Torben now imprisoned for almost a Year in the US without charges.

[Carl Emerson]

Dear Friends,

Pastor Torben still incarcerated in a US prison.

Latest update here.

Official Update – May 18, 2023 - Friends of Torben

This is an update for friends and supporters of imprisoned Pastor Torben Sondergaard. It has been a few months since our last update. Torben has now been wrongfully imprisoned for 322 days. There has been a tireless effort to secure his release by his family, friends, and legal team. But still...

friendsoftorben.com

Legal team taking case to Federal Court.

Please pray for Torben and his family.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

I still can't understand how that can happen in a developed democratic country like the USA - really puzzling. I may not fully understand or endorse his theological approach, but this course of events is mind-boggling.

 

[JosephZ]

I still can't understand how that can happen in a developed democratic country like the USA - really puzzling.

Torben Sondergaard is currently being held in an ICE detention facility for overstaying his visa.

There doesn't need to be a charge for any specific crime for him to be held under those circumstances. He did file for asylum within the timeframe allowed by law, but since he entered the United States under the Visa Waiver Program, he was subject to mandatory detention without bond while his asylum application was being decided. This is because those who enter the US under the Visa Waiver Program are not entitled to bond if detained by immigration officials.

There are serious sacrifices that must be made in exchange for the ease and convenience of the VWP [Visa Waiver Program]. Most notably, the VWP entrant waives her right to appear before an immigration judge if deemed inadmissible and is not entitled to bond if held in the custody of an immigration official. The only exception for the VWP entrant is a claim of asylum, but even then, the VWP entrant is subject to mandatory detention while her asylum application is decided.

Dangers and Limitations of Entry Under the Visa Waiver Program | Reeves

Under the VWP, persons from certain specified countries can enter the United States as a visitor for a period not to exceed 90 days with nothing more than a ...

reevesimmigration.com

Torben's request for asylum was denied on December 16, 2022, because he was unable to provide evidence that he suffered persecution in his home country of Denmark or that he would ever be subjected to any well-founded fear of persecution in the future. The evidence that was given during the asylum hearing didn't show that Torben had ever been persecuted. What the evidence did show was government agencies simply doing their job and Danish laws applying to everyone equally.

In one example Torben gave to show that he was being percecuted, he said the kitchen at his Christian center was inspected after there was a complaint about rats. In another he said that the fire department inspected his center after someone reported there were hazards and a risk of fire. Someone reported that his organization was avoiding paying taxes and it was requested that he provide accounting records. When there were reports that child abuse was taking place, someone from the local government investigated. According to Torben, in none of these cases was he fined or charged with anything. These aren't examples of persecution, but are examples of what government agencies are supposed to do when they receive a complaint.

Torben also mentioned a new law in Denmark that took affect in 2019 that addresses psychological violence and how it would be used against him. Here's how the law reads:

243. "The person who belongs to or is closely linked to another's household or previously had such a connection to the household, and who repeatedly over a period of time subjects the other to grossly degrading, insulting or offensive behavior that is suitable for inappropriately controlling the other, is punished for psychological violence with a fine or imprisonment for up to 3 years."

The law equally applies to everyone in the country, doesn't target Torben, and doesn't amount to persecution.

After losing his asylum case, Torben filed an appeal of the court's decision, and that appeal was dismissed on May 2, 2023. Torben could have been released from detention and returned to Denmark at any time since late last year, but he has decided to challenge US immigration law instead. He remains detained today because of his own choice.

Torben's situation isn't that unusual. There are thousands of asylum seekers who are held in detention while they wait for their cases to be decided. Of those detained, most are held without ever being charged with a crime and have no criminal record.

 

[d taylor]

-​

I have seen a few threads posted on this person. I had never heard of him, but Got Questions does not have a favorable view of this person.

Is the Last Reformation movement biblical? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Carl Emerson]

I urge folk to listen to his update.

There is more than one side to the story.

 

[JosephZ]

I urge folk to listen to his update.

There is more than one side to the story.

