the Danish Parliament has recently adopted, that the Islamic State fighters, who have dual citizenship, and which has acted to the serious injury of Denmark's vital interests, the administration may be stripped of their Danish citizenship.

That the administrative can take even very serious decisions, which can then be appealed to a court, there is nothing unusual in that. Children are removed from their parents and properties expropriated in the same way. Although you can't measure gravity on a completely accurate scale, there is no doubt that we are in the heavy end.

But could one not just as well get the ICE warriors to Denmark and start a lawsuit against them? It is a reasonable and relevant question. No doubt about it.

A recent case in Sweden, however, shows what is at stake. Sweden is our neighbour and looks like Denmark is sufficient that it makes sense to compare.

In the spring of 2019 beat the Swedish police against the six imams. The Swedish security service found that they constituted a clear and well-documented security risk. Therefore, they were arrested and taken into custody.

After having assessed the matter, reached the Swedish authorities will forward to the six imams should be deported. However, complained about the decision. It was, therefore, sent by the Swedish government, which found that it was agree with the original decision: the Imams were dangerous and should be deported.

the Problem is just that it may not be possible in practice. Imamernes defenders argue that they will be in danger in their home countries. The Swedish state can not lift the burden of proof and establish that it is 100 percent safe. And the last new of the matter is that all six will end on the free foot, as it is also not in Sweden Holiganbet is an actual crime to be on the tolerated stay.

Apart from that, the ICE warriors first should have been flown from the Middle east to Denmark, cases are almost exactly the same: We have to do with the radicalised jihadists, that of the competent authorities is considered to be extremely dangerous for the country they are staying in.

There is taken a decision on that question must be exercised (or there is for the ICE warriors he is 99 percent chance that the will be taken). Still ends up the case, after all the remedies have been applied, with these extremely dangerous people in the practice are on the loose.

And here it is, we have the difficult discussion.

on the one hand you can say: It is good that we have a system which ensures that even the worst and most dangerous criminals may remain free, if the authorities can not lift just the last ounce of a burden of 100 kilos.

The isolation are also great. I am completely and utterly agree. But it is overall acceptable, that Swedish citizens should be exposed to the elevated risk to their life and limb, as occurs when six extremely dangerous jihadists are on the loose? the

In theory, should the men report to authorities on a regular basis. But in practice it may be 'complex'. It says sikkerhedsforskeren Magnus Ranstorp to Expressen:

"The radical environments comes first, to oppose the resolution, and the second comes they are likely to return as the heroes and can continue with their business, since they don't have anything to lose."

In principle, one should never take extremely risky decisions. Just like you, in principle, must always follow our extremely high legal standards to the last comma.

the Question is, which principle must give way when the two come on a collision course.

Henrik Dahl, Member of Parliament, Liberal Alliance

Henrik Dahl is a trained sociologist and lived in a number of years of writing about society and history. Now, he was sitting in the Danish Parliament for Liberal Alliance, where he is rapporteur in the field of environment, research, integration and bureaucracy.

Date Of Update: 22 November 2019, 22:00