[ad_1]
The notification expert says that the processing of the case by the Integration and Diversity Directorate (IMDi) must be reported to the Ombudsman’s Office.
The Dag og Tid paper newspaper has more than six pages traversed by the process against Shabana Rehman Gaarder and the Født Fri organization, which this fall was deprived of state support.
The conclusion of the case is that the Integration and Diversity Directorate (IMDi) had decided the conclusion even before the Ernst & Young report was commissioned, and that the process was very fast, because IMDi had to meet deadlines in relation to the state budget. The result was a lack of legal protection for Født Fri and Rehman.
Shabana Rehman Gaarder together with then Minister of Culture Trine Skei Grande and Storting representative Abid Raja during the Born Free opening ceremony in 2018.
Photo: (NTB scanpix)
The Born Free organization was conceived by the Liberal Party and aimed to fight against negative social control and the culture of shame. Dag og Tid claims that he was nearly executed by IMDi, when the agency withdrew its support for Født Fri, after Ernst & Young delivered this report commissioned by IMDi.
– You must file a lawsuit
In the article, lawyer Birthe M. Eriksen says that the IMDi case should be brought before the Civil Ombudsman. He has a doctorate in alerts with special experience related to private investigations. Eriksen is also a member of the Notification Committee.
Attorney Birthe Eriksen has a doctorate in notification. She is very critical of IMDi’s handling of the Born Free case.
Photo: (private / UiB)
She says Ernst & Young’s investigation into Born Free lacks “any foundation for confidence” and that IMDi should initiate a new investigation.
– It is a crossroads that an investigation that almost has the effect of a trial, with serious consequences for organizations and the legal protection of individuals, does not seem to have used legal expertise, says Eriksen according to Dag og Tid.
She believes that Shabana Rehman should also sue the state and Ernst & Young for the harm this treatment has caused her.
Should go fast
Ernst & Young was commissioned to investigate Born Free after whistleblowers reported incorrect conditions at Born Free. In several articles, Vårt Land had written about issues worthy of criticism and used anonymous whistleblowers as a source.
Read: Labor politicians with harsh accusations against Vårt Land: – They wanted negative things about Shabana Rehman
On August 27, Vårt Land wrote: “IMDi will pass a ‘judgment’ on Born Free quickly; it risks losing state support. The notification against the Født Fri foundation will be investigated at full speed. It may ‘have an impact on our Recommendations “for state budget, writes IMDi-topp.”
Day and Time writes:
– Did this affect the legal security of Born Free, as many claim? It is difficult to see how it was not. An email between IMDi and Ernst & Young claims that the idea was first that Rehman (leader of Født Fri network. Note) and Guldberg (organizational secretary of Født Fri ed. Note) should not even be interviewed. It came as an extension of the mission, it says in the electronic letter, sent on September 7 by IMDi.
Report at fast speed
The same letter (dated September 7) said that EY should dedicate 70-100 hours to work. The deadline was September 15.
– Why is it so important? The same day (ie, September 15, editor’s note) is an important deadline for submitting changes to the state budget, writes Dag og Tid.
The online newspaper has previously written how the swift processing of the case made it completely impossible for Shabana Rehman to respond to the allegations in a good way.
– On Friday 9/11/20 we received a report, to which we had to respond before Monday 9/14/20. It turned out that the minutes contained so many factual errors that it was impossible to comment, wrote Født Fri in the response to IMDi that was delivered on October 6.
Already on September 15, that is, the day after the deadline to comment on the minutes was issued, EY had finished writing the report.
Report criticized
Dag og Tid notes that Født Fri and Shabana Rehman never had the opportunity to defend themselves, because they did not know the content of the warnings and did not have enough time to present their views on the allegations. Furthermore, they believe that EY misquoted Rehman when responding to these allegations.
Read own case: Counter on Investigative Interrogation: – It’s a shitty package. They were looking to take Shabana Rehman
The report has been accused by several of not being objective. Professor Petter Gotschalk criticized EY for his tunnel vision in his Born Free research (read the case itself).
Attorney Anne Helsingeng, who has extensive experience investigating organizations that have received public funding, concluded that the report was characterized by so-called “confirmation bias”, supporting the warnings IMDi received, rather than objectively examining whether they are correct.
Attorney Anne Helsingeng has reviewed Ernst & Young’s research. On October 6, he recounted his findings.
Photo: Heiko Junge (NTB)
– The report is characterized by substantiating the discrepancies, instead of examining whether the organization complies with the delivery, he said during a press conference on October 6 (read separate case).
You can also read more about the report on Erik Stephansen’s blog: Now it’s Ernst & Young and IMDI who are left with the shame
The online newspaper has contacted IMDi, which will not comment for the moment. For Dag og Tid, IMDi writes: “IMDi is in a case processing process where we have a decision to make. Therefore, we cannot comment on your questions. “
[ad_2]