There's a nine page affidavit written by Torben himself where he lists what he feels to be examples of persecution . None of the examples he gave would be considered persecution by any reasonable person. In videos that were released after his first asylum hearing, he made statements that contradicted what actually took place in the courtroom. What Torben shares in his updates should be taken with a grain of salt.

I'm going to highlight a few parts of the update found in the OP. The bolded sentences come from the article and my responses follow.

Torben has now been wrongfully imprisoned for 322 days.

Not according to immigration law which I showed in my previous comment.

The situation is complex and in many ways unprecedented.

This is not true. There are thousands of asylum seekers who are held in detention while they wait for their cases to be decided. Of those detained, most are held without ever being charged with a crime and have no criminal record.

Today marks 322 days he has been in prison. He is still being held in Baker County Detention Center in North Florida. And at this point, he’s been there longer than any other prisoner. Everyone else has either been released on bond, deported, granted asylum, or processed out in some way.

I have no way of knowing if Torben has been at the Baker County Detention Center longer than anyone else, but there are people who are detained for years.

"Some organizations suggest the average hold time is less than a month, while others say it's two or three months. But, some people have been in custody for years. Thus, the average length of stay in immigration detention depends on each person and their circumstances."

Torben remains in custody because he continues to fight his case in court. He could have been released last year if he would have agreed to be deported.

Torben’s attorneys have made repeated formal requests to the ICE officers in charge to reconsider their determination that he should be detained. But they refuse and have provided no valid reason for doing so.

When someone enters the US under the Visa Waiver Program they waive their right to bond if held in the custody of an immigration and can be held in detention while their asylum application is decided. Torben and his attorneys have to be aware of this.

The Immigration Board of Appeals dismissed Torben’s appeal and his asylum case, effectively confirming the flawed decision by the first immigration judge to deny Torben’s asylum.

Apparently the appeals court didn't find any flaws in the first judge's handling of Torben's asylun case; if they had, Torben would have been granted asylum.

A law was passed in Denmark that could send Torben to prison for doing ministry, plain and simple. The bill was lobbied into law using Torben and his ministry as the primary example for the need for such a change to the Criminal Code. If Torben were to return to Denmark and continue to practice his Christian faith, which includes the same bold street preaching and setting captives free, he would be at risk of arrest.

If this were true, why haven't any members of The Last Reformation or any other healing and deliverance ministries in Denmark been arrested since the passing of this law?

One section of the Board of Appeals decision reads, quote: “To the extent Mr. Sondergaard contends that he would be charged with a crime for practicing his religion, we disagree. The Department of Homeland Security argued that the applicant would not be prosecuted under the law unless he’s alleged to violate it at some point in the future,” end quote. In other words, the appellate judges are basically saying if Torben were to return to Denmark, he will not be in danger if he simply avoids violating the new law, which would require him to stop practicing his Christian faith. Does that sound like religious freedom?

Torben would not have to stop practicing his Christian faith and the the Board of Appeals decision was correct when it said “To the extent Mr. Sondergaard contends that he would be charged with a crime for practicing his religion, we disagree. The Department of Homeland Security argued that the applicant would not be prosecuted under the law unless he’s alleged to violate it at some point in the future,”

Once again, here is how the law reads along with some additional information as to how it's applied:

243. "The person who belongs to or is closely linked to another's household or previously had such a connection to the household, and who repeatedly over a period of time subjects the other to grossly degrading, insulting or offensive behavior that is suitable for inappropriately controlling the other, is punished for psychological violence with a fine or imprisonment for up to 3 years."

The law equally applies to everyone in the country. It doesn't target Torben and it certainly doesn't amount to persecution.

Have you been a victim of psychological violence?

Psychological violence can manifest itself in many different actions or omissions, which contain various types of physical or psychological violations. At the same time, the coarseness and the intensity can be very different. Some conditions have to be met in order for the psychological violence to be punishable by law. This means that not every type of psychological violence can be punished in accordance with the criminal code.

