Mothers-only school meeting attracts outrage

Politicians up in arms over school’s anti-bullying meeting that is aimed only at mothers of pupils

The decision taken by a Copenhagen school to ban fathers from a parental meeting out of respect for Muslim mothers has drawn deep divides between politicians and school leaders.

Holberg School in the city’s Bispebjerg district has scheduled a meeting for parents about the school’s anti-bullying policy this evening. But the meeting at the multi-cultural school is mothers only, and neither Danish nor immigrant fathers of pupils have been welcomed to attend.

The invitation from the school invites mothers to attend a ‘debate about bullying that includes mother talk, yummy food, coffee and cake’. They are also invited to bring their young children with them if needed, as babysitting will be provided.

School principal Søren Ellesøe told Berlingske Tidende newspaper that the school took the decision in order to reach out to a group of parents who usually don’t attend parent teacher meetings.

‘We have immigrant women parents in particular whose husbands believe that women should not take part in something if other men are present,’ he said.

A questionnaire on the school’s website undertaken by older students showed that a quarter of the school pupils come from a non-Danish ethnic background.

Chairman of the Danish Teachers’ Union, Anders Bondo Christensen, is backing the decision taken by the principal.

‘If it’s to ensure that students get a safe and good school day without bullying then I respect the decision,’ he said.

But politicians are up in arms, most notably Socialist People’s Party leader Villy Søvndal, who is outraged that the fathers’ equality is being ignored out of consideration for some ‘obdurate religious ideas’.

‘I’m simply shocked that a principal at a public school can take such a decision. It was likely undertaken with the best intentions, but it is deeply, deeply damaging,’ Søvndal said.

He is now putting pressure on the deputy mayor for the city council’s children and youth administration Anne Vang to intervene and ensure the meeting is cancelled if fathers are not allowed to attend.

Meanwhile the Danish People’s Party (DF) is going a step further and calling for the principal to be fired if the meeting goes ahead at 5.30pm without any fathers present.

‘We won’t allow immigrant men to set the agenda for how we hold meetings in our schools,’ said DF group chairman at the city council Carl Christian Ebbesen.

Comments

Only CPHPOST registered users can write comments!

tomnashdk

|2010-02-04 12:37:42

So what about us single fathers who would like to participate? My wife, my son's mother, is dead. We have no choice, it is either me or no one to represent my son. So am I to be excluded from school meetings from now on? I am all for cultural awareness and acceptance, in fact I am a strong proponent of it, but this one goes waaaaay over the line. As absolutely distasteful as it is for me, I find myself actually agreeing with DF on this one.

mig selv

|2010-02-04 15:53:58

It reads to me like a one-time shot at bringing more people into the process -- people who would otherwise be left out.

If it does that, I'm all for it, though maybe a separate Dads-only night would keep the "stomp any foreign-ness out of them now" crowd at bay.

Heidi aka MissFuzzy

|2010-02-05 09:47:50

Even a stopped watch is correct twice a day, as they say. I would strongly urge parents NOT to allow their emotions to allow them to let down their guard for even a second to concede that any proposal or opinion by the DFP is in any way sane or to our benefit.

Tom, such a ruling would be unfortunate for you, indeed, but let's hope that the school officials reconsider and host a meeting for fathers who might be interested in attending. It actually might be more productive, since the genders often have different perceptions of bullying, and different ways of tackling the problem.

PC - Next meeting...

|2010-02-05 12:32:40

...for burka wearing women only. Danish women better comply or they will be labelled racists!

wor - Existing laws...

|2010-02-05 12:39:59

...that prohibit sexual discrimination should apply here.

If it were the other way around, with women being prohibited, the proverbial would hit the fan.

Also, if " immigrant women parents" were previously prohibited by their husbands to attend meetings previously, it is highly unlikely that these " immigrant women parents" would be "allowed" to attend this meeting by their husbands.

Another fine example of "messed up thinking", where noboby sees it fit to actually crtique their own ideas.

SortHest - Respect???

|2010-02-05 21:16:18

It's sadly ironic that this school is trying to stop bullying by recruiting the victims of religiously institutionalised bullying.

