On September 30, Ny Tid put the spotlight on the Human Rights Service and their report media-covered "Immigration through marriage". The editor of Young Muslim, Athat Akram, was able to address the criticism he has in his counter-report "Factual and methodological errors committed by the Human Rights Service in the report Immigration through Marriage". In addition, Statistics Norway pointed out several weaknesses in the HRS report.
In Ny Nids leader "Relocate the debate!" On 30 September, it is argued that the Norwegian immigration debate should now get on a different track. It was stated that so-called "marriage of convenience is not undesirable in itself, but only if the marriage is carried out under duress".
In last week's Ny Tid, Nighet Shafi from HRS answers. She writes that she "experiences the New Age editorial as a new attack on my human dignity".
This experience appears to rest on a misunderstanding. The lead writer's formulation that in Norway one should be able to achieve "legislation and good reporting mechanisms" without HRS, is the premise that one does not want HRS as an "indispensable provider of premises in the immigration debate".
Of course, this does not mean that Ny Tid wants to ban the Human Rights Service or similar organizations. It is the degree of influence and the tendency in the Norwegian discourse that the editorial was critical of.
When HRS now receives more than two million kroner annually in state support from the state budget, NRS and Nighet Shafi should both tolerate and expect to receive critical questions. New Time will still not deny critical voices. This is how both HRS and Shafi's human dignity experience should endure.
Editor-in-chief in MODERN TIMES.