The conditions for the psychological violence being punishable by law are:

• The perpetrator must be connected to the victim’s household,

• The psychological violence must have taken place several times during a period after the act came into force on 1 April 2019.

• It must be a matter of a grossly degrading, harassing or offensive behaviour, and

• The behaviour must be suited to control the victim, i.e. a controlling behaviour, which prevents the victim in behaving freely.

It will always be a comprehensive assessment of all circumstances in a case, which decides if criminal proceedings can be initiated for psychological violence.

Section 243 of the Criminal Code – the new criminal law provision on psychological violence

On 1 April 2019, the new criminal provision criminalizing psychological violence entered into force.

The provision has the following wording:

"§ 243. Anyone who belongs to or is closely linked to another's household or has had such a connection to the household, and who repeatedly over a period of time subjects the other to grossly degrading, insulting or offensive behavior that is suitable to inappropriately control the other, is punished for psychological violence with a fine or imprisonment for up to 3 years."

The provision does not operate retroactively. It is therefore not possible to use the provision to prosecute conduct that precedes 1 April 2019.

The general conditions for the application of the provision In order for the behavior to be punishable, the following general conditions must be met:

1. The perpetrator must belong to or be closely connected to the other person's household or have had such a connection to the household.
2. Grossly degrading, insulting and offensive behavior must have been shown.
3. The behavior must be suitable to inappropriately control the other.
4. The behavior must have been practiced repeatedly over a period of time.
These conditions are reviewed in the following sections.

Delimitation of the circle of people - the "connection" between perpetrator and victim

The new provision can be used on perpetrators who "belong to or are closely linked to someone else's household or have previously had such an association".

· The provision is therefore only aimed at psychological violence in close relationships and not psychological violence at workplaces, schools or the like.

· Covered by the term "Whoever belongs to or is closely linked to someone else's household or has had such a connection to the household" includes, among others, a spouse, cohabitant, siblings, parents or foster parents. A partner who does not live with the victim of violence can also be covered by the circle of people.

In addition, the provision also applies to persons who previously had a close connection to the household. It can be former spouses/partners, partners or relatives.

In order to assess whether the perpetrator is closely linked to the victim's household, the following may be included:

• Whether the perpetrator has or previously had a national register address at the same address as the victim of violence.
• Whether there is a dependency relationship between the perpetrator and the victim.
• Whether the perpetrator and victim of violence are related.
• Whether the perpetrator now or in the past regularly comes to the homes of vulnerable people.

Examples of psychological violence based on the Ministry of Justice's concepts:

• To isolate a person from that person's family, child or network.
• To monitor or supervise a person without consent, e.g. via digital services or GPS equipment.
• Taking control of a person's daily life by deciding when the person can sleep, enter into social contexts with others, which people the person can associate with, what clothes the person can wear, etc.
• To keep a person in the dark about crucial decisions, eg travel abroad.
• Restricting a person's freedom of movement or denying a cohabitant or spouse to seek work.
• Depriving a person of access to support.
• To introduce a set of rules that exposes or humiliates the person or to refer to a person as if they are worthless
• Taking control of a person's finances.
• To threaten a person or the person's children or relatives (threats do not necessarily have to be covered by Section 266 of the Criminal Code, which deals with punishable threats).
• Exposing a person's children or relatives to violations or violence in order to harm the person.
• To keep a person in a marriage with reference to notions of respectability and/or the general status of the family or to subject the victim to other negative social control.
• Getting other people to put pressure on the victim to make certain life decisions, such as education or choosing a spouse.
• To isolate a person from access to, for example, the healthcare system, education and the labor market.
• To force a person to carry out or terminate a pregnancy.
• Blackmailing or ignoring a person.
• Destroying or threatening to destroy someone's property.
• Spreading malicious gossip, rumors or intimate information about the victim.
• Specifically in relation to children, behavior that exposes the child to constant devaluation or that destroys the child's self-esteem can also be mentioned. For example, it may be that the child is ignored and denied care or that the child is taken hostage in conflicts between the parents. There may also be comments about the child's body, weight or food intake.