Should society be "respecting" the backward, unequal, violent oppressiveness of men who refuse to let their wives even be in the same room as other men? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to deal with these antisocial grown-up bullies?

mig selv

|2010-02-08 09:50:08

"Also, if ' immigrant women parents' were previously prohibited by their husbands to attend meetings previously, it is highly unlikely that these 'immigrant women parents' would be 'allowed' to attend this meeting by their husbands."

Tell that to the people at Blågård Skole, where they've been doing this for some time. This is a well thought-out idea, by people who have their priorities straight. Nice to see most of the politicians coming 'round, too.

tomnashdk

|2010-02-08 10:02:52

damestjernelys - MOM is dead. As in not alive. Buried. In the ground. Not divorced and living somewhere else, DEAD. Are we clear here? It is a bit difficult for her to attend a meeting at the school. So DAD is who goes to school meetings, and I did so even when she was alive.

I still say this is bull. As I said, I am all for trying to accommodate other's beliefs, but not at anyone's expense, ESPECIALLY when it comes to my chold's well-being and potential safety. We should be looking for a win-win here, not an exclusion of anyone.

This is the wrong approach.

wor - To "mig selv"

|2010-02-08 15:25:17

Thanks for your comment and for quoting some of my previous comment. It all makes for a good discussion.

I still disagree with the idea put forward in the article. The idea is "well intentioned" but that does not make it a a good idea...good ideas work work in theory AND in practise.

"inclusion by exclusion", "equal, but not equal", "offending in order not to offend", where do we draw the line? This is why I state that the idea put forward is a "Another fine example of "messed up thinking".

Also, there is a very fine twist in the quote of mine that you quoted, when compared to the article...something I missed earlier. The article said "‘We have immigrant women parents in particular whose husbands believe that women should not take part in something if other men are present", whilst I wrote about "women not being ALLOWED by their husbands"

...maybe it was presumptious of me to asume that because a women's husband "believes" that she should not attend a meeting, that the women would not go (and just obey). Call me sexist if you want (sticks and stones etc). But that is the implication I pulled out of the article.

So the the real question the school should have asked the "immigrant women parents", is,
"Bearing in mind that you live in a land where YOU have the right to decide if you want to attend a meeting or not, irrespective of your husband's thoughts, why do you still not attend?"

Since the school was willing to provide baby sitters, and kids were allowed, providing these for all meetings would solve the baby sitting issue.

The answer to the question above is the root cause of the problem.

Reply welcomed

wor - How is it possible

|2010-02-08 15:34:35

...to effectively tackle bullying by seperatist means?

Surely one would like to present a united front.

The seperate meetings simply continue the "out-grouping".

A meeting/event should have been planned where Mums, Dads, and kids were invited with some kind of participation event...call it team building, as to tackle bullying we have to work as a team.

Also, a meeting/event where Mums, Dads, and kids were involved AND interacted with each other, may actually go along way to stop bullying as the parents would "know of" each other, so the bullies would be faced with the prospect of "bullying someone their parent(s) know", and not just "someone elses kid"..my point point is that bullying should be tackled by presenting a united front.

magic1964 - Glad to live in a Christian zone....

|2010-02-08 17:11:29

Im glad to live in a Christian area of Copenhague. As soon as muslim take over a zone , individual freedom is under threat .......in the name of tolerance.

mig selv

|2010-02-09 08:37:39

"The answer to the question above is the root cause of the problem."

---

Like the DF and the initial reaction from Villy, you're focusing on the wrong problem. The important thing is to get the mothers involved in the well-being of their children. This is why the kommune funded such events (with broad support).

You and the DF can score all the points you want pointing out their differences, their lack of integration, their suppression of womens' rights, etc., but that won't help with the reality that mothers-only meetings are a good way to ensure that everyone gets to be involved.

On top of that, if you read about what's happened at Blågård Skole, where they have de facto such meetings, you'll see that it has the added bonus of getting some of the muslim mothers to "open up." Head scarves come off. Chats. Coffee. Sounds like a whole lotta' hyggin' goin' on. ;)

So I ask everyone: if your goal is to stop bullying, how does it help to continue the status quo?

