Non-discrimination

Participants referred to a paradigm shift in Danish policy towards migrants over the recent years. They explained that, while the previous approach oriented asylum seekers to integration, the current one focused on ultimately returning them to their countries of origin. To illustrate this current approach, participants mentioned the increasing difficulties for refugees to enjoy related rights like family reunification or to maintain a residency permit. They mentioned the example of the so-called "jewellery law", which entailed the confiscation of asylum seekers' assets upon entry in the country.

The situation in pre-expulsion refugee camps was also presented as being very harsh, including the imposition of unjustified and disproportionate restrictions. According to some participants, the Danish authorities have not considered seriously a critical Council of Europe report on these camps. These participants acknowledged that the authorities had ordered minimal renovation of the camps, but regretted that they failed to question their overall approach consisting in detaining rejected asylum seekers. On asylum and migration questions, the Danish authorities asserted that all its pieces of legislation had been drafted based on a thorough fundamental rights assessment and therefore remained within the boundaries of the Danish Constitution as well as European and International law. They added that this set of legislation obtained a broad political support amongst the parliamentary forces and responded to societal demands.

CSO representatives pointed to a related area of key concern, which was the discrimination suffered by members of ethnic and religious minorities. To them, the most striking illustration of a situation that some qualified as "structural" was the "ghetto law". They described how this law provided the criteria on which basis the authorities could declare that a certain area was a "ghetto". While these criteria were seemingly objective, like income, unemployment rate, levels of education and criminal convictions, they de facto only related to areas populated by a majority of "Non-Western" persons. Participants explained that the distinction between "Western" and "Non-Western" was the one in use in some public services like job centres. They also explained how the "ghetto" label was imposing discriminatory constraints on their residents, increasing the possibility for harsher convictions in case of crime. They felt that being in a "ghetto" was far away from offering social emancipation perspectives and was instead stigmatising residents, who moreover could be subject to forced eviction. The Danish authorities contextualised the "ghetto law" as the official response to the challenge of increasing segregation and "parallel societies" developing since the 1990s. They asserted that it did not amount to ethnic or religious discrimination and that is was proportionate and necessary.

A participant mentioned that minorities had been targeted in public and online discourses in the context of COVID-19. While minorities were over-represented in frontline jobs, some were accused of not being responsible enough during the epidemic. Another participant indicated that several states had recommended to Denmark in the last Universal Periodic Review (UPR) to work on an Action Plan on Racism and Anti-Semitism. This participant considered it important that authorities would adopt a comprehensive document, covering all areas.

A CSO representative presented the situation of persons with disabilities in Denmark, who represent up to a fifth of the population. This participant explained that the country was lagging behind concerning the legal recognition of "reasonable accommodation" for persons with disabilities. A recent positive development was that schools and institutions could not any more have discriminative access preventing disabled persons from entering, however restaurant and hotels for example still could. Other challenges that were mentioned included the de facto problem of more difficult access to justice for persons with disabilities as compared with the rest of the population, and the lack of full proper access to public transportation. Finally, the participant was concerned that the employment gap between persons with disabilities and the general population was high, while the education gap was actually increasing.

A CSO representative recognised the significant advances that had taken place in Denmark with regards to LGBTIQ rights over the past twenty years, in particular in the areas of the rights to marriage and adoption, and legal gender recognition. However, the participant also pointed out to particular challenges concerning healthcare for transsexual persons, the rights of intersex persons (and the issue of forced treatment on children), and the situation of LGBTIQ asylum seekers. The participant regretted that it was difficult to obtain remedy with the Danish Equal Treatment Board concerning LGBTIQ discrimination outside the area of the job market (for example concerning housing).