Goddag. Jeg er meget glad for at være her i dag. Tak fordi jeg måtte komme.

Resident Fellow Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Ladies and gentlemen of Venstre, Denmark’s [Classical] Liberal Party.

Let me start by thanking you for giving me the Freedom Award of Venstre in 2004. At the time I was unable to come and accept this prize in person because this prestigious event coincided with the terrible murder of Theo van Gogh and the decision of my country’s security authorities to hide me in the US for my safety.

Today I am honored to be here as a ‘surprise guest’ at this year’s Party Convention. I was invited by your party leader to say a word or two on values in relation to the issue of the integration of minorities in Europe.

The debate on the integration of non-Western minorities into western societies is essentially a debate on conflicting values and views.

On the one hand there is a clash in faith, ideals, attitude, habits and approach to life between the mainstream of the native populations of Europe and the communities from non-Western countries. Where this clash involves faith, it is often some Muslim minorities who find it most difficult to reconcile the demands of their religion with the secular demands of the country they live in.

On the other hand there is a conflict in view (approach) among the political and intellectual elite of European nations on how to deal with this tension between immigrants and natives.

Clash of Values between the Immigrants and the Natives

For a proper understanding of the roots for the tension between the natives of Europe and those who come in search of a better life from non-Western nations we cannot ignore the difference in moral ethics between and within the societies today’s immigrants come from and the western societies they emigrate to. Of course there are myriad differences. But I am only concerned with those differences that might explain the clash in values that we are witnessing today in Europe between the natives and immigrants. Three are worth mentioning.

First, in the non-Western societies that the immigrants of Europe come from, the natural conflict between social cohesion and individual liberty have not been settled. Second, no balance has been found between faith and reason. Third, the place of religion in the public arena has not been defined.

Few of the states, in the developing world that were established shortly after the decolonization process are relatively successful. Many have failed. The immigrants who come in search of a better a life and settle here permanently are those who depart from failing or failed states. The loyalty of individuals in these countries to the state is secured by force through the military and police.

States that require absolute obedience from their citizens do not foster knowledge and curb individual enterprise and creativity. Thus any form of education that is felt by the authoritarian state to be in conflict with its interest in power is discouraged. Often, most inhabitants from these weak, failing or failed states revert back to their original tribal or clan or religious loyalties. Religious, tribal and clan unities in turn demand from their individual members such loyalty that when the interests of the individual collide with that of the group, the individual must give in.

As a result only those traits in a person are encouraged that are seen to be essential for the collective. These traits are obedience to the state, tribal or religious authority and the duty to attack (be intolerant of) any behavior by other individuals within or outside of the group that may in anyway undermine the (short-term) common interest of the group in question. Often because tribes and religious groups lack military and police power they secure individual loyalty through superstition and the grooming of their members in elaborate traditions, rites and customs. Curiosity and scientific research is not encouraged for that will only diminish group cohesion. This leads us to the conclusion that most non-Western immigrants have not gone through the process of individualization, rationalization and secularization that European societies have gone through. The mere arrival in Paris, London and Berlin from Africa, Asia or the Middle East does not lead a person automatically to a change in attitude, tastes or outlook in life. Values are the results of many years of grooming and can only take many years--even generations--before old morals will be replaced with new ones.

I am aware of the fact that I am generalizing. The reality is of course more complex. There are huge differences between people living in cities and those in the rural areas. There are differences among individuals in the amount of importance they attach to faith and tribal constraints. There are those immigrants who, once they come here, find it very easy to retain some of their tribal or religious customs that are compatible with life in a hyper-modern society like this one. It is not my intention to dismiss all immigrants as lacking individuality, or to describe them as being ignorant, superstitious and intolerant.

My concern is only with those immigrants who have adjustment problems without of course explaining away all adjustment problems as a question of values. It is an attempt to identify those values that some immigrants bring with them from home that might have been a source of survival or even wealth in the country of origin but lead to conflict and stunt their opportunities here.

A Polarized Leadership

The second level of conflict in relation to the future of immigrants in Europe is the disagreement among the politicians and intellectuals (scholars, journalists, publicists, etc) of Europe.

This conflict is not so much about values but about views.

The Socio-Economic Approach

One school of thought sees the integration-question primarily as having socio-economic causes and therefore socio-economic remedies. Poverty is the cause of migration and poverty is the cause of bad integration. Once the cycle of poverty is broken the second and third generations will adjust easily. The best way to break this poverty cycle is through affirmative action. The state must legislate and subsidize an anti-poverty campaign. Poor people eat badly in general and suffer all sorts of health problems and are badly housed. The state, it is said, must provide the funds for good food (vegetables are more expensive than junk food), health care and proper housing facilities. Neighborhoods should be given youth centers for recreation and sports activities. All these activities are to be performed by the state through social workers and civil servants of the city council.

