4 ms·

Sibling comment's points about police- and judicial excesses in the case of drug-related crime, however, are very much relevant. It's hard to consider the darke

by marvin 4y ago

Sibling comment's points about police- and judicial excesses in the case of drug-related crime, however, are very much relevant. It's hard to consider the darker parts of Norwegian culture and mindset from a Western perspective, as it takes on shapes that are largely unfamiliar in Western culture. Criticism against Norwegian society looks more like criticism against collectivist societies, where out-of-the-norm non-violent behavior is sometimes harshly punished. I do agree that our police cannot be compared to the US "out of control" situation, where both its conduct and its excessive use of violence is extreme and avoids judicial oversight. But that's not to say it goes clear of criticism from a systemic perspective. There are ongoing debates and investigations concerning effectively punitive cavity searches against persons suspected of having smoked a joint, using suspected drug use as a pretext for invasive home searches, immediate confiscation of drivers' licenses after reports of one-off marijuana use (no judicial process involved), involuntary commitment to somatic hospital followed by coerced drug testing in pregnant women after (flimsily) suspected drug use, punitive home searches against drug reform activists and more. The most high-profile of the two latter cases were conducted against women who visibly participated in democratic debate for reforming our drug laws, and participation in said debate was documented in writing as probable cause for having the woman involuntarily committed by the police. All but the very last example is strongly suspected to be systemic; it has happened with regularity. And the problems are so obvious that the conduct clearly has a high degree of political support, although "should we systematically jail marijuana smokers and degrade them by probing their vagina or rectum in the police station" has never featured in a debate preceding the elections for Parliament. Also plenty of criticism regarding the democratic role of a private drug law activist organization (NNPF) that's effectively both part of the police force and a central partner in the bureaucratic process for determining what drug policy should be democratically enacted.

karencarits 4y ago
> participation in said debate was documented in writing as probable cause for having the woman involuntarily committed by the police. No. If this is the case from just before Christmas, the media reporting was extremely biased as the health services cannot comment due to privacy. However, the woman posted her letter on Twitter (now deleted but still available at the internet archive) and it was, in my opinion, justified. (1) The woman had a history of drug use, (2) her mother had reported concerns regarding the woman's drug use and asked the health services to consider involuntary treatment the same year as the woman became pregnant, (3) the woman did not meet her GP after becoming pregnant, (4) the woman did not respond when the health services approached her to evaluate her drug use voluntarily, (5) the woman moved to another municipality (which may have been interpreted as an attempt to "escape" from them), (6) the woman did not approach the health services in her new municipality to follow up her pregnancy. In light of the two previous reports of concern and the use of drugs, [the woman]'s information about pregnancy, [her] lack of contact with her GP during pregnancy, [the authorities] found cause for concern. [...] The decision was made on the basis that she has orally informed [the authorities] and confirmed to [the authorities] that she is pregnant and the severity of which drugs (including cannabis, MDMA, LSD) that she has stated that she uses in the newspaper and Social Media. Use of these drugs is not compatible with pregnancy. There is no information on how far she has come in her pregnancy or that she has followed up regular pregnancy controls. [...] The municipality considers that it is overwhelmingly probable that the mother's drug intake will be harmful to the fetus The national guidelines highlight that the fetus should have priority - "the care of the fetus takes precedence over the care of the woman" - and that Pregnant women with substance abuse problems are in a special position and the consequences for the fetus can be serious if the municipality spends too much time considering the use of coercion. The municipality must therefore not spend unnecessarily long time on assessment and testing of voluntary measures. The due diligence requirement requires quick clarifications to prevent the fetus from being exposed to an unnecessary risk of injury. and that coercision should be considered if "the pregnant woman deliveres a positive urine sample, fails to take a urine sample or fails to make an appointment" However, it is mentioned several times in that letter that she had been positive to drug use in her public writing and admitted to using several illegal drugs in social media. That was probably not okay, but the decision was not - by far - based on that fact alone.
- marvin 4y ago
  What you've posted here is an excellent representative example of the form of social control in Norwegian society that I'm criticizing. It's a great contribution to the discussion. I sort of doubt we can find agreement, since we appear to have quite different views on what basis is required for the authorities to perform this kind of incredibly invasive use of force against a citizen that isn't even suspected of having broken a law. This is not suspicion in the legal sense -- it's a possibility or a worry. I'm not able to draw the conclusions you are from the part of the letter you've quoted. None of what is mentioned there is evidence -- she has publicly stated that she's been using certain illegal drugs on numerous occasions, that she's advocated for legal reform regarding drug use and that she is pregnant. She has declined seeing a publicly-provided doctor wrt. the pregnancy. None of this is an indication of drug use!! Related side note. If you ask other Europeans, e.g. someone from Germany, they might tell you that Norway's system of having regular, public-sector scheduled pregnancy inspections where declining will make alarms go off...is actually pretty creepy from a privacy perspective. At least that's what my left-voting German friends told me when they had kids a few years ago. Not that the service is a bad thing, but that declining or arranging your own is considered grounds for suspicion. There is a difference between the Norwegian (Scandinavian?) and Western mindset here that our discussion illustrates splendidly. Our society is in some ways more collectivist; there are numerous situations where the rights of the individual are put last which contrast quite markedly to other Western societies. And these rules are enforced with strict social penalties. The same contrast can be seen in the 13 (and counting) cases where the Norwegian Child Protective Services, supported by the Norwegian Supreme Court (and obviously the laws enacted in Parliament), have had rulings against them in the Human Rights court in Strasbourg.