None of the examples above would prevent an individual or a ministry from freely practicing their faith. If Torben were to return to Denmark and do any of the things listed above, then he should be arrested.

 

[Carl Emerson]

In videos that were released after his first asylum hearing, he made statements that contradicted what actually took place in the courtroom.

Can you support this claim please.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Can @JosephZ reply to the previous post please - your claims are very serious calling into question Torben's integrity.

If you cant do so then please withdraw the accusation.

 

[JosephZ]

Can you support this claim please.

Below are a few examples that can be found in videos that have been released since the asylum hearing by Torben and his spokespeople. They can be found on the "Friends of Torben" website. After reviewing the videos, I should have said a spokesperson for Torben contradicted what actually took place in the courtroom. I apologize for that, however; there are plenty of examples to be found where Torben has also made false or misleading statements.


Torben says he has never been told why he's being detained.

He's being detained because he's an overstay. Torben has to know this, it's written on his paperwork.

Torben says his court hearing was hacked.

This is not true. Asylum hearings can be viewed by anyone. All you need to do to watch an asylum hearing is have access to the internet, go to the Justice Department's website, know the name of the asylum seeker, the location of the court, the name of the judge, and the time and date of the hearing.

Torben says he didn't overstay his visa.

That is not true.

Torben claims the new law that was passed in Denmark prohibits him from praying for others.

This is not true. The law, as shown in my previous comment, is one that protects people against psychological abuse and is not based in any way on religion.

The new provision can be used on perpetrators who "belong to or are closely linked to someone else's household or have previously had such an association".

· The provision is therefore only aimed at psychological violence in close relationships and not psychological violence at workplaces, schools or the like.

· Covered by the term "Whoever belongs to or is closely linked to someone else's household or has had such a connection to the household" includes, among others, a spouse, cohabitant, siblings, parents or foster parents. A partner who does not live with the victim of violence can also be covered by the circle of people.

In addition, the provision also applies to persons who previously had a close connection to the household. It can be former spouses/partners, partners or relatives.

As can clearly be seen, the law wouldn't prevent Torben or anyone else from praying for others. It's a domestic violence law that only applies to people in close relationships such as a spouse, cohabitant, siblings, parents, foster parents or a domestic partner.

In an update provided by a spokesperson for Torben, it says that the judge didn't give a ruling on the day of the hearing and surprised everyone when he said that he was going to wait three days before he would offer his decision.

This is not true. On the day of the hearing, the judge clearly stated that Torben's application for asylum was denied.

"The court cannot find that the defendant has ever been persecuted or that he would ever be subjected to any well-founded fear of persecution in the future... He claims that if he returns to Denmark, he will be arrested and tortured. Denmark does not participate in any type of torture against its citizens. The court finds that these claims are not reasonable or even grounded in reality. We cannot find that he has faced any past persecution, nor can we find any potential for future persecution, and his application must be denied." -- Judge Yon Alberdi

In a video of Torben's hearing the judge can be heard denying Torben's request for asylum on multiple counts.

In the same update, the spokesperson said that the judge didn't say that Torben faked his persecution in Denmark.

The judge didn't use the word "fake, but he did say that Torben's "claims [of persecution] are not reasonable or even grounded in reality."

There's a link to the video where the judge gave his decision in this post found in an earlier thread about Torben's situation, but it's no longer available. There's one contained in the news article linked in the post as well, but it's now behind a paywall.

While not directly related to Torben, a spokesperson said they used the example of how circumcision is not allowed in Denmark during the hearing and that it is a form of persecution against Jews and Muslims.

There is no ban on circumcision in Denmark.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Thanks for the response Joseph.

I guess it may boil down to perception - Torben doesn't feel safe to return, expecting arrest.

The judiciary in the US cant speak for the Danish authorities, or anticipate what they might do.

He is being imprisoned by one country, and fears the consequences of returning to another.

What the Law says is one issue - how it might be applied is another, especially when people of influence are targeting you.

I used to live in Denmark and personalities in the Lutheran community have a strong voice.

