Citizenship” in Acta Sociologica, vol. 48 (1), pp. 5-19.
Hammer, Ole & Inger Bruun (2000). Etniske minoriteters indflydelseskanaler (The Channels of
Influence for Ethnic Minorities), Århus: Århus Universitetsforlag.
Hansen, Niels Erik (2003). ”Diskrimination på arbejdsmarkedet” Fenger-Gørn, Carsten, Kamal
Qureshi & Thøger Seidenfraden red. (2003). Når du strammer garnet – et opgør med mobning af
mindretal og ansvarsløs asylpolitik, Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag, pp. 235-253.
Hedetoft, Ulf (2003). ‘”It is not that we don’t accept differences…” The Danish Politics of Ethnic
Consensus and the Pluricultural Challenge’, paper presented at Indvandrerdage, Aalborg University,
November 2003
Hetne, Bjørn, Sverker Sørlin & Uffe Østergård, 1998. Den globale nationalismen (The global
nationalism), SNS Forlag
Hobson, Barbara ed. (2003). Recognition Struggles and Social Movements. Contested Identities,
Agency and Power, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Hussain, Mustafa (2002). “Etniske minoriteters organisering i Dnmark” [The Organisation of Ethnic
Minorities in Denmark] pp 160-176 in Flemming Mikkelsen ed. Bevægelser i demokrati. Foreninger
og kollektive aktioner i Danmark, Århus. Århis Universitetsforlag.
Jenkins, Richard (1997). Rethinking Ethnicity, Arguments and Explorations, London: Sage.
Justesen, Pia (2003). ” International kritik – den nationale arrogence” in Fenger-Gørn, Carsten,
Kamal Qureshi & Thøger Seidenfraden red. (2003). Når du strammer garnet – et opgør med
mobning af mindretal og ansvarsløs asylpolitik, Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag,.pp. 69-86.
Khader, Naser (2002). Ære og skam. Det islamiske familie- og livsmønster i Danmark og
Mellemøsten. (Honour and Shame. Islamic Family and Life Patterns in the Middle East)
København: Borgen (Udvidet og revideret udgave).
Kjær, Kim Ulrich (2003). “Asyllovgivningen. Retssikkerhed under afvikling?” in Fenger-Gørn,
Carsten, Kamal Qureshi & Thøger Seidenfraden red. (2003). Når du strammer garnet – et opgør
med mobning af mindretal og ansvarsløs asylpolitik, Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag, pp. 137160.
Klausen, Jytte (2006). The Islamic Challenge. Politics and religion in Western Europe. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Koopmans, Ruud & Paul Stratham eds. (2000). Challenging Immigration and Ethnic relations
Politics. Comparative European Perspectives, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Korpi, Walter (2000). “The Face of Inequality: Gender, Class and Patterns of Ineqiualities in
Different Types of Welfare States”, In Social Politics, vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 127-191.
21
Kymlicka, Will (2006). The Multicultural Welfare State, key-note paper to the Globalisation and the
Political Theory of the Welfare State and Citizenship conference, May 4-5, 2006, Aalborg
University.
Kymlicka, Will (1999). “Liberal complacencies”, pp. 31-34 in Okin, Susan Moller with
Respondents (1999). Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lister, Ruth (2003): Citizenship. Feminist Perspectives, Macmillan, London (Second edition).
Madsen, Diana Højlind (2005). ”Fanget mellem liv og død ”. Rapport om voldsramte
Minoritetskvinder i Norden (Report on Violence Against Ethnic Minority Women in The Nordic
Countries), Center for Ligestillingsforskning, Roskilde Universitet
Mouritzen, Per (2006). The particular Universalism of a Nordic Civic nation: common values. State
religion and Islam in Danish political culture“ in Multiculturalism, Muslims and Citizenship,
Routledge, pp. 70-93.
Mørck, Yvonne (1998). Bindestregsdanskere. Fortællinger om køn, generation og etnicitet.
Fredriksberg: Forlaget Sociologi.
Mørck, Yvonne (2001). ”Etniske minoritetsunge og demokratisk medborgerskab” (Young Ethnic
Minorities and Democratic Citizenship) pp. 223-237 i Christensen Ann-Dorte & Birte Siim (2001).
