”Rescuing” Muslim Women: A Justification for Discrimination
The Danish state’s distinction between Danes, Western immigrants and their descendants as opposed to non-Western immigrants and their descendants isn’t a neutral classification—it’s a strategic tool used to justify discrimination.
One of the most powerful justifications for this is the narrative of “rescuing” minority women—especially Muslim women—from so-called negative social control. Clearly, this is not really about empowerment; rather, it is a way to sustain exclusion and marginalisation. By framing Muslim women as victims in need of saving, the Danish state has legitimised policies that disproportionately target minority communities, all under the guise of equality and integration. But what happens when these categories no longer serve their purpose?
Danish Ghetto Laws
Introduced in 2018, Denmark’s so-called Ghetto Package brought major changes to the country’s public housing laws. Danish public housing associations have since been required to classify neighbourhoods based on factors such as unemployment rates, crime levels, education, income, and the proportion of residents from “non-Western” countries.
Areas that meet two out of five of these socioeconomic criteria are labelled as “vulnerable areas.” If more than 50% of the population comes from a “non-Western” background, the area is further designated as a “parallel society,” a term that replaced the previous classification of “ghettos.”
“Parallel societies”
If a neighbourhood not only meets these socioeconomic criteria but has also maintained a majority of “non-Western” residents for the past five years, it is categorised as a “transformation area”—formerly known as a “hard ghetto.” The Social Democratic government dropped the “ghetto” label, but the legal framework and discriminatory structures remained unchanged.
Hence, “transformation areas” requires housing associations to develop a plan to decimate public housing in the area by 40% by 2030, which can be achieved by selling off properties, demolishing buildings, privatisation, or simply terminating existing rental agreements.
Racially discriminatory
The distinction between “Western” and “non-Western” residents has been a core feature of Denmark’s Ghetto Package, a distinction that has now been deemed racially discriminatory by the EU’s Advocate General. One of the most significant aspects of the Advocate Generals assessment is its recognition that basing housing policies on ethnicity violates the EU’s Race Equality Directive.
Her assessment leaves little doubt. However, it is not the final verdict. The ECJ is expected to deliver its ruling within the next two to three months. Once that happens, the case will return to Denmark’s Eastern High Court for further legal proceedings. While it may be too soon to celebrate, this development signals a positive shift. Legal experts widely anticipate that the ECJ will uphold her recommendation.
Undermining the rule of law
The Ghetto Package consists of a long range of legislation impacting not only housing but also welfare policies, education, and the criminal justice system. Apart from the reduction of public housing areas, the Ghetto Package introduced harsher penalties for misdemeanours in certain neighbourhoods, a measure that has been widely criticised for undermining the rule of law.
Children living in designated vulnerable areas are also required to attend daycare from the age of one for at least 25 hours per week to learn Danish values and Danish traditions. One of the arguments behind this was combatting “negative social control” in so-called parallel societies, which purportedly prevents minority women from entering the work force.
Cultural reductivism
The paradox here is the fact these measures unfold alongside a broader feminist debate on motherhood, stay-at-home-parenting, and the increasing pressures on modern day parenthood. However, in the wider discourse, minority women are excluded from this conversation. Their struggles are constructed as simply cultural.
In Danish political discourse, discussions about ethnic minorities—particularly Muslim communities—are often framed in terms of culture rather than socioeconomic issues. Even when issues such as poverty, unemployment, housing shortages, or other structural challenges are addressed, they are frequently presented as a question of values. Social difficulties are almost inevitably folded into a narrative about a monolithic Muslim culture, whether they are Somali, Palestinian, Iraqi, or from elsewhere makes no difference, and even when the individuals in question were born in Denmark and share little beyond their religious background.
A “values” debate?
This perception of “Muslim culture” as inherently incompatible with Danish identity has profoundly influenced policymaking over the past 30-40 years. This group and its so-called cultural values are constructed as the antithesis of “Danishness”—, which in turn is depicted as intrinsically open-minded, freedom-loving, and committed to gender equality.