 

[Carl Emerson]

To balance the contribution of JosephZ - I post this from the 'Friends of Torben' website.

==========================================================

Pastor Torben Sondergaard is detained at the Baker County Detention Facility in Jacksonville, Florida.

Torben has not been charged with any crimes and despite attempts from his family and attorneys to get answers, the reason US authorities decided to detain him remains unclear.

He has been confined there since he attended an interview that was requested by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement on June 30, 2022.

He was handcuffed during that interview, but was not told the reason he was being detained.

In fact, there is no basis for him to be detained at all. A request for his release should be granted based on the fact that he meets all parameters for release, namely, (i) he is not a flight risk; (ii) he is not a danger to the community, himself, and/or any other person; (iii) he has no criminal record of any kind in Florida or anywhere in the world; (iv) he has family and friends who can meet him at the Baker facility, pick him up, provide for housing and all expenses, and (v) he has a very strong case for asylum based on religious persecution and political opinion, has relief from removal immediately available to him, and it is entirely in his interests to appear at all subsequent asylum proceedings so that he and his family can lawfully remain in the USA.

Torben is also eligible for relief under a previously filed and currently pending asylum application. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement have the authority to either release Torben under recognizance or a bond amount set by them. To date, the Deportation Officer assigned has denied those request. Those requests have been sent with a detailed explanations and evidence in support of the Torben’s eligibility for favorable discretion. The denial was based solely on the opinion of a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Deportation Officer that Torben would not be successful in his application for asylum before the Immigration Court.

Torben is a citizen and native of Denmark, a majority Lutheran country. He was a member of the Lutheran faith. However, in 1995 he developed a more personal faith in Christ and no longer identified as a member of the Lutheran faith but simply as a member of the Christian faith, a follower of Jesus Christ, and an Evangelical Christian. As has been covered in great detail in Torben’s Asylum filings, his ministry has been targeted, harassed, and subjected to numerous unfounded investigations. All of the multiple investigations ended with no findings of fault against Torben or his ministry. The investigations were nothing more than harassment, which continues to this day.

Despite having a far-reaching ministry stretching into Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, and The Americas, Torben has been prohibited by the Danish government from practicing his faith and speaking out regarding matters of politics and religion. He has been repressed, persecuted, and discriminated against by the government of Denmark for his political beliefs and religious convictions. As a result, he is not able to minister as he did previously, which includes praying for the sick and casting out demons. As stated in his Asylum petition, the government of Denmark passed legislation targeting him and his ministry. The persecution by the Danish authorities caused Torben to flee to the USA in 2019.

Torben and his family have resided in the United States since 2019. He timely applied for political asylum within three months of his arrival in the USA as required by law, and his asylum application is currently pending. It is a very strong application, with extraordinary evidence, witnesses, detailed records, and a strong showing of actual repression and persecution as a religious minority and political activist. As such, Torben is highly incentivized to follow through with his political asylum application as that is a clear path of immediately available relief to him from deportation and path forward for him to be able to stay lawfully and permanently in the USA, where he would be able to practice his religion, work for his ministry and express his political opinion. Torben has a wife and family; they are also included in his Asylum application.

He is a classic case of a political and religious asylee and, as such, should be released from custody based on a strong case of underlying relief, humanitarian reasons, and meeting all other factors for release.

Torben has resided continuously in the United States for more than three years in a peaceful manner. As discussed above, Torben fled Denmark and has resided in the USA since 2019. He has a significant ministry and a steady following, a place of residence, hundreds of friends who are all able and willing to provide for his transport from the Baker facility, drive him to stay at their home awaiting adjudication of his asylum application, and provide for all expenses.

Torben is a person of excellent moral character who has not committed any crimes and has no criminal record. There is no history of involvement with violence, narcotics, or any serious criminal matter. Thus, from the record, we can unequivocally state Torben has never been arrested anywhere in the world. Torben has been a victim of persistent and vicious persecution in Denmark for his religious beliefs and should not be penalized by being held in custody.

