Denmark's former immigration minister is JAILED for ordering asylum seeking couples to be separated if one was a minor in a bid to stamp out child marriage

Bloomberg-

'A Danish politician behind some of Europe’s strictest immigration policies will be jailed after she was found guilty of breaching her duties by illegally separating refugee couples. '

Context is everything.

Obviously if a woman's husband is abusive that is another story
It’s abusive because the “woman” is a child.

Agree that a blanket policy not good.

12 yo and 40yo one thing.
15 etc... Separation? What does that mean in practice?

If separated surely makes massively more difficult to get going in totally different country?

If got kids or as mentioned she pregnant, and no sign unhappy, then... I'd say best not to.

Do they separate if Danish person pregnant at that age?

Inflexible rule means no consideration for situation at all.
And therefore separates some from their support, in it together, close friend, only person they know.
Pregnant? What does that mean for her success at settling down, jobs etc?

What support do they give to eg younger girls who are not happy at all, forced marriage etc, education? Where live?

I mean there's a million questions.

I don’t see how they can be a couple if one is a child. The child is too young to legally consent. It’s only right to separate children from abusers who claim to be in an illegal relationship with them.

A blanket policy of separating young women and mothers from their husbands in a strange country where they don't speak the language or know anyone is shite. Obviously if a woman's husband is abusive that is another story.

I know that immigration in Scandinavian countries is a huge issue, politically and with public.
I don't know about Denmark if like that- can check.

Wiki-

'In March 2021, the Danish government has stated that it will revoke the residency permits for Syrian refugees and deport them back to Syria,[85] becoming the first European country and EU member state to initiate the transition as they revoked 94 Syrians of residency permits.[85][86] Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said that the areas of Damascus is safe, and is pursuing the goal of having "zero asylum seekers".[86] Although, they are not forced to leave, they are obliged to be at deportation camps'

There's a lot of context around all this. I don't know know much apart from massive divisions v big prominent area.

Without context just a headline incomplete.

Don't know with this what politics etc involved.

Shameful that any politician should be jailed for child safeguarding.

Inger Støjberg was charged in the Supreme Court for having 'initiated' and 'maintained' an illegal scheme to separate all asylum couples, at least one of whom was a minor. Without individual assessments and party hearings, which is otherwise a requirement before making such decisions.

Good for her. Why do you need an assessment and a hearing when you've got the dates of birth? Why all the shades of grey?

I wonder how many cases there were and if she had not enacted a blanket ban, how many cases would have actually ever been checked, or would they all just have been allowed through.

This, exactly. I mean, in the UK the age of consent is quite low, at 16. Yet if you report a 40 year old man for having sex with your 14 year old daughter, nothing will happen to him (regardless of your colour, in this case!) So the law is flexible and there are discussions and case conferences and blah blah blah because we don't have the collective spine to say no, sixteen years old is a hard limit, it's the law for a reason, and we're prosecuting this man. Regardless of what a 14 year old thinks, because she is a child and cannot consent, by law.

If you read up on the Sweden child marriage issue, which is very similar, there was plenty of watering down there too. But what if they're close in age, but what if they have kids (how lovely for a seventeen year old to have several kids!) But what if she doesn't look too scared, but what if she'd be thought less of by her community, but what if what if what if.
So good for this politician. She probably made a real difference to at least some of the girls' lives.

And offering a black or brown girl less protection than you would a white girl is just racist. Either we value the lives, health and freedom of girls in this country (or the Danish do in theirs, or the Swedish in theirs) or we don't, and we consider those girls expendable, so their patriarchs continue to vote in the way we want.

I think jail is excessive - I think I would intentionally break the law too if I thought that keeping within the law did not safeguard underage women and girls (though I'm not sure that was her intention)

I wonder how many cases there were and if she had not enacted a blanket ban, how many cases would have actually ever been checked, or would they all just have been allowed through.

As you've just quoted me, I'm not sure I support having the option of jail.

In this case the Guardian article says she's unlikely to actually spend any time in prison, just to have electronic monitoring, but that doesn't change the principle.