And if your goal is to improve integration, which is better: sitting back and pointing fingers (or drawing cartoons) or meeting someone -- albeit on a limited basis -- face-to-face?

magic1964 - Occupied territories...

|2010-02-09 11:46:02

Some district of CPH are just islamic-occupied territories captured by muslims forces...Just like what happens in the Middle East. : ))

Heidi aka MissFuzzy

|2010-02-09 12:31:28

"And if your goal is to improve integration, which is better: sitting back and pointing fingers (or drawing cartoons) or meeting someone -- albeit on a limited basis -- face-to-face?"

Exactly!

Magic, you have *serious* issues with your rabid hatred of Muslims. It's entirely non-productive, repetitive and pointless, but I'm sure you've scored brownie points with your Danish overlords for your Good Immigrant attitude, lol.

wor - To "mig selv"

|2010-02-09 12:45:52

Thanks for your comment.

My point about the root cause STILL stands...the problem is not that men are present at metings. The problem is that some women STOP themselves attending, even when they have to power to chose for themselves.

You say I'm focusing on the wrong problem. Actually, I'm focusing on the root cause of the problem..that is ALWAYS the right place to focus.

STATUS QUO: Not fixing the problem at the root cause is continuing the status quo (existing state of affairs) of some women CHOOSING to limit themselves, even though in this case it in their own interest not to.
...to help integration WE have to continue trying to integrate by "including ourselves".

You seem to have thrown me in the same bag as DF and Villy...what you say only speaks about yourself, and shows that you have not read (I think) any of my previous posts regarding DF.

Talking about DF. Whilst writing my previous posts, I thought about the following: "What if there were some people, maybe DF members, who felt that they could not attend a meeting where there were muslims present...should we have a seperate school meeting for them?"

...where do we draw the line?

Reply welcomed

Jon_Casey - Comments not appreciated…

|2010-02-09 14:10:01

Once again Magic, your comments here show a total lack of social awareness, aptitude and understanding, and add nothing of relevance to this topic. Please STOP using these posts to make small minded, bigoted and racist remarks. And to the Copenhagen POST editing team, I would strongly suggest that you take a harder look at your “comments” editing methods and standards. As of late there have been a growing number posts from a certain group people which are quite inappropriate, and are bringing down your reputation as a balanced, intelligent and unbiased newspaper.

magic1964 - Not funny....

|2010-02-09 14:25:22

If I write some districts of Costa del sol in Spain are Lutherians occupied territories captured by Danish forces, people would think lt´s funny. But because I mention muslims Im not funny but racist....

JFD - Jon Casey...

|2010-02-09 14:54:40

... you need a free speach 101 refresher course.

CPH Post is just the outlet, what magic says is a reflection on him, not the Post.

"your comments here show a total lack of social awareness, aptitude and understanding, and add nothing of relevance to this topic"

Fine, that is your opinion, but others may regard his comments as whitty sarcasm used to illustrate a point. I am not taking a side either way, just stating that it should be the reader who judges for him or herself.

In an age of increasing bias seeping into the way the news is reported, praise should go out to the CPH Post for not playing the role of censor.

lemigrant - what can the regular dane do about it?

|2010-02-09 15:05:23

@ tomnashdk

i totally understand ur pov and as a son who has grown up most of my youth without a mother, too, i know how unfair the treatment of single parents, especially singe fathers is in europe.

but hey, what can you do about it?

STOP VOTING FOR LEFT-WING-PARTIES! i´m not saying "vote DF" but if you confess that you also think tight rules on immigration and integration are necessary, why is the danish people letting down the minority government of liberals and conservatives.

we´re talking the homeland of your son here. he doesn´t have a second one in reserve, just in case in denmark it´ll go all wrong because nobody dares to point out the obvious!

before the next elections, think about what you´re son will appreciate more:

a free, liberal society, that values the right to freedom of speech, equality of sexes, reasonable laws and rules who don´t overrespect religious minorities or even more taxes and an even tighter social network.

