I wrote yesterday that “Geert Wilders is persona non grata in Copenhagen”. This assertion did not sit well with some of my Viking friends, who do not consider it representative of their country as a whole.
I saw your post, but it should be noted that the coalition partner in Denmark, the Conservatives, back Wilders’ visit to Denmark.
He included a link to an article from Politiken on the topic (written in the strange dialect that is still spoken in Sjælland, Fynen, and Jylland, and perhaps even in Bornholm).
Kepiblanc had this to say in the comments:
The caption “Geert Wilders is persona non grata in Copenhagen” is misleading. Nothing whatsoever prevents him from coming here, staying here, living here, talking here and — just like any other citizen — behaving generally.
The whole kerfuffle started when the politician Mr. Naser Khader made a deal with the government: if you want my support, arrange an official — i.e. taxpayer-funded — conference about freedom of expression in return. An offer they could not refuse.
Then, the Danish People’s Party proposed to invite Geert Wilders, of course. Now, our lame government backpedalled with the pathetic excuse that his presence would deter some Arab states from participating in some over-hyped ‘climate conference’ due in Copenhagen this autumn — a big UN stunt arranged in order to talk about something else, eat a lot of expensive food, drink their brains out, visit brothels and attract a little limelight upon our tiny, forgotten and insignificant country.
– – – – – – – – –
Needless to say, our government is no different from other European governments: a collection of idiots.
But that’s just government. No ordinary Dane cares about government in any way, manner, shape or form. Mr. Wilders will be ‘persona extremely grata’ by — almost — all and everyone here in Denmark.
I concede his point: the actions of the government do not necessarily represent the opinions of the country at large. This is always the case.
But residents of all countries have to endure the characterization of the leaders’ actions as if they were their own. When Gordon Brown or Jan Peter Balkenende institutes some new idiotic policy, it is done by “Britain” or “Holland”. The policies of the Spanish government are ascribed to Spain, even if they are not supported by the people of Castile — not to mention the inhabitants of Asturias, Catalonia, Aragon, Andalucia, Extremadura, Galicia, and the Basque Country.
The Danes are such an eminently sensible people that they are forced to endure less of this governmental foolishness than most of the rest of us. Nevertheless, when the government in Copenhagen institutes a policy, it is “Denmark” which carries it out, whether most Danes like it or not.
The same is true for my country. I have to put up with the characterization of the actions of the morons in Washington as those of “the U.S.A.” It has always been that way, and always will be.
As for the current denizen of the Oval Office: I find his politics vile, his person repugnant, and the prospects for my country dire under his continued rule. Nevertheless, I accept the fact that the poisonous policies of his administration are billed as the deeds of “America”. That’s just the way these things go.
More than half the country voted for him, so he represents us. According to rumor he was especially popular amongst Deceased-Americans, and could not have been elected without their help.
But he is not as popular now as he was in November, and if the election were repeated today, he might not win. Nonetheless, he represents “America”, and will continue to do so until he is voted out of office or impeached — or until the country falls into anarchy and revolution.