Køn, Demokrati og modernitet. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Okin, Susan Moller with Respondents, ed. By Joshua Cohen, Matthew Howard and Martha
Nussbaum (1999). Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Parekh, Bhikhu (1999). “A varied Moral World”, pp. 69-76 in Okin, Susan Moller with
Respondents (1999). Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Phillips, Anne (2003). “Recognition and the struggle for political voice”, in Hobson ed. Recognition
struggles and Social Movements. Contested Identities. Agency and Power, London: Routledge
Prieur, Annick (2002). ”Magt over eget liv: om unge indvandrere, patriarkalske familieformer og
nordiske ligestillingsidealer” (Self-determination, Young Immigrants, patriarchal family forms and
Nordic equality norms), pp. 149-167 in Anette Borchorst red. (2002). Kønsmagt under forandring.
København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Rashid, Rusty (2000). Et løft af sløret (Behind the Veil), Kbh: Gyldendal.
Saren, Manu (2003). Når kærlighed bliver tvang, Generation Conflics and Forced Marriages in
Denmark (When Love becomes Force), København: Peoples Press.
Schwartz, Jonathan ed. (2002). Medborgerskabets mange stemmer {The many Voices of
Citizenship] Århus, Magtudredningen
22
Schmidt, Garbi & Vibeke Jacobsen (2004). Pardannelse blandt etniske minoriteter i Danmark,
Kbh: SFI, 04:09
Siim, Birte (2003). Medborgerskabets udfordringer – belyst ved politisk myndiggørelse af etniske
minoritetskvinder [The Challenges to Citizenship. Political Empowerment of Ethnic Minority
Women], Århus; Århus Universitetsforlag.
Siim, Birte (2006a). “The challenge of Recognizing Diversity from the Perspective of Gender
Equality – dilemmas in Danish citizenship”, Forthc. in CRISPP – Critical Review of International
Social and Political Philosophy
Simonsen, Jørgen Bæk (1990). Islam i Danmark. Muslimske institutioner i Danmark 1970 – 1989.
Aarhus: Aarhus Universitet.
Skjeie, Hege & Birte Siim (2000). ”Stating the Trouble. What do Women Want. Scandinavian
Feminist Debates on Citizenship”. In International Political Science Review, Vol. 21, No. 4, 2000,
pp.346-360.
Soysal (1994). Limits of Citizenship. Migrants and Postnational Memberskip in Europe, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Togeby, Lise (2003). Fra fremmedarbejdere til etniske minoriteter (From Immigrant Workers to
Ethnic Minorities), Århus. Århus University Press, Magtudredningen.
Tvangsægteskaber i en europæisk kontekst. Rapport om best practices i England, Norge og
Tyskland (Report on best practices in England, Norway and Germany), Center for
Ligestillingsforskning ved Roskilde Universitet.
Valeur, Erik (2003).”Pressen. Eliten og spøgelsesfolket”. In Fenger-Gørn, Carsten, Kamal Qureshi
& Thøger Seidenfraden red. (2003). Når du strammer garnet – et opgør med mobning af mindretal
og ansvarsløs asylpolitik, Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag, pp. 31-68.
Williams, Fiona (1995). ”Race/Ethnicity, Gender and Class in Welfare States: A Framework for
Comparative Analysis”. In Social Politics, vol. 2, no. 2.
Østergård, Uffe (1992). “Peasants and Danes. The Danish National Identity and Political Culture”
in Contemporary Studies in Society and History, vol. 34, No.1, pp 3-27.
Lov om integration af udlændinge i Danmark (Law about Integration of foreigners in Denmark. The
Integration Law). Lovbekendtgørelse nr. 1035, den 23. november, 2003
Udlændinge- og integrationspolitikken i Danmark og udvalgte lande - Baggrundsrapport,
(Migration and Integration Legislation in Denmark and selected countries – backgound report)
Tænketanken om udfordringer for integrationsindsatsen i Danmark i samarbejde med
Socialforskningsinstituttet, Ministeriet for Flygtninge, Indvandrere og Integration, 2004.
23
24