Torben is not a flight risk. On the contrary, Torben came to the USA seeking asylum as a refuge from the terrible persecution and threats of violence he was experiencing in his home country of Denmark. These threats continue to this day. As such, he has nowhere to flee nor any desire to flee. Therefore, his best and only chance to secure any type of status for himself and his family is to stay in the USA, participate in his asylum proceedings, show up for all future hearings and appointments (as he has carefully and intentionally done to date), in order to secure a grant of his asylum.

In the United States, Torben has thousands of followers on YouTube and Facebook. Thus, it is clear that Torben is a Public Figure. He has authored seven books and produced three movies. His ministry reaches people all over the world. While he has resided in the United States, Torben and his ministry have visited over 40 States preaching the Word of God. In addition, he has held tent rallies and teaching seminars in multiple cities within each state. This religious freedom is not available to him in his home country Denmark.

Further, Torben conducts Bible teaching from the United States via the internet to all parts of the globe. As a Public Figure, Torben cannot simply disappear. To flee would go against his life’s work and his faith. By the foolish act of fleeing, he would destroy the very thing he preaches, faith in God. He is obligated by his deeply rooted ties to his Christian community, family, and ministry to stay in the United States once released from ICE custody and follow every rule and instruction associated with his release.

Torben is not a danger to the community, himself, or any other person; he is a man of deep faith. He simply wants to live peacefully, go through with his asylum application, and continue his work in his ministry. Torben is a man who has been through a great deal of hardship, pain, and discrimination; he has been ostracized and shunned; persecuted by his government; his religion has been outlawed, and the public state media have vilified him in his home country.

Our political asylum system in the USA was intended and designed to grant relief to people precisely like Torben.

==========================================================================

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

 

[Gentle Lamb]

Dear Friends,

Pastor Torben still incarcerated in a US prison.

Latest update here.

Official Update – May 18, 2023 - Friends of Torben

This is an update for friends and supporters of imprisoned Pastor Torben Sondergaard. It has been a few months since our last update. Torben has now been wrongfully imprisoned for 322 days. There has been a tireless effort to secure his release by his family, friends, and legal team. But still...

friendsoftorben.com

Legal team taking case to Federal Court.

Please pray for Torben and his family.

May God deliver this man from prison in Jesus name, may God grant him asylum along with his family and may God restore him the time he and his family have lost from this imprisonment in Jesus name. Amen.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

 

[Gary K]

There's a nine page affidavit written by Torben himself where he lists what he feels to be examples of persecution . None of the examples he gave would be considered persecution by any reasonable person. In videos that were released after his first asylum hearing, he made statements that contradicted what actually took place in the courtroom. What Torben shares in his updates should be taken with a grain of salt.

I'm going to highlight a few parts of the update found in the OP. The bolded sentences come from the article and my responses follow.

Torben has now been wrongfully imprisoned for 322 days.

Not according to immigration law which I showed in my previous comment.

The situation is complex and in many ways unprecedented.

This is not true. There are thousands of asylum seekers who are held in detention while they wait for their cases to be decided. Of those detained, most are held without ever being charged with a crime and have no criminal record.

Today marks 322 days he has been in prison. He is still being held in Baker County Detention Center in North Florida. And at this point, he’s been there longer than any other prisoner. Everyone else has either been released on bond, deported, granted asylum, or processed out in some way.

I have no way of knowing if Torben has been at the Baker County Detention Center longer than anyone else, but there are people who are detained for years.

"Some organizations suggest the average hold time is less than a month, while others say it's two or three months. But, some people have been in custody for years. Thus, the average length of stay in immigration detention depends on each person and their circumstances."

Torben remains in custody because he continues to fight his case in court. He could have been released last year if he would have agreed to be deported.

Torben’s attorneys have made repeated formal requests to the ICE officers in charge to reconsider their determination that he should be detained. But they refuse and have provided no valid reason for doing so.

When someone enters the US under the Visa Waiver Program they waive their right to bond if held in the custody of an immigration and can be held in detention while their asylum application is decided. Torben and his attorneys have to be aware of this.