Jon_Casey - Here’s a lesson from the European Free Speech 101…

|2010-02-09 16:32:28

JFD, something that you might not be aware of is that the laws relating to free speech are a lot more stringent here in Europe than they are in the US. For example, where as it is legally acceptable under the first amendment of the US constitution to make anti Semitic comments or contest the Holocaust, these same comments are not acceptable and are in fact illegal in most countries in the EU. In Germany these comments would be punishable under the Volksverhetzung act, in France under the Loi Gayssot act, in Belgum under the Anti-Racism Law, in the UK under Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986, in the EU this is covered by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, etc...

Free speech should never be used as a cover for making racist remarks or inciting hatred. As a reasonable person, I would hope that you agree with that.

magic1964 - Racist ??

|2010-02-09 16:45:57

Me racist ?? What a joke....sarcastic probably but not racist at all. Racism is so over used, and its meaning so transformed that soon ordering a black coffe in a bar will be seen as an offensive racist remark....

JFD - @ Jon Casey

|2010-02-10 13:37:19

1st let's clear up some technicalities.

A. "it is legally acceptable under the first amendment of the US constitution to make anti Semitic comments"

Completely not true.

Using anti-Semitic remarks in most contexts would be against the Civil Rights act of 1964 as amended and would be a criminal offense. Additionally, those who use anti-Semitic remarks could also find themselves liable for damages in civil court. You brought the US into for some completely unknown reason when I made no reference to it, so in the future I suggest that you don’t pontificate about things you don't know.

B. Muslims are those of the Islamic faith, not a "race": Therefore, someone who may be anti-Islamic is not a racist, per se. However, I will concede this is just a semantic technicality and just let the word “racist” apply in this context because I know what your intent is and the word has grown to be commonly in a broader scope that its literally meaning.

2nd - "Free speech should never be used as a cover for making racist remarks or inciting hatred. As a reasonable person, I would hope that you agree with that".

Sure, I’ll agree with that just as easily as I would agree with the fact that the sky is blue. The problem arises from the fact that you have solely judged magic’s comments as racist when I do not think they are.

We all have our hot-button issues, one of them is Muslim integration in Denmark. Facts are that Muslim’s make up a minority of the population yet constitute a majority of the active criminal cases in the legal system ( I am pressed for time now but can find a reference to support this claim later). Secondly, Muslims have proven themselves to be the demographic group least likely to integrate into Danish society. That is what this heart of this article is all about. Therefore, when magic takes a stand against a valid problem of Muslim integration in DK, he is doing this based on statistically supported behavior that he and many others feel is threatening our society.

This is not the least bit racism. It may not be politically correct and it may be a sensitive issue, but one is not racist if they speak against is, even when they use colorful sarcasm.

Magic is completely right when he says that “racism is so over used”, and it is people like you who we have to thank for making us live in a world that is so politically correct that objectivism is thrown out the window.

I am not asking you to like or agree with his comments, but when you go to the point of asking the editorially staff to censor them because YOU feel they are racist, that’s when you cross the line and demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the international concept of free speech.

tomnashdk - To lemigrant -

|2010-02-10 14:42:56

"but hey, what can you do about it?"

Make one's frustration known to the school and demand equal rights and treatment.

"but if you confess that you also think tight rules on immigration and integration are necessary"

Actually, as an immigrant I don't think the current tight rules on either are necessary. In my opinion DK has gone way overboard with its tight immigration and integration rules.

"we´re talking the homeland of your son here. he doesn´t have a second one in reserve,"

Actually, as a dual Danish Citizen and American citizen, he does have a homeland in reserve. Even at his young age he can see what is happening to DK, and he has asked me about moving to America. At the tender young age of nine he is already realizing the horrible insidious impact of Danish attitudes and Jantelov, and he does not like it one bit.

"before the next elections, think about what you´re son will appreciate more:"

Watching DK self-destruct from the safe haven of America where he can be who he wants to be without some silly Jante-neighbor trying to tell him he should not be allowed? :)

tomnashdk

|2010-02-10 14:50:49

"... where as it is legally acceptable under the first amendment of the US constitution to make anti Semitic comments or contest the Holocaust, these same comments are not acceptable and are in fact illegal in most countries in the EU."

I am really struggling to put those laws regarding anti-Semitism and the acceptability of Danish cartoons regarding Muslims into perspective. Something just does not add up here.

