The decision to slaughter the 17 million mink from Danish farms as a health precaution sparked such controversy that Mogens Jensen had to resign. But many points remain to be clarified to establish precisely the responsibilities in this case, warns the Danish daily. Politics.
“C’en is over for Jensen; [la Première ministre] Frederiksen is protected for now ”, title the danish newspaper Politics this November 19. On the front page, the portrait of Mette Frederiksen with, for a scarf, a mink decked out in the head of her Minister of Agriculture, Mogens Jensen, who resigned the day before.
He had found himself in recent weeks under increasing pressure after ordering on November 4 Danish mink farmers to slaughter the entire herd, or around 17 million animals in total. The decision was made because Danish authorities feared that a mutation in the coronavirus from mink to humans would compromise the effectiveness of a future vaccine. However, it turned out that not only did the decision lack a legal basis, but that it was also scientifically doubtful.
A considerable cost
According to Politics, despite the resignation of Mogens Jensen, the scandal is not over yet. In its editorial of the day, the newspaper notes that an investigation must take place. He stressed, in particular, that six ministers of the Social Democratic government were already aware of the lack of a legal basis in October.
“Has there really been no one to ask such a trivial question as: is this even legal? ?” asks the daily newspaper, adding: “How could the Prime Minister allow an illegal situation to continue, two days after she learned about it? ”
While the format of the survey has yet to be decided, the essential, according to Politics, is to be able in the long term to bring to light the responsibilities of the case, because “The mink scandal has had a considerable cost for the country, both financially and in terms of trust and respect for the rule of law”.
Founded in 1884, Politics is today a center-left newspaper which still gives itself the image of a certain “cultural radicalism”. Its slogan is “The Living Journal”, but it could be “The cleavage journal