What is Missing in Denmark’s First National Action Plan Against Racism (NAPAR)?

Bashy Quraishy – Secretary General, EMISCO (European Muslim Initiative for Social Cohesion)

Gregory Christensen – Leader, Youth for Human Rights, Denmark

Thierry Valle – President, CAP Freedom of Conscience

Denmark’s first National Action Plan Against Racism (NAPAR) is a belated but crucial move to tackle racial discrimination. Yet, it is narrowly focused, mentioning only Jewish and Greenlandic communities, and excluding critical areas like anti-Muslim racism, structural changes, comprehensive data collection, and independent monitoring. Without addressing these issues, NAPAR risks being merely symbolic rather than a transformative tool.

Denmark’s anti-racist NGOs, including Youth for Human Rights, Fair Play, SOS Against Racism, and the European Muslim Initiative for Social Cohesion, have collaborated with European organizations to combat racism, discrimination, and human rights shortcomings. They have shared critical information with ECRI (European Commission against Racism and Intolerance) and ENAR (European Network Against Racism), significantly influencing ECRI’s recommendations for the Danish government. However, implementation has been challenging, and the latest NAPAR reveals multiple oversights.

1. Focus on Anti-Muslim Racism and Islamophobia

• Absence of explicit mention of Muslims or Islamophobia: Despite ECRI’s repeated calls for addressing anti-Muslim discrimination, the plan only highlights Jews and Greenlanders, excluding Muslims.
• ECRI’s specific recommendations: The government has not prioritized anti-Muslim racism as urged by ECRI.

2. Broad, Holistic Measures Against Racism

• Data collection gaps: ECRI’s recommendation for a unified hate crime data system with disaggregated data and awareness-raising remains unaddressed.
• Structural safeguards lacking: The plan neglects racial profiling prohibitions, stigmatizing categorizations, and punitive policies like the “ghetto law” and forced evictions.

| Recommendation / Concern | Status in NAPAR |
|————————-|—————–|
| Explicit inclusion of anti-Muslim Islamophobia measures | Missing |
| Comprehensive hate crime data collection | Missing |
| Stopping categorization of “non-Western” groups | Not addressed |
| Clear legal ban on racial profiling | Not addressed |
| Addressing “ghetto policy” and forced evictions | Not addressed |

The plan, though welcome, fails to tackle systemic issues—particularly anti-Muslim racism, data transparency, profiling, and discriminatory urban policies—that international bodies have flagged.

1. Deeper dive into the main gaps (what’s missing and why that matters)
2. Best-practice examples (what other countries/institutions do)
3. Concrete recommendations Denmark could adopt

A. No explicit focus on anti-Muslim racism / Islamophobia

What’s missing: Recognition of Muslims as a protected group in action planning and targeted initiatives.
Why it matters: Without naming or targeting groups facing specific discrimination patterns, interventions often miss the lived problems.

B. Weak / absent disaggregated data and hate-incident recording

What’s missing: A standardized system for disaggregated data on hate crimes and discrimination complaints.
Why it matters: Reliable data is crucial for measuring scope, targeting interventions, and evaluating progress.

C. No clear anti-profiling safeguards and policing reforms

What’s missing: Explicit prohibitions on profiling and oversight mechanisms for law enforcement.
Why it matters: Disproportionate practices often lead to broader structural exclusion.

D. No structural policy changes on “ghetto” / neighborhood policies

What’s missing: Reevaluation of punitive urban policies that stigmatize neighborhoods.
Why it matters: Punitive measures labeled as integration often perpetuate disadvantage.

E. Limited civil-society partnership and independent oversight

What’s missing: An independent monitoring body and collaboration with affected communities.
Why it matters: Top-down plans lack community co-ownership, missing priorities and trust-building.

Approaches recommended by international bodies and practiced by countries with better records:

1. Explicit naming + tailored measures

• Why: Identifying groups enables targeted outreach and prevention.
• How implemented: National plans naming specific racisms and assigning actions.

2. Comprehensive, standardized data systems

• Collect data with standard categories and publish regular audits.
• Build reporting channels (hotlines, online forms) and protections for reporters.

3. Independent monitoring + statutory responsibilities

• An independent body with investigatory powers and public evaluations.

4. Police reforms and anti-profiling law

• Legal definition of prohibited profiling; training; oversight boards.

5. Education & public-awareness campaigns

• School curricula and national campaigns designed with communities.

6. Funding and multi-year commitments

• Sustained funding for NGOs and community impact projects.

7. Intersectional, structural targets

• Address discrimination in labor, housing, services, and legal frameworks.

Examples: EU governments and agencies, Canada, the UK, and Germany implement these elements.

To create an inclusive plan following international best practices, Denmark could swiftly:

1. Recognize religion