The Immigration Board of Appeals dismissed Torben’s appeal and his asylum case, effectively confirming the flawed decision by the first immigration judge to deny Torben’s asylum.

Apparently the appeals court didn't find any flaws in the first judge's handling of Torben's asylun case; if they had, Torben would have been granted asylum.

A law was passed in Denmark that could send Torben to prison for doing ministry, plain and simple. The bill was lobbied into law using Torben and his ministry as the primary example for the need for such a change to the Criminal Code. If Torben were to return to Denmark and continue to practice his Christian faith, which includes the same bold street preaching and setting captives free, he would be at risk of arrest.

If this were true, why haven't any members of The Last Reformation or any other healing and deliverance ministries in Denmark been arrested since the passing of this law?

One section of the Board of Appeals decision reads, quote: “To the extent Mr. Sondergaard contends that he would be charged with a crime for practicing his religion, we disagree. The Department of Homeland Security argued that the applicant would not be prosecuted under the law unless he’s alleged to violate it at some point in the future,” end quote. In other words, the appellate judges are basically saying if Torben were to return to Denmark, he will not be in danger if he simply avoids violating the new law, which would require him to stop practicing his Christian faith. Does that sound like religious freedom?

Torben would not have to stop practicing his Christian faith and the the Board of Appeals decision was correct when it said “To the extent Mr. Sondergaard contends that he would be charged with a crime for practicing his religion, we disagree. The Department of Homeland Security argued that the applicant would not be prosecuted under the law unless he’s alleged to violate it at some point in the future,”

Once again, here is how the law reads along with some additional information as to how it's applied:

243. "The person who belongs to or is closely linked to another's household or previously had such a connection to the household, and who repeatedly over a period of time subjects the other to grossly degrading, insulting or offensive behavior that is suitable for inappropriately controlling the other, is punished for psychological violence with a fine or imprisonment for up to 3 years."

The law equally applies to everyone in the country. It doesn't target Torben and it certainly doesn't amount to persecution.

Have you been a victim of psychological violence?

Psychological violence can manifest itself in many different actions or omissions, which contain various types of physical or psychological violations. At the same time, the coarseness and the intensity can be very different. Some conditions have to be met in order for the psychological violence to be punishable by law. This means that not every type of psychological violence can be punished in accordance with the criminal code.

The conditions for the psychological violence being punishable by law are:

• The perpetrator must be connected to the victim’s household,

• The psychological violence must have taken place several times during a period after the act came into force on 1 April 2019.

• It must be a matter of a grossly degrading, harassing or offensive behaviour, and

• The behaviour must be suited to control the victim, i.e. a controlling behaviour, which prevents the victim in behaving freely.

It will always be a comprehensive assessment of all circumstances in a case, which decides if criminal proceedings can be initiated for psychological violence.

Section 243 of the Criminal Code – the new criminal law provision on psychological violence

On 1 April 2019, the new criminal provision criminalizing psychological violence entered into force.

The provision has the following wording:

"§ 243. Anyone who belongs to or is closely linked to another's household or has had such a connection to the household, and who repeatedly over a period of time subjects the other to grossly degrading, insulting or offensive behavior that is suitable to inappropriately control the other, is punished for psychological violence with a fine or imprisonment for up to 3 years."

The provision does not operate retroactively. It is therefore not possible to use the provision to prosecute conduct that precedes 1 April 2019.

The general conditions for the application of the provision In order for the behavior to be punishable, the following general conditions must be met:

1. The perpetrator must belong to or be closely connected to the other person's household or have had such a connection to the household.
2. Grossly degrading, insulting and offensive behavior must have been shown.
3. The behavior must be suitable to inappropriately control the other.
4. The behavior must have been practiced repeatedly over a period of time.
These conditions are reviewed in the following sections.

Delimitation of the circle of people - the "connection" between perpetrator and victim

The new provision can be used on perpetrators who "belong to or are closely linked to someone else's household or have previously had such an association".

· The provision is therefore only aimed at psychological violence in close relationships and not psychological violence at workplaces, schools or the like.