But WTF do I know about anything anyway?

All I know is that some kids are beating up other kids in school, and the principal thinks single fathers should not be allowed to be part of the solution. Since I cannot be part of the "civilized" solution I will just send my kid to kung fu class and tell him to knock the crap out of the bully the next time he gets the chance...

wor - ...where do we draw the line?

|2010-02-10 21:38:25

I have asked the above question twice in my posts above.

The answer I feel that comes out of the of some of the posted responses is that some of us are really are prepared to draw the line UNFAIRLY

...and even worse, some of us are trying to defend an unjust decision with intellectual prowess...I think some one called this the "Intelligence Trap"

DAME: Thanks for posting, but if the school was proactive then THEY should have arranged a meetings for farthers "at the same time, and announced it at the same time"...actions speak louder than words...though I don't believe that is good enough. I refer you all to my previous posts.

Also, "• Det er et caféarrangement - IKKE et almindeligt forældremøde
"
The suitable responses to the above statement, in my opinion, are the same ones that have been posted to the "Cartoonist: Mohammed drawing not Mohammed" article elsewhere on this site :-)

I was just thinking about Rosa Parks. I feel that some of these mothers the school are trying to encourage have actually put themselves at the back of the bus, and instead of the school saying that there is actually lots of room at the front of the bus, the school says instead "Hold on a minute, all you Mothers who CHOSE to sit at the back of the bus come forward, and we (the school) wil just stick (force) the Fathers to the back of the bus"..and keep driving down the wrong road. Analogies only work to a point, but this anology is apt.

It only takes ONE of these "immigrant woman parents " to say to the others that actually their religion does not prohibit them from taking part in meetings where women are present...Proof being that some Muslim Women are already "involving themselves" in meetings where men are present.

mig selv

|2010-02-12 10:36:41

The martyr complex is strong in this one...

People, people, people. It's a coffee-chat. It's opening the dialog to some who don't otherwise participate. No one is being excluded from the process in general.

wor, I don't care if you're for the DF or not. You're welcome to think that Muslim integration overrides all things otherwise, but the people who run the school are focusing on the bullying, and I agree with them.

If you _still_ want to focus on integration, then in this case it is best done by treating the symptoms.

wor - To "mig selv"

|2010-02-12 14:47:34

Thanks for your comment, but...

Instead of telling me what I am "welcome to think", just READ what I think from my comments, and crtique it in an objective manner..IF YOU CAN BE OBJECTIVE.

I have put forward some questions and points that you have not answered...not that you have to, but I don't believe YOU can answer the questions and points I have put forward without involving some kind of "double standard".

The "double standard" is part of the fundamental problem, and you have not addressed that.

Also, my point about the school not simultaneously arranging a similar meeting for Farthers is a very good one, and points to a lack of concern for Fathers. You have not addressed that.

I do not need you to agree with me, what would have been educating, would have been for people who supported the views of the school to answer the questions and points of view of the people with the opposing view.

The "double standard" is strong in this issue

Reply welcome

garrymc73 - to JFD

|2010-02-13 09:33:06

JFD wrote: "Facts are that Muslim’s make up a minority of the population yet constitute a majority of the active criminal cases in the legal system ( I am pressed for time now but can find a reference to support this claim later)"

I'd be very interested in this source if you could post it.

JFD - @Garry

|2010-02-13 19:42:58

Having trouble finding the smoking gun article I once read, but start here if you can read Danish:

http://jp.dk/indland/krimi/article1371018.ece

garrymc73

|2010-02-14 11:51:01

Thanks for the link JFD. Just a couple of things:

1) The article discusses immigrants in general and not muslims.
2) More importantly the article doesn’t back up your claim that “muslims make up the majority of active criminal cases.”

Granted, the article discusses a growing over-representation of 1st and 2nd generation immigrants in prison. However, this is quite different from your claim. I’d just like to know if your claim is in fact true.

cheers

Name:	*
Username:	*
E-mail:	*
Password:	*
Verify Password:	*
Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required.

Mothers-only school meeting attracts outrage

Latest Comment

Most Read

Latest News

Focus on

Failing the grade

Home sweet home?

A gift in a time of crisis