Confronting Denmark

Two days ago, Transparency International released its 2015 Corruption Perceptions Index and Denmark came first, ranked as the least corrupt country in the world for the second year running. However on the same day, the Scandinavian nation made the headlines again, this time causing outrage among international human rights organisations. You win some, you lose some.

Migrants at Denmark's Padborg Station, after crossing over the border from Germany (Photo/The Atlantic)

On Tuesday 26th January, in an attempt to deter refugees from seeking asylum on their land, the Danish parliament passed measures — with an overwhelming majority and the support of the left leaning Social Democrats — allowing to confiscate valuables exceeding 10,000 kroner (US$1450) that it deems "nonessential". Ring a bitter bell? Probably.

It's what the Nazis did to Jews during the Second World War. 

The bill also allows for the refugees' belongings to be searched and includes extending the timeframe before which family members of those who successfully made it to Denmark – the 23rd richest country in the world – can join them. They will now have to wait three years instead of one. However the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) has said that it violates the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the UN Refugee Convention. As for Amnesty International, the NGO has described this law as giving refugees an "impossible choice."

By having to wait three years to be reunited with family, these people will either be forced to bring children along with them on the horrendously dangerous journey to Europe, or they will spend three years living with the uncertainty of their loved ones' safety each day.

The Danish Minister of Integration, Inger Stoberg – who doesn't seem to be doing too much to integrate – argued that "when you have a broad, universal welfare system [like Denmark's], this is also based on the basic principle that if you can support yourself, you have to do so." How far you would get with 10, 000 kroner, Mrs Stoberg?

For those who have "that much" on them, this amount of money is not what they have left after having paid for rent, house bills and food. It's what they have left to survive full stop. The people from whom the Danish government can now confiscate valuables, are people who have travelled land and sea to reach safety because in most cases, their houses are being bombed to shreds. 

According to the BBC, "the government has said that the policy brings refugees in line with unemployed Danes who also face having to sell assets above a certain level to claim benefits."

Allow me. If they have made it this far with those valuables in their bags, then surely it is because they need them. For the most part, the refugees arriving in boatloads are fleeing for political reasons. They are fleeing for survival. They are not economic migrants who are plotting to steal our benefits. They have lost a lot, and in some cases everything: homes, jobs, family members, hope and dignity. And now they are about to lose the last wad of cash they have to keep them going.

Chances are, the confiscation part of this law won't have much effect on those already seeking asylum in the country. Most refugees arrive with very little and I doubt that those who do have more than US$1450 on them will have much trouble hiding it. However, the absurdity lies in the fact that the Danish government is using this law to send an unwelcoming message to potential asylum seekers. 

And yes, in 2015, Denmark did register 21,000 asylum applications but what the government needs to realise is that when Islamic fundamentalists are after your head; when the sound of bombs exploding are what put your children to sleep each night; when you are that desperate for safety, it's not a bill like the one Copenhagen just passed, nor is it adverts in Lebanese papers that are going to stop refugees from reaching their country.

Denmark, you should be proud to be ranked first by Transparency International, but don't believe that corruption or illicit behaviour is only recorded on a financial balance sheet. Indeed passing morally questionable laws – that some have come to compare to the Third Reich – are a poor excuse for trying to patch up a much greater issue. Your actions are scrutinised not only by your fellow parliamentarians and your own citizens, but by the rest of the world.

Minimum corruption clearly isn't synonymous with morality.