The inclusion debate needs inspiration from the war debate.
(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
Send your reaction to: debatt@nytid.no
www.twitter.com/DagHerbjornsrud 
Debate. Not unexpectedly, it was SV's "integration policy platform" that received the most media attention after the end of the national assembly on Sunday 6. June.
And it's no wonder considering that it was the party's crowned crown prince, Equality Minister Audun Lysbakken, who was behind the 17 page-long report.
When it is also titled "A third point of view: different backgrounds – a common future", it gives hope for brighter times. The goal itself is also nothing to speak of. The party speaks here more clearly than during this autumn's election campaign, when hardly anything was said. Much of the political content can also pave the way for a new public debate, if some of it succeeds – such as the point that multilingualism is both good and natural. It is a great loss that the school system and the authorities in the last couple of decades, and probably still, have insisted that monolingualism is the natural and best thing – in that mother tongue education has been seen as a problem and not as a resource.
In doing so, we have again entered the monoculture trap, which was also done in earlier times to the Sami and Roman people.
Desire for 3. way
The SV platform tries to show another way, a third way, out of the disability. This is how the current situation is outlined: “Two contradictory views have dominated the integration debate. On the one hand, those who believe that the minorities should be as equal as the majority and thus have to let go of their identity. And on the other hand, the view that different cultures in a society should cultivate their own distinctive character and have their own values and ways of living, even when these are at the expense of basic common values. »
Oh well. It is true that this is the polarized contradiction. But at the same time, it is also true that the policy, based on the wishes of the parliamentary majority, has in practice been an intermediate solution. But what is SV's "third way" in this case? Yes:
«SV works for a third position in integration policy. The third position is about insisting on a society with a set of common rights and obligations at the bottom, where there is room for great differences in way of life, culture and religion. SV believes that diversity is a value in itself. Democracy, equality and social equalization are inalienable core values that the society SV works to create. Sv will fight all attempts to break with these values, even when justified by religion or culture. "
Just. But then one is probably closer to a practical middle ground, a middle ground, more than a radically new third way out of misunderstood debates. There are probably far more than SV politicians who can sign these formulations, so they do not seem to be particularly radical.
Radical child policy?
It is, as has emerged in Ny Tid's reports in the last couple of weeks, not that minority youth take less education than others – rather, they now take higher education than majority youth. It is probably also not the case that immigrant women only take cash benefits instead of jobs, as can be understood when SV wants to "abolish cash benefits and expand schemes that are specifically aimed at ensuring women with a minority background the opportunity to qualify for working life."
It is not certain that this will appear as a good and radical child policy in a few years, when the worst wave of work maneuvers has subsided.
Now it must be said that all these good goals must be given little weight if you do not get a political impact when you are in government. And there you struggle with a Labor Party that, also in this field, can be seen as a main opponent more than as a teammate. After all, we live in a time where one is far more concerned with what girls have on their heads than what they have on their minds.
From the report, it may also seem as if it is the issue itself that is part of the problem. That is, it is the usual problematization focus more than the opportunity focus that is the basis.
A radical third way in this field could probably rather look at the problems with monocultural societies, to the extent that they can exist, rather than only at the challenges of the so-called multicultural ones. At least that they managed to problematize both, possibly to see the possibilities more than the challenges.
enfold threat
Something radically different from the other parties would be to look at the threat from the simple more than from just the multiple. A radical third way should ask sharper questions and challenges to all of us: Is it right the demarcation we are involved in on a daily basis? Would it not be better to work for open borders, to stop the immigration ban also from countries outside the EEA area?
Is it now so certain that we all are, or need to be, in agreement on certain "fundamental values"? How can it be that states stick together even though anarchists, Nazis, communists and religious hell preachers strongly disagree on most things?
Last week, the undersigned took part in a debate that may shed light on such challenging perspectives, even though it was about something completely different, namely economic denial of military service and the desire to introduce a peace tax (see article on pages 26-27).
And herein lies a third way out of disability, something other than just being for or against increased war participation. By accepting that yes, the democratic majority of politicians will probably adopt problematic wars, but no, I do not want to participate in paying for it, a new vault of solutions opens up. It becomes the individual against the state, ethical conviction against practical action.
A peace tax may seem like a small matter. But this small issue raises enormous questions about how our societies should be organized in the future. Economic military denial seems like a small tuft, but then there are also large loads that need to be overturned. ■