by marvin 4y ago

karencarits 4y ago

> participation in said debate was documented in writing as probable cause for having the woman involuntarily committed by the police. No. If this is the case from just before Christmas, the media reporting was extremely biased as the health services cannot comment due to privacy. However, the woman posted her letter on Twitter (now deleted but still available at the internet archive) and it was, in my opinion, justified. (1) The woman had a history of drug use, (2) her mother had reported concerns regarding the woman's drug use and asked the health services to consider involuntary treatment the same year as the woman became pregnant, (3) the woman did not meet her GP after becoming pregnant, (4) the woman did not respond when the health services approached her to evaluate her drug use voluntarily, (5) the woman moved to another municipality (which may have been interpreted as an attempt to "escape" from them), (6) the woman did not approach the health services in her new municipality to follow up her pregnancy. In light of the two previous reports of concern and the use of drugs, [the woman]'s information about pregnancy, [her] lack of contact with her GP during pregnancy, [the authorities] found cause for concern. [...] The decision was made on the basis that she has orally informed [the authorities] and confirmed to [the authorities] that she is pregnant and the severity of which drugs (including cannabis, MDMA, LSD) that she has stated that she uses in the newspaper and Social Media. Use of these drugs is not compatible with pregnancy. There is no information on how far she has come in her pregnancy or that she has followed up regular pregnancy controls. [...] The municipality considers that it is overwhelmingly probable that the mother's drug intake will be harmful to the fetus The national guidelines highlight that the fetus should have priority - "the care of the fetus takes precedence over the care of the woman" - and that Pregnant women with substance abuse problems are in a special position and the consequences for the fetus can be serious if the municipality spends too much time considering the use of coercion. The municipality must therefore not spend unnecessarily long time on assessment and testing of voluntary measures. The due diligence requirement requires quick clarifications to prevent the fetus from being exposed to an unnecessary risk of injury. and that coercision should be considered if "the pregnant woman deliveres a positive urine sample, fails to take a urine sample or fails to make an appointment" However, it is mentioned several times in that letter that she had been positive to drug use in her public writing and admitted to using several illegal drugs in social media. That was probably not okay, but the decision was not - by far - based on that fact alone.

marvin 4y ago
What you've posted here is an excellent representative example of the form of social control in Norwegian society that I'm criticizing. It's a great contribution to the discussion. I sort of doubt we can find agreement, since we appear to have quite different views on what basis is required for the authorities to perform this kind of incredibly invasive use of force against a citizen that isn't even suspected of having broken a law. This is not suspicion in the legal sense -- it's a possibility or a worry. I'm not able to draw the conclusions you are from the part of the letter you've quoted. None of what is mentioned there is evidence -- she has publicly stated that she's been using certain illegal drugs on numerous occasions, that she's advocated for legal reform regarding drug use and that she is pregnant. She has declined seeing a publicly-provided doctor wrt. the pregnancy. None of this is an indication of drug use!! Related side note. If you ask other Europeans, e.g. someone from Germany, they might tell you that Norway's system of having regular, public-sector scheduled pregnancy inspections where declining will make alarms go off...is actually pretty creepy from a privacy perspective. At least that's what my left-voting German friends told me when they had kids a few years ago. Not that the service is a bad thing, but that declining or arranging your own is considered grounds for suspicion. There is a difference between the Norwegian (Scandinavian?) and Western mindset here that our discussion illustrates splendidly. Our society is in some ways more collectivist; there are numerous situations where the rights of the individual are put last which contrast quite markedly to other Western societies. And these rules are enforced with strict social penalties. The same contrast can be seen in the 13 (and counting) cases where the Norwegian Child Protective Services, supported by the Norwegian Supreme Court (and obviously the laws enacted in Parliament), have had rulings against them in the Human Rights court in Strasbourg.