Now the government must clean up its own falsehoods

There was never an agreement to finance the Human Rights Service in future budgets. Why did the government say that then?

commentary

This is a comment. Comments are written by BT commenters, editors, and guest commentators, and express their own opinions and analysis.

monday night There were two major cases of Muslim hatred in Norway.

NRK Rogaland could say that “Kokke-Amy crushed after hijabhets.” Amy Mir has participated in “Familiekokkene” on NRK with the hijab on. That made Hege Storhaug, head of the Human Rights Service (HRS), leave.

Comment field boiled by incitement against the family. According to Storhaug, Amy Mir has failed “to acquire a secure national identity here.” Outside the television screen, Mir is the tourism leader for the Stavanger Tourism Association. You can’t be a great Norwegian.

That same night, Aftenposten was able to say something important about state support for the Human Rights Service blog. That blog is very much about inciting hatred against Islam and Muslims.

When the Liberal Party, KrF and the Conservative Party presented their draft state budget in October, it was NOK 1.8 million for the Human Rights Service.

There were too many surprising, because the Progress Party had not been involved in the budget setting work. They have traditionally been our ardent defenders of money for the Human Rights Service.

“HRS is not a government priority, but stems from previous budget agreements with the Storting, where it was also agreed to increase support to other organizations by 17 million. This government maintains our agreements,” said Justice Minister Monica Mæland (H ) to Medier24 when the budget was submitted.

Many of Representatives of government parties have used the same wording. In this way, they have been able to escape a real debate about why the Conservatives, KrF and the Liberal Party have proposed new millions for a blog that sows divisions in society.

But there is no such agreement, you can prove Aftenposten now. To the question “how the budget agreements of the previous year force the support of the government on the budget of 2021”, the answer is: “It is not like that.”

If ever If such an agreement existed, why then did the government suspend this permit?

The answer is quite open: because they would have lost the dispute over the money in the negotiations, and it would have seemed even more pathetic.

In the presentation of the Government budget the following can be read: «The scholarship will help to provide a better knowledge about immigration and the integration of the population, including knowledge about opportunities and challenges in this context. The grant will continue as a result of an agreement in the Storting on grants to non-profit organizations. “

The Government itself believes that the Human Rights Service does not provide integration expertise and the grant is not a continuation of any agreement. Must be NM in misuse of tax money.

About the government If they had avoided the money for the Human Rights Service, they probably would have contributed a lot to negotiations in other areas, such as immigration and asylum.

In the choice between two bad parties, the ruling party said that HRS money was the smallest. They have to defend that.

The problem for the ruling party it is divided into three parts:

1. They are directly responsible for funding a blog that harasses Norwegians.
2. They have been lying about why they were in favor of supporting the Human Rights Service.
3. They don’t have a plan on how to explain this.

Conservatives in particular are trying to explain that they disagree with Hege Storhaug’s outbursts online, while also pointing out that HRS contributed constructively to the debate on negative social control.

This riding at least one horse to fly.

Last year, the FRP received support from the Human Rights Service in exchange for the other parties receiving money for their good causes. Later, Abid Raja from the Liberal Party said this to Filter News:

“About politics in the Liberal Party we must be 100% constructive and find good solutions. In rhetoric, on the other hand, we want to be intransigent. “

I think voters struggle to understand a party that combines a missing column with a clenched index finger. They vote for money, but speak against it. Oh good?

This case openly hurts the people of the Liberal Party, KrF and the Conservative Party. After a quarter, support for the Human Rights Service should also affect more people in the Progress Party.

The last days Hege Storhaug has had outbursts about cooking shows, gingerbread towns, porn habits, and antibac use on Facebook. I don’t think this is the kind of immigration criticism that the FRP really wants.

But it is not the country’s leading politicians who are most concerned about the fact that 1.8 million tax crowns go to the Human Rights Service.

It is people like Amy Mir who must bear the cost of Erna Solberg, Siv Jensen, Kjell-Ingolf Ropstad and Guri Melby succeeding in financing the Human Rights Service through constantly new horse shops.

All four can Party leaders take advantage of Christmas to think.