This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
Included information about current UN Human Rights Council complaints to Norway, and a link to this source.
I have many sources for these points in Norwegian, but unsure what use that would be in an English wikipedia article. I can however include these sources by request.
Included a section for history of Human Rights Abuses in Norway, unfortunately only with Norwegian language sources.
Unfortunately most of my sources are in Norwegian, but can apply these sources.
Minor edits in the layout to include the additional information that should not affect the readability and content of the article.
Guardian of this article raised the question of what the emphasis of this article should be upon, current or historical human rights situations in Norway.
In that context I think the section on the land right of Sami people could need some updated information after the 2021 ruling in Norwegian Supreme Court over the illegal construction of wind turbines on Sami reindeer grazing land.
More information on the current plight of Romani people in Norway could also need more information, especially considering the 2015 criticism by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor456991 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Copying extensive unsourced material to Talk page so that it doesn't disappear and can be reintroduced if valid sources are cited.
Norway's parliament has voted against including all economic and social rights in the constitution.
Norway has been criticized for the very large state sovereign wealth fund investing internationally in companies with questionable ethical practices and unethical supply chains.
The Norwegian state has been criticized for a serious lack of transparency by the state when the state uses force. For having a high degree of informal networks that make complaint processes difficult and for an almost total lack of transparency in complaint processes by third parties and the public.
Repeated criticism over government actions and the situation for the Roma communities, especially in Oslo.
Deportations of child refugees and asylum seekers with no parents to conflict and war zones has been criticized by the UN.
Deportations of refugees and asylum seekers to conflict and war zones have been criticized by the UN.
Reports of police entering the homes of asylum seeker and refugee families with dogs in the middle of the night for deportation.
Repeated international criticisms of extensive use of torture in psychiatry, home invasions, forced treatments, coercion and forced drug treatments in public psychiatry is pervasive and all encompassing. Several psychiatric institutions have publicly refused to abide by a law change in 2017, and the law does not seem to have changed the practices in any meaningful way, mainly due to weak wording in the law being reinterpreted.
Repeated international criticism of prolonged use of torture, permanent isolation and inhumane treatments in psychiatric treatments in prisons.
Repeated international criticism of use of solitary confinement in bare minimum cells in jail over 24 hours, not unusually several days and up to seven days has been known to happen, by the police without due process.
Repeated international criticisms of unusually long periods of incarceration before trial, many months and over half a year is not unusual.
Repeated international criticisms of use of solitary confinement in bare minimum cells of children by the police in jail, especially in Oslo. The police have publicly refused to find alternative solutions citing practicality as the reason.
Repeated criticisms of extensive inhumane harassment by police of drug addicts, and relatively high overdose numbers despite relatively low drug usage.
Recently extensive decades long illegal use of body searches, blood and urine tests, forced communication controls of cellular phones and home invasions by the police reached mass public attention. This practice over simple suspected drug use has been criticized as illegal practices by the state attorney, but there is little evidence to suggest the police has or will change practices.
Norway's methadone and Subutex programs have been criticised for demanding regular degrading urine samples and not allowing more than one dosage a day and thus effectively restricting the free movement of people in the programs.
Norway has been convicted no less than 13 times recently in the European Court of Human Rights over human rights abuses by the state for the forced removal of contact between parents and children by state child protective services.
The state privacy bureau, press organizations and lawyers organizations has criticized Norway over an ever expanding surveillance state and ever increasing laws that allow state invasions into privacy. Recently parlaiment allowed the military to store all metadata transfers crossing Norwegian borders.
Religious propaganda in schools, no real separation of church and state. The constitution still emphasizes the Lutheran Church.
Repeated civil society allegations of racism, racist profiling harassment by the police.
Civil society allegations of treatment of minorities as B-patients in the health services.
Repeated reports of racist discrimination of minorities in employment processes and even housing.
The Norwegian state has also refused to treat paperless migrants, refugees and asylum seekers in the public health services.
Many asylum seekers that can't be returned or deported because they come from a conflict or war-zone are being refused the right to work even after many years living in Norway.
Public defunding of pacifist and peace movements to zero.
Defunding of free lawyer help for lower income brackets.
Sex wokers organisations have criticized that rights of sex workers as still limited. Although the sale of sex by private individuals is legal while purchases are not, sex workers are still being harassed by the police and often suffer uncertain living conditions and unsafe working conditions as a result.
arguementative with no source, as in "There still are many systemic human rights problems in Norway that are worse than in many other countries."
several incidents of {{by whom}}-statements, as in "have been criticised", "Repeated criticisms", "Reports of", etc.
lack of specific terms and links to other relevant articles. The phrase "the very large state sovereign wealth fund" should be replaced by "The Government Pension Fund of Norway". Also "Finnish-speaking minorities" should be replaced by "Kven people".
In general, the text is not written in dialogue with the rest of the Wikipedia text structure, and appear more as a blog text than as an integrated contribution to the encyclopedia.
Editor456991 (talk·contribs) have also, in this discussion about the norwegian version of his text, suggested that those opposing his/her text have a agenda of protecting Norway or the norwegian government against criticism. He/she also said that『siden dette også dreier seg om menneskerettigheter er det svært alvorlig for dine administrasjonsrettigheter ref. charteret til Wikipedia.』(as this is about human rights, this is very serious concerning your admin rights, ref Wikipedia charter).
- The sources are the UN criticism that is updated every four years, and that is clearly linked, I suggest you read it and their source material.
- The source is the again the UN, the international communities and the European Council Commissioner for Human Rights which is clearly linked, I suggest you read it and their source material.
- I fail to see the problem with the semantics here, it's relevant that the sovereign wealth fund is very large, and it's questionable if it really can be defined as a pension fund anymore considering the large amounts of money transferred from the wealth fund to the annual state budget, in the amount of several tens of billions dollars, or almost a quarter of the state budget.
- That would be correcting into an error, as it's not correct that all Finnish Speaking minorities in Norway are Kven-people. Kven-people are located in Finnmark and speak a specific dialect of Finnish, the worst "Norwegianisation policy" however happened to Finnish speaking minorities living in Southern Norway (e.g. Finnskogen), so Kven-People would not be a correct term to use.
- You know better than this having seen the long list of sources in the Norwegian version.
It's of course not okay to remove or delete parts of a well sourced article about human rights no matter the reason, in fact it is illegal to do so by law in every country that has signed the human rights declaration, defined within the declaration itself.
If there is a problem with the content then there needs to be a proper discussion about it in public. Deleting something because of propaganda, and here Norwegian are especially susceptible as they live within their own propaganda realms, because somebody don't want to think or feel it's accurate is not a valid reason - especially when it comes to human rights issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor456991 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, Editor456991. Do you really, really believe that it is "illegal by law" to edit someones contributions to Wikipedia!? Read again the text right below the editing window: "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." Bw --Orland (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All rights and freedoms exist in law because the Human Rights exist. In the Human Rights it is specifically written that none of the rights guaranteed and given by the Human Rights can be used to subvert the Human Rights. So yes, it is not only illegal to remove information about the Human Rights and human rights abuses, it is in fact fundamental to all laws that it's illegal to supress information about Human Rights and human rights abuses. Consider that Wikipedia would in fact not even exist, as it does not in many countries, without the Human Rights - and we would not even be having this conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor456991 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
