Nothing suggests that girls with hijab not integrate well into Norwegian society.
think tank Agenda has launched an “policy note” of integration. It is important to have ambitions for integration work in Norway, even though we know that it has already done a good job compared to EU countries.
We will not deny that some of the proposals in Agenda note is constructive, although the vast majority are self-evident or already proposed by others. Examples include the settlement of refugees and the fight against extremism.
- S about teacher I must admit that I have trouble with the whole debate: Burkinibarna
We want to point out that the specific examples of the note deals with Muslims, and especially Muslim women and / or children. It helps to reinforce the claim that we are already a segregated society. This paper is part of a increasingly common rhetoric, where mention of “the others” are normalized. Scapegoat is conservative Muslims. We believe integration debate must be approached from a more fundamental basis.
It is said a lot nice about individual rights, shared values and diversity in the policy note. Such as “Emphasis on similarities should prevail” and “respect for difference and diversity can give students confidence in the face of the diverse society Norway is.”
When one is a little over halfway through the note comes rhetorical seized as “masking” and “so-called niqab.” It is taken advocated that niqab in schools should be prohibited because of identification, just as if the teacher does not know who the student in niqab is. For the sake we have never witnessed that students or teachers have used the niqab in schools. And this is what is worrisome: At a policy memorandum on integration must mention such examples. Agenda getting the situation to emerge as precarious with an anecdote from Nav, when it certainly is not.
Even more incomprehensible is the assertion the hijab in elementary school is undesirable and should be prevented through national policies. There can not be anything other than a ban proposal, without mentioning the word ban. It is strange how the center-left pointing out one religious symbol belonging to a Muslim minority, instead of all religious symbols. It would perhaps fell KrF heavily chest if religious symbols in itself was a problem?
There is nothing to suggest that girls with hijab not integrate well into Norwegian society. On the contrary, there are many examples of the opposite.
It is proposed also to limit the supply of private religious schools “that can seem segregating.” There is, so far as we know, no private religious schools that currently seems segregating. This means schools where only students belonging to one religion or one particular gender are taken up.
It is also proposed to “strengthen dissemination of common values in schools “, such as human rights, gender equality and democratic citizenship. These are values that have already been strengthened, and that in the future will continue to have a central place in school. It happens as a result of Ludvigsen Committee recommendations, and changes after reforms.
Agendas selection is not really representative of the diversity that exists in political parties, organizations and the business community. If the Committee had also drawn into the second marginalized groups, such as Roma or Jews, had cause and measures understandings have been different.
How would we react if a policy note for equality between men and women was prepared, without that one woman sat on the committee?
No comments:
Post a Comment