I really don't know what would be an appropriate penalty.

Therese Coffey and (I think it was) David Gauke faced no consequences whatsoever for acting unlawfully at the DWP. Dominic Cummings isn't a minister, but got rewarded with a job in No 10 while being in contempt of Parliament. They all just act with impunity.

Thanks for that Danish TV article, mammajustkilledagnat. It makes clear the minister was sentenced for intentionally breaking the law, not for following a policy.

From Google translate:
In this case, there have been 26 judges in the Supreme Court. 13 politically elected and 13 Supreme Court justices. 25 of the 26 judges have reached the conclusion that she is guilty of intent.
This means that the court has reached the conclusion that Inger Støjberg had an intention to break the law.
Inger Støjberg was charged in the Supreme Court for having 'initiated' and 'maintained' an illegal scheme to separate all asylum couples, at least one of whom was a minor. Without individual assessments and party hearings, which is otherwise a requirement before making such decisions.

You don't have to wait till Covid to look for ministers enacting policy illegally in the UK. They've been doing it to disabled people for years, and suffered no repercussions. There's just no disincentive.

2020
www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/2020/november/high-court-finds-dwp-unlawfully-refused-universal-credit-disabled-students-seven

2018
www.disabilitynewsservice.com/dwp-u-turns-on-pip-mobility-rules-that-were-based-on-unsupported-opinions/
government climbdown over new disability benefit rules that were found by the high court to be unlawful and “blatantly discriminatory”

So I don't know I think about the Danish situation. I'm not sure I support having the option of jail, but I do support there being some sort of repercussion for ministers who act illegally if it's deliberate or by wilful neglect.

In the UK, we're heading rapidly in the opposite direction. The current government is trying to reduce the ability of judicial reviews to hold the government to account.

See the Judicial Review and Courts Bill:
publiclawproject.org.uk/latest/judicial-review-and-courts-bill-a-get-out-of-jail-free-card/
“This Bill will make this and future governments less accountable for their actions and make it harder for people to defend their rights when the state steps out of line.”

And also the Interpretation Bill:
Boris Johnson plans to let ministers throw out legal rulings
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-plans-to-let-ministers-throw-out-legal-rulings-qxdwm0jw5

They seem to be saying that it was found that she went beyond the law as it was at the time.

Just reading up about it here www.dr.dk/nyheder/politik/inger-stoejberg-kendt-skyldig-i-rigsretten-faar-60-dages-faengsel Danish State TV channel newssite (like BBC News)

You can use the translate page option at the top right handside if you are using Google.

If bad policy can lead to imprisonment I know a lot more politicians who qualify... It is it one rule for some politicians and another rule for others as well?

Regardless of this specific example, this is a really important issue and one I find my leftie mates are hesitant to talk about. I find it quite scary that they are potentially willing to apply completely different values to women from other cultures than they would to their own friends and daughters. I'm a leftie too but have some experience working with refugees. Relationships with abusive power dynamics exist in refugee populations just as they do in western populations. The problem needs reframing as a male one, not a race or nationality one.

If a female refugee is being coercively controlled by an abusive husband, she is extra vulnerable as he can keep her from acquiring sufficient language skills to feel able to be without him. I have seen this happen. I'm sure coercive western men would take advantage of a similar opportunity to further control if they had one.

I can't see how it is OK to have a two tier system of law and child protection in a country.

I feel a lot of people are missing the OPs point that it is completely horrifying a former gvt minister can be jailed over a policy that hasn't resulted in any death.

This isn't like imprisoning a politician who ordered death camps.

Wether or not it was applied well or you personally agree with it, it appears to have been a fairly reasonable policy in the context of trying to safeguard girls.

And the minister is going to jail.

That's fucked up

Does not surprise me this is happening under a left wing government though.

This issue came up in Sweden a few years ago, this is slightly off topic but someone might find it interesting www.politico.eu/article/immigrants-migration-culture-integration-sweden-struggles-over-child-marriage/