These street level bureaucrats are to use the services of an army of advisers ranging from anthropologists to experts on child care and experts on conflict mediation. When values are an issue at all, according to this school of thought, the values of immigrants deserve as much respect as those of the natives. When conflict arises it is state employees who engage so called community leaders and ask them to mediate between neighbors and parents emphasizing all along the importance of tolerance and mutual respect.

All extraordinary demands made by minorities in relation to their faith, culture and traditions must be accommodated in principle. Where costs cannot be met by the immigrant communities then the state must help out financially. Many of those who adhere to this school of thought assume that the source of the tension between immigrants and natives has to do with xenophobia and the desire of natives to discriminate. Thus they put the burden of the adjustment squarely on the shoulders of the natives. The natives should be patient, tolerant and welcoming. That is one approach.

The Socio-Cultural Approach

The other approach is favored by those who put the emphasis on the socio-cultural variables. They believe that the customs and convictions that immigrants bring with them from home can be obstacles to their successful integration here.

This view is held by politicians and scholars who have converted from the socio-economic approach. It is really a reaction to the failure of the policies that were implemented in the past three to four decades based on the social-economic model of integrating immigrants and minorities in Europe.

While this socio-cultural approach is relatively new and still highly controversial, those who favor it do not deny the existence of discrimination and the need for the natives to adjust as well but they put a great deal of the responsibility to integrate on the shoulders of the immigrants.

Immigrants must learn the language of the society they live in. They must not wait until they are ‘activated’ by the state to work but must find jobs themselves. They must learn and accept the constitution and take the initiative to find out about the culture and the habits of the society they live in.

Political allegiance is a prerequisite for earning citizenship and bringing in spouses from the countries of origin must be discouraged through legislation. Immigrants who have an issue with the policy choices of the state or town they live in must engage in dialogue through the accepted modes of democratic dissent: the use of violence is not one of the accepted modes of dissent.

Planned immigration, law enforcement and the stimulation of the individual responsibility of the immigrants is the motto. Discrimination should be eliminated, but affirmative action must be limited as well. Customs and edicts of faith that curb the freedom of other individuals--including one’s own family members--are not to be tolerated anymore and perpetrators of crimes justified via religious arguments must be actively brought to justice. Moral and cultural relativism, in the thinking of those who favor this approach, lead more to disintegration and isolation of immigrants and not to their happiness.

Due to several incidents since the 11th of September--the bombings in Madrid and London, the murder of Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam, the cartoon crisis here, the torching of cars in the suburbs of Paris, the veil-debate in the UK--this view is gaining more and more popularity in almost all the European countries.

The Danish liberal party was perhaps the first to acknowledge that the social-economic approach with its Marxist principles and relativist policies had led to a crisis in the integration of minorities. And that this crisis could--in the light of global events--only get worse. It is your party that adopted a value based agenda. The first policies to rescue immigrants from a life of state dependency were devised and implemented by your party. Of course with the necessary help from other parties as that is the nature of coalition systems. Other European countries that condemned you five years ago are now coming to learn from you.

All this is marvelous and you deserve heartfelt compliments for what you have accomplished.

But does this mean that the clash of values and views has been resolved?

Certainly not!

Fortunately, an ever-growing number of European leaders accept that such values as individual freedom and responsibility, curiosity, rationality, hard work and tolerance are the key to success in a liberal society. But such values are the result of years of grooming and practice. Education and peer influence make it easier for immigrants to acquire such values and integrate rapidly.

That is why the biggest challenge in the coming years is how to tackle the structural segregation and self segregation of large numbers of immigrants. I am talking about the neighborhoods and schools that have come to be called ‘black’. Places that are separated from the rest of society through a combustible combination of ethnicity, fanatical religious groups, poverty and crime.

For your value-based integration approach to be successful on the long term your party and other liberal parties of Europe need to address this issue with urgency. Nothing is more controversial than the issue of segregation. In the debate that followed the riots in the French suburbs last year some suggested that the Banlieues be torn down and the inhabitants spread across France. Tearing down such neighborhoods and relocating communities is of course the best solution for segregation. However, this solution will not succeed unless those who move and those who live in the neighborhoods where people are moved to see a shared interest in becoming neighbors.

The good thing about political parties is that they seek power in order to reshape society. The special thing about classical-liberal parties is their love of tackling challenges and their belief in making progress through trial and error.

I can imagine the leadership of this party trying to work out ways to get rid of these ghettos and the party members--you, ladies and gentlemen-in persuading regular Danes, of their interest to accept an immigrant as a neighbor and or an immigrant child as a schoolmate to their children. This effort of persuasion applies to the immigrants in the ghettos as well.

In any case I wish you good luck and a great deal of common sense in dealing with this and all the other challenges you may encounter in running this valiant nation.
 
Tak.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a resident fellow at AEI.