Cosmopolitan Democratic and Communicative Rights: The Danish Cartoons Controversy and the Right to Be Heard, Even Across Borders

During the Danish cartoons controversy in 2005–2006, a group of ambassadors to Denmark representing eleven predominantly Muslim countries requested a meeting with the Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, to protest against the cartoons. Rasmussen interpreted their viewpoint as one of demanding limits to freedom of speech and he ignored their request for a meeting. Drawing on this case study, the article argues that it is an appropriate, and potentially effective, moral criticism of anyone who is in a position of political power—taking into account reasonable constraints of feasibility and practicality—that they have refused to receive information, ideas, or opinions from individuals, or their representatives, with dissenting viewpoints. The article also articulates one possible theoretical ground for such a moral criticism: that they could be violating a fundamental (cosmopolitan) moral right of people to submit information, ideas, or opinions to those who wield power over them and to be meaningfully heard—a right which can span state borders.

Irakkrigen og den historiske legitimering

Political use of history played a pivotal role in legitimizing the war in Iraq, and by taking a closer look at the use of history one can get closer to understanding the reasons for the decision to go to war. The first part of the article argues that former Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen and the Liberal and Conservative parties legitimized war participation by writing it into a particular interpretation of history. Many historians have criticized Fogh Rasmussen’s interpretation and his use of history to legitimize the purpose of going to war, and this raises the question: to whom does history belong? The second half of the article defends the view that Fogh Rasmussen had every right to use the history to promote his cause. This does not mean, however, that his use of history cannot be criticized by historians, who consider his interpretation of history misleading and biased.

Politisk italesættelse af danske folkebiblioteker

Primært med udgangspunkt i de praktiske sproganalytiske elementer af Norman Faircloughs kritiske diskursanalyse analyseres moderne lovgivningsmæssige tekster om det danske biblioteksvæsen. Teksterne består af kulturministrenes taler ved Danmarks Biblioteksforenings årsmøde i 2001 og 2002 med nuancer fra talerne i år 1999, 2003 og 2004, samt Lov om biblioteksvirksomhed fra år 2000 og behandlingen af denne i folketinget som den fremstår i kildesamlingen redigeret af Warrer Bertelsen (2000).Tekstmaterialet repræsenterer således den politiske italesættelse af overvejende danske folkebiblioteker under henholdsvis Regeringen Poul Nyrup Rasmussen (23.3.1998 – 27.11.2001), som bestod af Det Radikale Venstre og Socialdemokratiet, hvorunder Elsebeth Gerner Nielsen fra de Radikale var kulturminister og Regeringen Anders Fogh Rasmussen (27.11.2001- ), der består af Venstre og Konservative og har den konservative Brian Mikkelsen som kulturminister. Politisk italesættelse af danske folkebiblioteker Der foretages en komparativ analyse, der afdækker hvorledes de respektive kulturministre motiverer biblioteksvæsenet til implementering af den gældende lovhjemmel.Analysen viser en forskel. Brian Mikkelsen ønsker bibliotekerne skal vende tilbage til den oprindelige kerneydelse i bibliotekerne – oplysning af folket gennem formidling af bøger. Elsebeth Gerner Nielsen betragter folkebibliotekerne som naturlige aktører på alle områder inden for kulturpolitikken, et engagement som skal understøttes ved anvendelse af nye medier. Brian Mikkelsen er ikke på samme måde som Elsebeth Gerner Nielsen personlig foregangsmand for en politisk stærk folkebibliotekssektor. Det personlige engagement overlades til embedsmandsværket og få centrale aktører i det udøvende biblioteksvæsen.Der perspektiveres til hvilken betydning disse kommunikative forskelle har for overlevelses-sikringen og den mere vidtgående udvikling af fremtidens folkebibliotek.

Foghs forslag. Sammenhæng mellem tale, identitet og strategi

Hvor fintunet kan selvfremstillingen være i moderne politikeres fremtræden på tv? Hvordan kan man overhovedet arbejde analytisk med personlig fremtræden? Denne artikel diskuterer identitetsarbejde ud fra konversationsanalytiske begreber med henblik på at give et bud på, hvordan man kan analysere og diskutere et fænomen som ‘profil’. Der eksemplificeres med et uddrag af en tv-duel fra folketingsvalget 2001 mellem Anders Fogh Rasmussen (daværende formand for Venstre og leder af oppositionen) og Poul Nyrup Rasmussen (daværende statsminister og formand for Socialdemokratiet), og det vises, hvordan Fogh formåede at fremstå som ‘konstruktiv opponent’, hvilket korresponderede med Venstres valgslogan, “Tid til forandring”.

Narrating the Second World War in Denmark since 1945

After the liberation in 1945, two conflicting narratives of the war experience were formulated. A consensus narrative presented the Danish nation as being united in resistance while a competing narrative, which also stressed the resistance of most Danes, depicted the collaborating Danish establishment as an enemy alongside the Germans. This latter narrative, formulated by members of the resistance movement, was marginalised after the war and the consensus narrative became dominant. The resistance narrative survived, however, and, from the 1960s, it was successfully retold by the left, both to criticise the Danish alliance with the ‘imperialist’ United States, and as an argument against Danish membership of the EC. From the 1980s, the right also used the framework of the resistance narrative in its criticism of Danish asylum legislation. Finally, liberal Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen started using it as his basic narrative of the war years (partly in order to legitimise his government's decision to join the war against Iraq in 2003). The war years have thus played a central role in Danish political culture since 1945, and in this process the role of historians has been utterly marginal.