Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:45 am
Time: 11:45 am
Results for counter-terrorism (denmark)
1 results foundAuthor: Lindekilde, Lassee Title: Impact of Counter-Terrorism on Communities: Denmark Background Report Summary: This report provides background information for understanding and assessing the impact and effectiveness of Danish counter-terrorism and counter-radicalisation policies on minority ethno-cultural communities, in particular Muslim ones. The report contextualises questions of impact – positive as well as negative – in Denmark in terms of the demographic/socio-economic profile of immigrants; general perceptions of threats from terrorism and perceptions of discrimination experienced by minorities; the legal framework of counter-terrorism; policies of radicalisation prevention and their implementation in practice; key institutional structures of counter-terrorism and division of labour; high profile terrorist court-cases; and developments in the general political climate and public discourse regarding issues of ‘integration’ and security. Part 1 of this report focuses on the demographic and socio-economic profile of minority communities in Denmark and on their perceptions of discrimination. It shows that immigrants from non-Western countries and their descendants, most of whom are of Muslim origin, currently make up 6.8% of the Danish population, a proportion which is expected to increase to around 10% by 2050. These communities are of relatively recent origin: nearly all came after 1967, and 67% arrived in, or were born in, Denmark after 1980. Their socio-economic profile indicates relative disadvantage. Even allowing for the fact that they are younger than the general population, they are disproportionately absent from the labour market: only 50% of those of working age are employed, against 74% of ethnic Danes. 75% of ethnic Danes but only 49% of descendants from non-Western countries complete some form of further or vocational education. Those immigrants and descendants from non-Western countries who are employed are generally found at the lowest levels of the labour market. With regard to discrimination, one regular survey shows perceptions of discrimination on grounds of ethnicity/religion declining from 40% in 2000 to 31% in 2011, with discrimination encountered primarily in the workplace. Official figures for hate crimes report only a handful each year, but these figures are probably not reliable, and one survey reported a suspected racial motive in 10% of cases of violence and vandalism. Part 2 introduces the legal context of counter-terrorism in Denmark. It shows how Danish counterterrorism legislation was introduced in two main packages, one in 2002 and one in 2006, and looks at checks on counter-terrorism powers, both formal and in the shape of reactions in the public debate. In general, the 2002 and 2006 packages simply implement Council of the European Union, Council of Europe and United Nations resolutions, while the definition of terrorism employed is taken almost wordfor- word from the Council of the European Union resolution. Where Danish legislation has gone beyond these international models is primarily in regard to electronic surveillance and data collection, most notably in increasing access by the internal security service to the wealth of centrally linked, very detailed and generally accurate data concerning all individuals resident in Denmark that is held by various government departments and agencies. The use of secret evidence is also permitted in terrorism cases. Police gained stop-and-search powers in specified areas of Denmark in 2004, but in response to gang violence rather than terrorism. These powers are perceived to have been used especially against minority youths. Checks on all these powers consist primarily of international human rights law, which has occasionally been invoked in Danish courts, sometimes with success. There has been much public criticism surrounding the use of secret evidence to land convictions, and notably concern that in at least one case, a police informant may have been acting as an agent provocateur. Part 3 deals with Danish counter-radicalisation policies, while providing an overview of how these are perceived by the general public and by minority communities. This part shows how comprehensive counter-radicalisation measures were implemented in Denmark by one government in 2009 and then tacitly revised by another in 2011-12. The 2009 policy defined extremism very widely to include intolerant ideas and attitudes, and its counter-radicalisation measures included spreading information concerning democracy and citizenship. These and other measures were implemented by a range of local government bodies, building on existing practices, and coordinated and reinforced by a central government body. They included targeted interventions, initially by local government and mentors and ultimately by the internal security service. Of these measures, only the targeted interventions have been retained since the change of government in 2011. Part 3 also covers arrangements for oversight of both the internal security and foreign intelligence services, which are currently being revised following a number of controversial events, only one of which was connected to terrorism. Looking at the level of general trust and experiences of discrimination by the police among ethnic minority groups, it can be concluded that although trust is relatively high in comparative terms, there are groups of predominantly young male immigrant descendants living in urban areas who socialise little with ethnic Danes, who in general have lower average trust in the police and who experience a high level of police discrimination, notably in connection with ‘inspection zones’ in which stop-and-search powers can be used. Part 4 focuses on security threats and cases of terrorism in Denmark. There has been no successful terrorist attack in Denmark since 2001, but there have been thirteen high-profile terrorist cases. Two of these involved the extreme left, while extreme right-wing violence has not so far been prosecuted as terrorism in Denmark, though there are signs of changes in attitudes since the Breivik attacks. Two cases involved attempted attacks on Kurt Westergaard, the cartoonist responsible for the best-known cartoon published during the Cartoon Crisis (the one of the prophet Muhammad with a bomb in his turban), and four cases involved attempted attacks from outside Denmark against the offices of Jyllands-Posten, the newspaper that printed the cartoons. Other cases involved assistance to, or preparation for, terrorism; no targets were actually established. Part 5 offers a brief account of the development of the political climate in Denmark with regard to counter-terrorism and minority communities from 2001 until today. It shows that three events have had a significant impact on majority-minority relations in Denmark since 2001. One was the 2001 election campaign, which focused on ‘new politics’ issues of immigration, identity, and security. The second was the Cartoon Crisis of 2005-06, which took place against the background of the ‘new politics’ issues that had emerged in 2001, and caused a division in the public mind between ‘good Muslims’ and ‘bad Muslims’, as well as playing a part in the development of the original counter-radicalisation policies considered in part 3 of this report. The third was the election of 2011, which marked a turn away from the identity questions that had dominated the political agenda over the previous decade, and led to subsequent modifications in counter-radicalisation policies. Whether this last change will prove temporary or permanent remains to be seen. Part 6 of this report presents and discusses existing academic and official literature dealing with the impact and effectiveness of counter-terrorism measures and of radicalisation prevention policies on minority groups in Denmark. Counter-terrorism measures might be considered a success in the sense that there has been no successful terrorist attack in Denmark, but less so in terms of the possible contribution to the construction of Danish Muslims as a ‘suspect community’. Radicalisation prevention policies may be judged a success in terms of output, but outcomes are harder to assess. Some interventions may have worked, but certain academic studies, notably that of Lindekilde, indicate that counter-radicalisation discourses may have had an opposite impact from that intended, whether through frustrations generated by role-model campaigns or through the exclusion from the public debate of voices that fear accusations of radicalism, leaving the field open to those who have may have less to lose from such accusations. Three methodological challenges are identified: the case-based and anecdotal nature of the available data, which makes generalisation of impacts and valid conclusions on causality difficult; the difficulty of excluding alternative explanations of observed impact; and the often multiple, layered and abstract policy objectives, that create major problems in designing clear indicators of success. Details: London: Institute for Strategic Dialogue, 2012. 73p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 2, 2012 at: http://www.strategicdialogue.org/Country_report_Denmark_AD_15_Oct_forwebsite.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Denmark URL: http://www.strategicdialogue.org/Country_report_Denmark_AD_15_Oct_forwebsite.pdf Shelf Number: 126852 Keywords: Counter-Terrorism (Denmark)MinoritiesRacial DiscriminationRadical GroupsRadicalizationRight-Wing ViolenceSocio-Economic ConditionsTerrorists |