The Labour Government believes that the Shada case is a conspiracy theory that has reached all the way into the Storting. Therefore, the procedures are now to be examined.
Both Minister for Children Lene Vågslid (Labour Party) and Minister of Justice Astri Aas-Hansen (Labour Party) are now announcing measures, writes VG. It is the claims that Shada (16) did not commit suicide, but was killed while being compulsorily placed in a child welfare institution, that are troubling the ministers.
VG points out that countless “experts” believe that Shada took her own life. But experts nowadays seem to grow on trees. Shada’s death in 2019 was initially registered by the police as a suspicious death, and her father was initially informed that there was suspicion of murder. This was later changed to the theory of suicide.
Minister of Children and Families Lene Vågslid is now stepping in to resolve the contentious case.
– First and foremost, I believe this is a good example of a newspaper, an editor-controlled medium, taking hold of a dangerous conspiracy theory. And dismantling it piece by piece.
In connection with Progress Party representative Liv Gustavsen providing what she calls incorrect information about the Shada case to the Storting, Vågslid says:
– It is clear that when a conspiracy theory survives for so long and with such momentum that it reaches all the way into the Storting, it is very serious – also because it weakens trust in the child welfare service.
As early as 2018, NRK wrote that as many as 28 per cent of the population had little or no trust in the child welfare service.
Immediately afterwards, Vågslid says that she does not have knowledge of the case at a level of detail that would enable her to examine the so-called “evidence” upon which the alleged conspiracy theories are based. If this is true, then everything Vågslid says is merely loose speculation.
– But what the authorities can do about such cases is one of the good questions now being asked. This case shows the enormous exposure that a child has received after her death. There are several questions that I am now open to examining more closely.
Vågslid has asked Bufdir to take a closer look at two matters:
- The child welfare service’s procedures concerning the dissemination of images an
Shada Case Creates Problems for the Government, Which Now Promises to “Take Action”
d misinformation about children.
- Shada’s brother experienced not receiving information from the child welfare service about his sister’s death and therefore believed that Shada had been murdered.
– We must examine whether the procedures are sufficiently robust regarding who is responsible for providing information to next of kin. I will ask Bufdir to examine who is responsible for informing next of kin and siblings when children die while in the care of the child welfare service.
There is also discussion about what the Government should do regarding the sharing of post-mortem photographs, which in the Shada case have spread across the internet and social media. The solution is more censorship.
Vågslid describes the images as “disinformation”, but Shada is demonstrably dead, is she not? Minister of Justice Aas-Hansen says that she will raise the matter with the National Police Directorate (Politidirektoratet).
– The new media landscape has brought with it new challenges relating to the spread of misinformation, and I will take the initiative for a meeting with the National Police Directorate to hear whether the police have the tools they need.
Shada was separated from her entire family and moved around by the child welfare service, according to her brother “like a rubbish sack”, as many as six times, with minimal contact with her brothers and parents.
Vågslid is asked why Shada was deprived of contact with her brothers and replies that it is impossible to answer. “The child welfare service’s assessments are very complex.”
– It is difficult because these are child welfare professional assessments, and sometimes security-related assessments, that must be made in each individual case. I cannot tell the child welfare service that it should do this or that; it must be the individual child welfare workers and those who work with this every day who know what is best for the children.
This case is very complex, and it is by no means easy to determine what the actual facts of the matter are. The child welfare service’s information is confidential, and interpretations may differ.
VG, in cooperation with Faktisk.no, recently wrote that it had obtained access to documents from four police investigations concerning Shada, child welfare documents, and parts of her mobile telephone and diary.