Go home! But where?

The political discussion in Denmark has taken a turn at discussing condemning Islamic fundamentalism. This happens after the recent spat of car-burnings by boys mainly of Arab background, the revealed murder plot directed against one of the cartoonists of Cartoon-Crisis fame and the ensuing flare of Cartoon-crisis 2.0.

Hizb ut Tahrir took the centre stage of this discussion after a protest march where they once again publicly stated their anti-democratic intention.

This spurred the age old question: Why have you come to Denmark, why don't you just go home? This time it was asked by among others the Minister for Justice Lene Espersen in a debate on TV2.

I think the question, when asked in connection to Moslems of a radical salafist leaning is misunderstood.

It implies that the countries that these people come from would be a better place to be if you fight for the Caliphate, the world-spanning empire, uniting the Moslem umma.

But the essence is that these guys believe in an utopia, a place that isn't there. This is in many aspects the most powerful appeal of their movement: "We want to recreate a time of glory and justice and piousness". In this aspect Hizb ut Tahrir is similar to other totalitarianism's dreams of the Tausendjähriges Reich or World Socialism. Of course a moslem country would be more permissive of some aspects of salafist dogma (such as incoorporating elements of Shaaria laws), but very often the political climate of these countries will be much more harsh for these organisations. And then it becomes obvious why you'd rather be in Denmark than in Syria. If you aim after utopia, your post address matters less and rationality of course will have you settle in the most permissive climate.

I don't support the idea that the organisation should be banned. It is radical and radicalizing, but as long as they are under special scrutiny, those views are better kept in the public and not chased further underground.

But that the Justice Minister can wonder why they just don't go home, hints that her understanding of the nature of utopian organisations lacks somewhat and I doubt she would have many reservations outlawing them.

Dagens definition: "Voksenstyring"

Definitioner er en af mine yndlings-kæpheste at ride retorisk skoleridt på. Med Perelmans tanke om "presence" kan man identificere hvordan en taler definerer situationen, hvorpå efterfølgende talere er tvunget til at tage stilling til denne definition, om ikke andet så ved at ignorere den.

På Faderhusets pressemøde i dag kunne man forvente sig netop et indlæg i definitionskampen. Ruth Evensen har en retorisk forpligtigelse til at udlægge verden på en facon der kan forsvare nedrivningen af huset. For mange vil det nemlig understrege det absurde i hele salgs-situationen at huset er rømmet under så store sværdslag, blot for at blive revet ned, så grunden kan bruges som spekulationsobjekt.

Een af Ruth Evensens definitionsstrategier var at umynddiggøre brugerne af Ungdomshuset og forstærke det topos der er blevet etableret: Ungdomshusets brugere er uansvarlige og forkælede - og i mange tilfælde børn med for lang snor.

Et fremragende eksempel er dette:

»Vi har været dem, der kom og tog over. Københavns Kommune turde ikke selv rive huset ned, og så gav de sorteper videre. Der var fyldt med rotter, og gulvet i køkkenafdelingen var fyldt med alt muligt snask. Det bærer præg af, at der ikke har været nogen voksenstyring«

Sideløbende med dette etablerer Ruth Evensen sig som den "voksne" - både i forhold til Københavns Kommunes uansvarlige og skræmte politikere og de unge "brugere". Ikke direkte, men mellem linjerne.