By Elin Brimheim Heinesen
Regarding today’s verdict on Inger Støjberg, former minister for immigration, integration and housing in Denmark. Why do so many people want to turn this case into a question of whether one is for or against child brides? No sane person supports child brides or paedophilia – of course not, but that’s not what the verdict is about. Inger Støjberg tries to frame it that way, likely because she knows she can gain many supporters on that basis.
The ruling is quite simple: Inger Støjberg did not treat cases individually as required by administrative law but instead issued instructions to handle all cases identically. This directly violates the law, according to the court’s decision. That is why she has been convicted.
The severity of the sentence can always be debated. However, that is a different discussion. What cannot be debated is that she broke the law.
While I fundamentally agree that child brides have no place anywhere, should a minister not follow the law just like everyone else? Especially as a minister? She could have found a legal way to protect child brides. Is it acceptable for a minister to break the law when there are other (legal) ways to achieve the same goal? Or is it just acceptable for a minister not to respect the laws of the country? What is the point of having a rule of law otherwise?
It is strange that people seem so indifferent to this perspective. And this should NOT be interpreted as me defending adult men marrying children! But I am convinced that Inger Støjberg could have solved the problem in another – legal – manner. She did not, and now she is using emotional manipulation to hide the fact that she ignored the law by turning it into a matter of being for or against child brides.
There are many on social media who buy into her argument and want to shape the debate as Inger Støjberg presents it. Some only see things in black and white and fail to notice the many nuances, which suits someone like Inger Støjberg perfectly. As a result, everything becomes muddled, people split into factions for and against, and accusations fly. The “divide and rule” principle works well here.
I myself have been accused of wanting to protect paedophiles, simply because I believe Inger Støjberg should have protected child brides legally. It’s outrageous to be accused of such a thing just because one supports the rule of law. One can certainly oppose lawbreaking—especially by a minister—while also being against those who marry young girls.
I’m merely asking people to consider whether it’s justifiable to defend lawbreaking simply because they agree with the motivation Inger Støjberg claims to have. Is that a strong enough argument?
If that’s the case, shouldn’t it also apply to everyone else who breaks the law for a noble cause? For example, many believe it was illegal when Mette Frederiksen ordered the culling of all mink in Denmark. That, too, was done for a noble purpose. So was that acceptable then? Shouldn’t we let the courts decide?
Can we overlook law violations in some cases and not in others? Is it feasible to think that people we agree with can break the law, while those we disagree with should be harshly punished for the same? Are we not all equal before the law?
I’m just asking. Is it possible to run a justice system this way? I don’t think so. If you want to fight for or against something, it must be done through legal means.
That’s all I wanted to point out.
