Assignment for Political Science:
The Law L69 known by the public as “the Tunisian law” (Tuneserloven) was approved in the Danish Parliament The 19th of December 2008. The law was baized on “the Tunisian case” were three young men tried to assassin a caricaturist named Kurt Westergaard because of his drawings of Muhammad the Muslim prophet. The first of the three men was released due to his Danish citizenship; the two others were arrested but never found guilty of any charges. However their residential permit in Denmark still got deducted. Because of Denmark’s international agreements including the non-refoulement agreement in the UN the two men could not be send back to Tunisia. Therefore they were put on “tolerated stay” in Denmark. People on tolerated stay were at this point free to go where ever they chose but had to go to a police office 1-3 times a week to let the government know that they were still in Danish territory. The media and the Government were very interested in this story, especially the party “the Danish Folk’s Party” which at this point was negotiating with the Government about a financial reform. I do find it’s more than plausible that The Danish Folk’s Party went to the Government and demanded changes in the rules for people on tolerated stay in Denmark in exchange for going through with the changes in the financial laws. Peter Kraarup from the Danish Folk’s Party even said in a debate in the Parliament about the Tunisian Law: “(…) we were deeply disturbed by this case, and therefore we said to the government: this simply does not work, we have to get something done quickly. This is in particular the result of what we are facing in the Parliament today” (Hansen 2012: 82, translated from Danish). Because of the enormous media coverage of the Tunisian case a Danish analyzing bureau made a survey which said that 61 % of the Danish population was for restrictions for people on tolerated stay in Denmark (Web: Jyllands Posten). The public and the media’s relationship to these people on tolerated stay in Denmark changed into a understanding that these people were a direct threat against the national security; even though none of the men were convicted they were now seen as terrorists in the public eye. The Danish national security was therefore considered as more important in the public eye that the mens individual rights. The Danish Government and the Danish Folk’s Party also claimed that this law was in the majorities’ best interest. I do think that the public was misled by the Government in this case. Not only is there a chance that the two men had been mischarged of the accusations but also the restrictions in the Tunisian Law weren’t solving the problems the media and the Government were portraying and here is why: The Tunisian Law made a lot of restrictions for people on tolerated stay. They are now forced to live in an Asylum Center called “Sandholm”. They have to register at a police officer up to 5 times a week. They are not allowed to make a living and is only giving grants equivalent to one and a half dollars a day. They couldn’t have visitors over from 10 pm to 6 am (with makes it almost impossible to have a normal private life with one’s spouse) and so on (Web: DR Nyhederne A). We are not talking about more than 40 people at the maximum on tolerated stay. The actual number is not directly known, because the people on tolerated stay now have to live in a Danish asylum center. It would have negative consequences if the others residents at the center were to find out who these people were. Therefore the public don’t know either. The one thing the restrictions does not do is to resolve the actual issue, which is to prevent the two men on tolerated stay to make another attempt to assassin Kurt Westergaard. Even though the Tunisian Law has a lot of restrictions for people on tolerated stay, they are still free to go wherever they choose from 6 am until 10 pm. The men who by the public are seen as a...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document