The concept of parallel societies aligns seamlessly with this constructed culture battle, serving as both a justification and an enabler for discriminatory legislation. A central theme in this narrative is the portrayal of a primitive, regressive culture that is fundamentally misogynistic, opposed to gender equality, and resistant to women’s freedom and education.
“Save the Women”
Without downplaying the severe impact, the ghetto laws have had on entire communities, it is important to highlight that a significant portion of this legislation, along with the political mobilisation behind it, derives its strength from the notion that Muslim women require rescuing, with the Danish state positioned as the essential saviour.
The concept of ‘negative social control’ has long been a staple in Danish political discourse and is often used to justify various discriminatory measures. And this is precisely the argument that keeps resurfacing whenever the concept of “parallel societies” appears—whether in media discourse, political discourse, legislative work, or reports published in connection with these policies. The idea that the most discriminatory laws, often tailored to target “non-Western” citizens (read: Muslims in Denmark), can be justified under the guise of women’s rights and the “rescue” of minority women is a recurring theme.
Discriminatory welfare reform
This does not only apply to the Ghetto Package but also to recent labour market regulations in Denmark. In January this year the Danish government introduced mandatory full-time work to receive certain welfare benefits.
An estimated 22,000 individuals were anticipated to be placed on the lowest benefit level while being required to fulfil a work obligation. The policy, which primarily targets unemployed immigrant women from “non-Western” backgrounds, has been criticised by the Danish Institute for Human Rights for potentially constituting indirect discrimination.
“Liberating” Muslim women
In the drafting of this legislation, the policy has been strategically framed as a tool to “liberate” non-Western women (read: Muslim women) from negative social control, which policymakers assert is the primary barrier keeping them at home. As an early draft of the law states:
“The work obligation is also intended to help break the cycle of negative social control that far too many women with non-Western backgrounds are subjected to. Instead, they should be engaged in meaningful communities and learn to stand on their own.”
Embedding exclusionary laws
This is yet another example of discriminatory legislation that strategically utilises the rhetoric of saving Muslim women to justify its legitimacy. Muslim women have become central to Denmark’s political narrative, and by invoking the need to “save” them, almost any discriminatory policy can be justified.
The estimated number this law would affect was later adjusted to 13.000, partly because it became clear that the law would impact transnational adoptees. Several politicians have expressed regret that this group was unintentionally swept up in an attempt to target immigrants specifically. As a politician from the populist right-wing party, the Danish People’s Party, blatantly put it:
The purpose of the work requirement is to directly target lazy foreigners who just lounge around at home watching Al Jazeera. It was never intended to affect people who are adopted. They are 100 percent Danish, even if they were born in, for example, Korea.
When categories fail
The position of transnational adoptees within the confines of Danishness is indeed more complex than can be fully explored here. Nevertheless, this “inclusion” exists in a contradictory space—amid a suffocating idea of Danishness that erases differences while simultaneously relying on othering and racism to define itself.
Yet, this only further illustrates how politically constructed these “Western/non-Western” categories are and how readily they can be tailored or redefined when they no longer align with the desired political purpose.
For years, the Ghetto Package, along with the statistical category non-Western immigrants and descendants have served as the perfect infrastructure for discriminatory legislation. The so-called parallel societies, which exist more on Danish policymakers’ desks than in reality, have been the perfect vessels for exclusionary laws and the further stigmatisation of already marginalised communities. It will be interesting to see what happens when—or if—this infrastructure collapses, once the final ruling is delivered, and what new narratives and legal frameworks might replace it.
The feminism we need
The Muslim woman as a trope has long been central to neoliberal, xenophobic, and Islamophobic policies. The Danish government, along with its like-minded European counterparts, has consistently used women’s rights and equality as tools to justify discrimination against immigrant communities as a whole, and Muslims especially.
Across Europe, neoliberal governments have shown that racism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia can easily coexist with a civilisational feminism that in turn legitimises these exclusions. Challenging this remains an essential part of the feminist struggle.
Farhiya Khalid is a journalist and historian based in Copenhagen. She is the host of More Than Bricks – a podcast about the Ghetto Package, and a member of the association Responsible Press that maps the representation of ethnic minorities in Danish media.