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

[FreeBritnee]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10305175/Denmarks-former-immigration-minister-JAILED-ordering-separation-asylum-seeking-couples.html

So they’re jailing women now for safeguarding children. I suppose we knew it was just a matter of time.

Awful. I don't agree with making immigrants give up the dew valuables they have (I assuming it is small amounts) but am right with her on this.

I don’t agree with that either but you know what I found interesting? The notion that a left wing government is imprisoning someone from a previous right wing government under the guise of fascist legislation that is was/is unlawful.

Sets a very worrying precedent doesn’t it?

I think that’s not the whole story - I was astounded by the headlines but I think the actual problem was her misleading a committee.

My understanding is that in Denmark you are not allowed to be gender critical or even discuss gender critical issues in the privacy or your home. It falls under a hate crime and you can be prosecuted for it.

@Bwix

I think that’s not the whole story - I was astounded by the headlines but I think the actual problem was her misleading a committee.

I suspect you’re right but I’d be interested to know the full story and whether a woman has been targeted over an equally culpable male.

It's not quite as straightforward as OP is making out.

www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/13/danish-ex-minister-inger-stojberg-given-jail-sentence-for-separating-couples-seeking-asylum

I wasn’t sure whether I agreed with you or not OP but much of the reportage does seem determined to shape the narrative.

The NYT’s headline is she was prosecuted for separating ‘underage couples’ which seems especially egregious. The girls were aged 15-17 the boy/men 17 - 32. Denmark’s age of marriage is 18.

As far as I understand she was prosecuted (as it relates to the issue of separating couples) for applying the policy in the general rather than interviewing the couples and deciding individually.

It does seem remarkable that media organisations will not acknowledge (and worse hide) that there may be issues with underage girls being forced into marriage in their coverage of this.

I was hoping that it was an interesting story to dissect, but perhaps covid is dominating all conversations at the moment.

I thought the problem was that they weren't applying discretion when circumstances deemed it necessary. So they were seperating families, eg 17 year old with a baby would be seperated from her 18 year old husband. Also the motivation wasn't protecting child brides it was the far right punishing refugees for daring to seek asylum.

@FatCatThinCat

I thought the problem was that they weren't applying discretion when circumstances deemed it necessary. So they were seperating families, eg 17 year old with a baby would be seperated from her 18 year old husband. Also the motivation wasn't protecting child brides it was the far right punishing refugees for daring to seek asylum.

Assuming all of that is true, and it absolutely might be. Would it be the equivalent of Priti Patel bringing in legislation to, I don’t know, force those who come into the country and claim asylum to have their teeth checked for age before they could be processed. Then labour gaining power down the line and imprisoning her down the line for those actions?

Last sentence was shit but you get my thoughts.

Even for kids with a small age difference you have to consider whether either one of them (but primarily the girls) had a say. I think in syrian camps girls were being married off as they were then seen as protected as a married woman. Ultimately we don’t believe in the UK that a child can fully consent to marriage.

I imagine some of the girls were happy to have some breathing space form a husband not of their choosing and the possibility of exiting a marriage. Womens prospects from more traditional societies are drastically curtailed upon marriage, can I go to uni, can I get a job etc.some of these girls would need their husbands, in-laws consent. I wouldn’t want that, if i had left syria and landed up in a society like denamrk damn right I’d want a life of my own and I’d want what Danish women have,

I have no idea of whether she deserves to be in prison but i agree with the policy. I come from a background where arranged marriage was normal for a long time (not so much now) men wield enormous power within their families.

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/

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.

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.

@MissMinutes24

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.

Yes. You're right actually. It is horrific and extremely disproportionate.

Exactly. Plus the politician is female. Did she act alone is is the equivalent for Priti taking the fall for Gove’s policies? I find it very interesting.

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?

What about all the draconian covid policies that have caused thousands of deaths from suicide and cancer. Can the families sue and get Matt Hancock imprisoned?

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.

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

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

[quote PerkingFaintly]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[/quote]
Would you like them imprisoned for it though? That's the question. And if so for how long?

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.