a. Freedom of Expression, Including for the Press

The constitution and law provide for freedom of expression, including for the press, and the government generally respected this right. An independent press, an effective judiciary, and a functioning democratic political system combined to promote freedom of expression, including for the press.

Freedom of Expression: The law prohibits “threatening or insulting anyone, or inciting hatred or repression of or contempt for anyone because of his or her: (a) skin color or national or ethnic origin; (b) religion or life stance; (c) sexual orientation or lifestyle; or (d) disability.” Violators are subject to a fine or imprisonment for not more than three years.

Press and Media, Including Online Media: Independent media were active and expressed a wide variety of views without restriction. The prohibitions against hate speech applied also to the print and broadcast media, the publication of books, and online newspapers and journals.

Internet Freedom

The government did not restrict or disrupt access to the internet or censor online content, and there were no credible reports that the government monitored private online communications without appropriate legal authority.

Academic Freedom and Cultural Events

There were no government restrictions on academic freedom or cultural events.

b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association

The constitution and law provide for the freedoms of peaceful assembly and association, and the government generally respected these rights.

c. Freedom of Religion

See the Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report at https://www.state.gov/religiousfreedomreport/.

d. Freedom of Movement

The law provides for freedom of internal movement, foreign travel, emigration, and repatriation, and the government generally respected these rights.

Not applicable.

f. Protection of Refugees

Access to Asylum: The law provides for the granting of asylum or refugee status, and the government has established a system for providing protection to refugees. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) such as NOAS and Amnesty International criticized the government for issuing instructions to immigration authorities that more strictly interpreted immigration and asylum regulations as a means of restricting access to asylum without changing the underlying legislation. NOAS cited examples of the government’s redefining the level of civil safety in Somalia in order to withdraw or deny asylum to applicants by claiming it was “safe to return to Somalia.”

In one example in June, immigration authorities revoked the refugee status of a single mother of Afghan descent and her three children who had fled from Iran. Immigration authorities attempted to return them to Afghanistan even though none of the three children was born in Afghanistan and had never visited. The basis for the revocation was a claim by the government that it was safe for the family to return to Afghanistan. In the course of her detention, although the mother lapsed into unconsciousness, she was still placed on an airplane with the three children. Upon arrival in Istanbul, the mother, who had not regained consciousness, had to be returned to Norway for medical reasons. The minor children remained in Istanbul pending their deportation to Afghanistan. The Afghan government ultimately refused to accept them, forcing Norwegian officials to accept the children back after 10 days. Under these circumstances and due to the efforts of several NGO’s, the children were allowed to remain in the country pending an appeal of their immigration status.

Safe Country of Origin/Transit: The country is party to the EU’s Dublin III regulation, which allows the government to transfer asylum seekers to the European country determined to be responsible under the regulation for adjudicating the case.

Freedom of Movement: The law permits detention of migrants to establish their identity or to deport them if authorities deem it likely the persons would evade an order to leave. The detention is limited and subject to judicial review.

Employment: Regulations allow asylum seekers who reside in integration facilities to obtain employment while their applications are under review. Eligible asylum seekers must fulfill certain criteria, including possession of valid documentation proving identity, a finding following an asylum interview that the individual will likely receive asylum, and participation in government-defined “integration” programs that assist asylum seekers in adapting to Norwegian society by the use of educational resources such as language or job training.

Durable Solutions: The government offered resettlement for refugees in cooperation with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The government’s Directorate of Immigration had several programs to settle refugees permanently in the country.

Through the International Organization for Migration and other government partners, the government assisted the return of unsuccessful asylum seekers to their countries of origin through voluntary programs that offered financial and logistical support for repatriation. Identity documents issued by either the Norwegian or the returnee’s government are required in order to use this program. The government continued routinely to offer migrants cash support in addition to airfare to encourage persons with rejected asylum claims to leave the country voluntarily.

Individuals granted refugee status may apply for citizenship when they meet the legal requirements, which include a minimum length of residence of seven of the previous 10 years, completion of an integration course on Norwegian society and pass a language test.

The government continued to provide welfare and support for refugees living in the country as part of the government’s Integration Goals administered by the Ministry of Children and Families. In order to facilitate the transition of immigrants into productive members of society, certain categories of immigrants, including refugees, are eligible for programs designed to provide Norwegian language instruction, job training, job placement, access to schools and universities, and basic instruction for living in Norwegian society. Refugees and asylum applicants have access to welfare benefits for short-term or long-term housing and medical care, and are provided direct access to, or financial support for, necessities such as food, clothing, basic entertainment, and public transportation. Children are eligible to attend public schools and preschools as if they were citizens, and there are programs for children who have recently arrived and need language assistance prior to entering the regular education system.

In 2018 parliament passed legislation to allow dual citizenship. The new law will come into effect as of 2020, and thereafter eligibility for citizenship will no longer be contingent on renouncing one’s prior citizenship.

Temporary Protection: Through the end of August, the government provided temporary humanitarian protection to 48 individuals who may not qualify as refugees. The permits for temporary protection may be renewed and can become permanent. The government provided temporary protection to fewer than 10 unaccompanied minors, who were granted residence permits in the country until the age of 18. NOAS and the NGO Norwegian Refugee Council claimed that the government’s policy is not to renew temporary protection for these minors when they turn 18 so they may be deported, even though the circumstances that led to their humanitarian protection remain unchanged.

According to UNHCR 2,809 stateless persons lived in the country at the end of 2018; they were not counted as refugees. According to the Directorate of Immigration, at the end of August, an additional 81 stateless asylum seekers lived in reception centers, a decrease of 50.6 percent from the same period in 2018. Of these, 28 persons had permission to stay, and 87 were under orders to leave the country. The remainder continued the asylum application process.

The government effectively implemented laws and policies to provide stateless persons the opportunity to gain nationality on a nondiscriminatory basis. NOAS believed, however, the process was deficient because, while there is a well-defined process for stateless persons to gain nationality, it found the government’s process for being declared stateless to be ambiguous and difficult to achieve.