How do you make the immigrant population feel «at home»? – Human rights service
Aftenposten’s commentator Nazneen Khan-Østrem believes she has the answer: give the population “recognizability and recognition” from their original culture. Someone who no longer believes in “integration” in the sense of taking part in the Norwegian?
One of our readers reacts strongly to Nazneen Khan-Østrems comment in Aftenposten 11 October, which he believes is enough and proof that Norwegian society must adapt to immigrants and not the other way around.
Recognizability and recognition
In the commentary, Khan-Østrem puts the spotlight on the development of Grønlikaia in Oslo, which is a new kilometer of harbor promenade and park, whether we should listen to Hav Eiendom as «Former future fjord town for everyone». And that is exactly “everyone” Nazneen Khan-Østrem has noticed.
Grønlikaia must be for everyone. But what does that really mean? And is participation just a nice word for disclaimer?
Hav Eiendom has invested considerable resources in listening to various actors, so-called participation in the urban development process, but Khan-Østrem ask if people with an immigrant background get enough impact in the company. In short, her message is that diversity “must be reflected and secured”. But how does she think this “diversity” should be safeguarded? Should Greenland have its own section India, a separate section with the Indian arch-enemy, Pakistan, and a separate section with – let’s say Somalia, not to forget Syria, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan and Berber Morocco – and also Arab Morocco? There are many indications:
In the district of Nørrebro in Copenhagen, which is reminiscent of Old Oslo, the park Superkilen was built to invite the diversity who live there. This was done after the riots in 2006. Parks have elements from, among other things, Arabic architecture.
British-Nigerian designer Yinka Ilori is behind the mildly colorful pavilion The Color Palace in Dulwich, London. He uses inspiration from the district’s Nigerian population. (…)
Such measures make more residents feel that the city is theirs. It provides recognizability and recognition.
In other words, immigrants in Norway must feel as at home. What is it then that we have misunderstood? Is it not Norway that should be at home? Is it so that we should give all immigrant groups, which are over 200 countries, not only recognizability, men too recognition of the culture and peculiarities of the country of origin? In that case, one must be able to ask why many of the same are in Norway?
Norway’s well and good
Nazneen Khan-Østrem’s comment says that the so-called “integration work” can be discontinued, and hundreds of millions of kroner-annually-of taxpayers’ money could have been saved. For those who want to take part in the Norwegian, as several there claim does not exist, they do. Which does not mean that the same necessary throw overboard their own cultural practices, but they do not demand that these should become part of Norwegian society.
Some would certainly write this comment as «xenophobic» or dismissive of other cultures, but would like it to be «anti-Norwegian» and dismissive of Norwegian culture. After all, it is Norway we live in, and if we can not take care of Norway, who do we think will do it? For it is as the above-mentioned reader says: how will it go with Norwegian society, when the picture includes other cultures and values to a greater and greater degree? He refers, among other things, to the recent murder of Hamse Hashi Adan (20) at Mortensrud in Oslo, who has been pointed out that young people do not feel that they are part of Norway. Why, he asks, and answers that it may be about Norway not being elected. Is the solution then that Norwegian society adapts to them?
The reader also points out that the national football team was applauded by the media in Norway for marking opposition to the conditions of foreign workers in Qatar, but when some point out behavior and attitudes that are not compatible with Norwegian society, one is accused of spreading xenophobia.
People like Khan-Østrem seem to be completely stuck in having an “immigrant background”. Norway is just a place that needs to change according to its own point of view. Nazneen Khan-Østrem also took the cake in the book My holy war (2005), in which she could not only portray as naive and claimed she was a persecuted Muslim, but far worse: she appeared violent. She was a dog doubtful to be willing to die like suicide bombers. At this time (2002-2011) she worked as a college lecturer at the Journalist Education at Oslo University College, and it is only to be feared that she has spread her ideas to many one-uncritical-journalist.
Now she is spreading her ideas as uncritical in Aftenposten.