Greenland’s Contraception Controversy: Genocide Allegations and a Tense Future
Greenland’s justice minister says the government cannot conclude whether genocide was committed against the Inuit community after experts examined the use of forced contraception in the 1960s and 70s.
"We cannot say, on behalf of the government, whether there was genocide," Marianne Paviasen told reporters, signalling a pause in official judgment and leaving the debate open for future study.
Two reports were released on Friday, a year after Denmark officially apologised for the treatment of Inuit women and girls. Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens‑Frederik Nielsen pledged a “reconciliation commission,” while Danish PM Mette Frederiksen called for joint action.
Denmark’s compensation law now pays 300,000 Danish crowns (about £34,000) to each woman affected by the policy.
Archival records reveal that between 1966 and 1970, roughly 4,500 Greenlandic women and girls—some as young as 13—had intra‑uterine devices implanted under a birth‑control programme run by Danish doctors.
Many women later claimed they were fitted with IUDs without full knowledge or consent, highlighting the invasive nature of the campaign that drastically slowed population growth.
Frederiksen issued an apology last August for the “systematic discrimination” suffered by Greenlandic women and their families.
In 2024, former Greenlandic prime minister Mute B. Egede described the practice as “genocide,” a statement that has now been examined by an expert panel.
The UN’s definition of genocide includes measures intended to prevent births within a national, ethnic, racial or religious group—making the forced contraception a potential, but not yet proven, case.
The panel comprised four experts tasked with determining whether human rights violations equated to genocide. Two members resigned, producing a separate, divergent report.
Lacquered into their indecisive conclusion, Dalee Sambo Dorough and Miriam Cullen found that rights were violated but could not reach a genocide verdict solely based on contraceptive practices.
They suggested that to firmly establish genocidal intent, additional evidence—such as the forced removal of Inuit children to be raised by Danish families—would be required, perhaps for a future court case.
In contrast, co‑author Jonas Christoffersen and psychologist Jensine Nedergaard concluded that no authority or health professional intended to destroy the Inuit population, concluding that genocide could not be proven.
Following the conflicting reports, Paviasen noted the stark divergence, one omitting genocide entirely while the other leaves the possibility unsettled.
Henriette Berthelsen, a victim, believes the investigations have been biased due to the absence of Greenlandic Inuit experts. “It’s about my body, my life, and my right to self‑determination,” she said.
Another survivor, Inger Platou, recalled discovering an unconsented IUD after a minor operation, describing the treatment as “animals” and “inhumane.” She later adopted two children from Colombia after her health limitations.
Frederiksen’s response emphasised joint political action: “We will handle the process together with Greenland’s government. The most important thing for me is that we find the right path together.”
Historically, Greenland was a Danish colony until 1953, only gaining home rule in 1979, with Copenhagen overseeing healthcare until 1992.
Today, the Inuit make up nearly 90% of Greenland’s 56,000 residents. The birth‑control campaign’s goal was to curb a rapidly growing population caused by improved healthcare and modernization; fertility dropped from seven children per woman to 2.3 during the program’s eight‑year span.
