- Unfair criticism of Anundsen – Dagbladet.no

- Unfair criticism of Anundsen – Dagbladet.no

Collaboration parties’ criticism of Attorney Anders Anundsen in asylum children case is unfair, says Helge Thorheim, Progress membership in SCSCA.

– That Anundsen get like that run, I think that’s unfair of cooperation of our Parties, says Thorheim Aftenposten.

Thorheim will Friday be Progress man “utspørrersiden” in consultation on asylum children matter.

SCSCA will partly be answered about Anundsen has fulfilled the duty to Parliament and not given misleading or incomplete answer.

Backdrop

Some of the most critical issues will likely come from the Liberal Party and the Christian Democratic Party, the two center parties that the government signed an agreement with softening asylum.

Since it is not about a decision, but only an agreement, it is not a formal part of the hearing, but will only be as a backdrop.

– Both parties have through the agreement had an opportunity to influence government policy. They will be cooperative parties, says Thorheim adding that it is “okay though they are a bit annoyed.”

Must convince

Dagsavisen wrote Thursday that Prime Minister Erna Solberg this week invited leaders for the two support portions of a meeting. The purpose should have been to establish what the Liberal Party and the Christian Democratic Party must have out of the hearing to renew confidence Anundsen.

Sources in the center parties told Aftenposten that the Attorney General must convince them that he has not “tricked” them. Will he not with credible answers may “someone must tell him to go,” without it ends with mistrust.

Friday hearing starts at 9 and lasts until late in the afternoon, and perhaps it will also continue into the evening. Anundsen is the last man out.

Many questions

The whole matter of government policy towards asylum children started with Bergens Tidende in early December revealed that the political guidelines from the Ministry of Justice was never conveyed from Police Immigration Service (PU) and further down in the police system. Why this happened is one of the points justice minister must explain.

Another is why several long remaining children were sent out in 2014, in contrast to developments the government agreed with collaborating parties about. That in several letters from PU emerges that they had not perceived that there was come guides to show tilbekaholdenhet families with children, is also an important point.

Bergens Tidende disclosure of government’s desire to prioritize the easiest cases to reach their targets for the number of mailings is also essential. In practice this meant that families were given priority over criminals.

The same newspaper also said that Afghan authorities had sent a letter of protest to the Norwegian embassy in Kabul last November. A translation mistake made that the Norwegian authorities did not understand that the letter referred to forced returns of families especially, and a clear threat to close its borders to all such forced returns.

NTB