· Covered by the term "Whoever belongs to or is closely linked to someone else's household or has had such a connection to the household" includes, among others, a spouse, cohabitant, siblings, parents or foster parents. A partner who does not live with the victim of violence can also be covered by the circle of people.

In addition, the provision also applies to persons who previously had a close connection to the household. It can be former spouses/partners, partners or relatives.

In order to assess whether the perpetrator is closely linked to the victim's household, the following may be included:

• Whether the perpetrator has or previously had a national register address at the same address as the victim of violence.
• Whether there is a dependency relationship between the perpetrator and the victim.
• Whether the perpetrator and victim of violence are related.
• Whether the perpetrator now or in the past regularly comes to the homes of vulnerable people.

Examples of psychological violence based on the Ministry of Justice's concepts:

• To isolate a person from that person's family, child or network.
• To monitor or supervise a person without consent, e.g. via digital services or GPS equipment.
• Taking control of a person's daily life by deciding when the person can sleep, enter into social contexts with others, which people the person can associate with, what clothes the person can wear, etc.
• To keep a person in the dark about crucial decisions, eg travel abroad.
• Restricting a person's freedom of movement or denying a cohabitant or spouse to seek work.
• Depriving a person of access to support.
• To introduce a set of rules that exposes or humiliates the person or to refer to a person as if they are worthless
• Taking control of a person's finances.
• To threaten a person or the person's children or relatives (threats do not necessarily have to be covered by Section 266 of the Criminal Code, which deals with punishable threats).
• Exposing a person's children or relatives to violations or violence in order to harm the person.
• To keep a person in a marriage with reference to notions of respectability and/or the general status of the family or to subject the victim to other negative social control.
• Getting other people to put pressure on the victim to make certain life decisions, such as education or choosing a spouse.
• To isolate a person from access to, for example, the healthcare system, education and the labor market.
• To force a person to carry out or terminate a pregnancy.
• Blackmailing or ignoring a person.
• Destroying or threatening to destroy someone's property.
• Spreading malicious gossip, rumors or intimate information about the victim.
• Specifically in relation to children, behavior that exposes the child to constant devaluation or that destroys the child's self-esteem can also be mentioned. For example, it may be that the child is ignored and denied care or that the child is taken hostage in conflicts between the parents. There may also be comments about the child's body, weight or food intake.

None of the examples above would prevent an individual or a ministry from freely practicing their faith. If Torben were to return to Denmark and do any of the things listed above, then he should be arrested.

I emphasized a portion of the law of Denmark you quoted. In the the state in which I live it is now legal to remove a child from their parents custody if the parents object to the child being subjected to gender dysphoria abuse by the school district and on top of that the parents are not allowed to know where their child is or to communicate with them. That is government abuse of children as no child has the life experience to know enough to make that kind of permanent life changing decision. As Denmark is even further to the left politically it is very possible that it is considered abuse to speak about sex change operations to the child having this done to them and I have little doubt the US government would back up the Danish in our current political environment.

 

[Hank77]

In the the state in which I live it is now legal to remove a child from their parents custody if the parents object to the child being subjected to gender dysphoria abuse by the school district and on top of that the parents are not allowed to know where their child is or to communicate with them.

Which state is this? I want to read that law, if accurate it's immoral.

 

[Gary K]

Which state is this? I want to read that law, if accurate it's immoral.

Washington. If possible, it is further left than California.

 

[Hank77]

Washington. If possible, it is further left than California.

Thanks, I'm in Colorado.

 

[Hank77]

Washington. If possible, it is further left than California.

Is this the law you are referring to? If so you and I don't understand it the same way.

Transgender minors protected from estranged parents under Washington law

The new law that Inslee signed Tuesday is part of a wave of legislation in Democratic-led states intended to give refuge amid a conservative movement in which lawmakers in other states have attacked trans rights and limited or banned gender-affirming care for minors.

www.pbs.org

 

[Carl Emerson]

Can we keep the thread on Torben please - the issue you raise could be a fruitful thread on it's own...