OPINION: Why PM Lars Løkke Rasmussen’s error-strewn English is fine by us

Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen had his say in the American gun control debate on Wednesday, but ended up facing ridicule for his written English.

OPINION: Why PM Lars Løkke Rasmussen's error-strewn English is fine by us
Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen sent a tweet with a few English errors. Photo: Mads Claus Rasmussen/Scanpix Denmark

Rasmussen's tweet was described as 'sub-standard' by a communications expert on Thursday, after the PM made two attempts at addressing US president Donald Trump on Twitter on Wednesday night – both with a number of English spelling and grammar errors.

“Do not intend to interfere, but allow me to give a danish perspective: please, respond to the request of your youngsters who demands gun control. Don't accept the world record in school shoutings. Make America great and safe again!” read Rasmussen's original tweet, which was sent at 10:05pm on Wednesday local time.

Just under 25 minutes later, a second tweet was sent by the PM, in which the mis-spelled 'shoutings' was corrected to shootings.

Despite the correction, several other examples of sloppy written English remained: the lack of a capital 'D' in 'Danish'; verb non-agreement between 'demands' and 'youngsters'; and if we're being really picky, poor choice of preposition – world records are given 'for' something, not 'in' something.

The missing subject at the beginning of Rasmussen's first sentence also changes the sentiment of the diplomatic 'I don't mean to interfere', which we can reasonably assume was the PM's intention to convey, to the imperative: 'Do not interfere!'

Digital political communication expert Benjamin Rud Elberth told news agency Ritzau that Rasmussen's linguistic errors place his tweet in the same category as many of the social media messages Trump himself receives so much criticism for.

“It's completely normal to use Twitter for diplomacy and to state one's position.

“But Løkke's tweet is a bit embarrassing, because there are spelling mistakes and verb agreement errors,” Elberth said.

“It seems as though Løkke is 'doing a Trump' – coming out impulsively with something that seems ill-considered and has spelling mistakes. That adds up to make the tweet seem comical,” he added.

Here at The Local – where we have a bit of experience with seeing Danish sentiments expressed in English – we feel inclined to respectfully disagree with the communications expert.

It's not because we don't care about spelling and grammar. On the contrary, we found writing down all the things that were wrong (linguistically) with the PM's tweet rather therapeutic.

It's important to write correctly. As Elberth points out, the astonishingly poor articulacy shown by Trump himself is a contributory factor to the inflammatory effect many of his tweets have.

An important difference should be noted, however: Lars Løkke Rasmussen was not writing in his mother tongue.

What's more, the Danish PM was expressing a sentiment that is hard to disagree with: something must be done to make children's lives safer.

Having been one of the first European premiers to meet Trump after his inauguration last year, Rasmussen has sought to maintain a good relationship with the US president, perhaps seeing positive dialogue as the best way to protect Danish and European interests.

Perhaps politicians and citizens in the United States who are opposed to better gun control in that country would be tempted to throw Rasmussen's literally-interpreted, erroneously-written order back at him: 'do not interfere'.

We think the prime minister's intentions are so laudable that a few spelling mistakes can be forgiven.

READ ALSO: 'Listen to America's young people': Danish PM to Trump

Sign up here for a daily selection of the best news, features and opinion from Denmark, via our newsletter


Twitter appeals French court ruling on hate speech transparency

Twitter has appealed a French court decision that ordered it to give activists full access to all of its relevant documents on efforts to fight hate speech, lawyers and a judicial source said on Saturday.

Twitter appeals French court ruling on hate speech transparency
The Twitter logo is seen on a phone. Twitter has appealed a French court judgement requiring it to share documents with activist groups. Photo: Alastair Pike / AFP

In July, a French court ordered Twitter to grant six French anti-discrimination groups full access to all documents relating to the
company’s efforts to combat hate speech since May 2020. The ruling applied to Twitter’s global operation, not just France.

Twitter has appealed the decision and a hearing has been set for December 9, 2021, a judicial source told AFP, confirming information released by the groups’ lawyers.

Twitter and its lawyers declined to comment.

The July order said that Twitter must hand over “all administrative, contractual, technical or commercial documents” detailing the resources it has assigned to fight homophobic, racist and sexist discourse on the site, as well as the offence of “condoning crimes against humanity”.

It also said Twitter must reveal how many moderators it employs in France to examine posts flagged as hateful, and data on the posts they process.

READ ALSO: French court orders Twitter to change smallprint over ‘abusive’ methods

The July ruling gave the San Francisco-based company two months to comply. Twitter can ask for a suspension pending the appeal.

The six anti-discrimination groups had taken Twitter to court in France last year, accusing the US social media giant of “long-term and persistent” failures in blocking hateful comments from the site.

The groups campaign against homophobia, racism and anti-Semitism. Twitter’s hateful conduct policy bans users from promoting violence or threatening or attacking people based on their race, religion, gender identity or disability, among other forms of discrimination.

Like other social media giants it allows users to report posts they believe are hateful, and employs moderators to vet the content.

But anti-discrimination groups have long complained that holes in the policy allow hateful comments to stay online in many cases.