Danish crackdown on ‘non-western’ ghettos faces rejection by EU court

A crackdown by Denmark on “parallel society” neighbourhoods where the majority of people have a “non-western” background faces being blocked by an EU court.

Judges at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg were advised on Thursday that Denmark's policy of forcibly redeveloping areas formerly known as “hard ghettos” amounts to “direct discrimination” based on race.

Tenants evicted under the plans – including migrants from Lebanon, Syria and Turkey – are seeking to have them struck down under EU anti-racism laws.

The court's advocate general Tamara Capeta said Denmark's push for integration “seems to have the contrary effect” by stigmatising those with a foreign background because of a belief that they struggle to fit in. Although her written advice is not binding on judges, it is seen as influential when they come to their final verdict.

Denmark's government maintains a list of “parallel society” neighbourhoods in which more than 50 per cent of people are of non-western origin and there are signs of deprivation such as low income, lack of education or drug use. The disputed laws force these areas into a “transformation” – for example by demolishing social housing or selling it to private developers.

Eight of these “transformation areas”, which were officially known as “hard ghettos” until 2021, are currently earmarked for redevelopment across Denmark. They include neighbourhoods in the cities of Odense and Aarhus where more than three-quarters of residents are non-western and most have no education beyond primary school. Several of the tenants in court lived in an area called Mjolnerparken in Copenhagen.

The laws are part of a Danish migration policy that ministers trumpet as one of the strictest in Europe. The government last week celebrated new figures showing only 860 people were granted asylum in Denmark last year, the second-fewest since 1983. “It is crucial for our society and cohesion that we have a low asylum influx so that integration can keep up,” Immigration Minister Kaare Dybvad Bek said.

However, Ms Capeta said Denmark had failed to provide evidence of “parallel societies” or to show that non-western immigrants have particular problems adapting to Danish society. The law in question “seems not only to be based on prejudice, but it also contributes to the perpetuation of that stereotyping and stigmatisation”, she wrote.

The Danish government denies its policy is discriminatory, saying non-western people are such a broad group that nobody is being singled out for their ethnic background. The definition covers European states such as Russia, Albania and Serbia as well as all of Africa, Asia and South America. The list of western countries includes the US, Australia and New Zealand.

About one in six of Denmark's population has a migrant background. People with roots in Turkey, Ukraine, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon are the biggest non-western population groups.

Different treatment

Although Ms Capeta conceded that tenants were not evicted based on their individual ethnic background, she said they were still treated differently “because of the ethnic criterion” applied to their neighbourhood. The housing policy is being challenged by 11 people given eviction notices in Copenhagen, and five others ordered out of a neighbourhood in the town of Slagelse, west of Copenhagen.

“Paradoxically, the Danish legislation that was enacted to help immigrants and their descendants from non-western countries to integrate more easily into Danish society seems to have the opposite effect,” Ms Capeta wrote.

“By perpetuating stigmatisation on ethnic grounds, it makes it more difficult for the members of the group of 'non-western immigrants and their descendants' to find a job, acquire respect and participate on equal footing in Danish society.”

If the European court agrees, it will refer the case back to the Danish justice system with a ruling that the law in question violates EU anti-racism rules. Danish judges could also be asked to consider whether there is “scientific evidence”, rather than just “prevailing social prejudice”, in favour of redeveloping social housing in migrant areas.