Defamation of Religion Denmark Free Speech lars Hedegaard

LARS HEDEGAARD IN DENMARK: THIS IS A POLITICAL TRIAL…….

The blogger Steen at Snaphanen has been following the trial of the president of the Danish Free Speech Society, Lars Hedegaard where he’s on trial for:

“his remarks last December on violence and other personal offences in Muslim families. These remarks were made in a taped interview in which Mr. Hedegaard said that “they” (Muslims) rape their own children.”

Steen  files the following report of which the Tundra Tabloids uses Google to translate the Danish from Steen’s post. The TT apologizes for any obvious grammatical errors. KGS

Hedegaard: “This is a political trial”

Arthur Legger and a Dutch television team attended the trial and interviewed historian Lars Hedegaard and Soren Krarup outside court on Blegdamsvej afterwards. Below you see Hedegaard Legger and his lawyer Karoly Nemeth. When I was summoned as a witness to the crime , I did not hear the first five minutes of the trial, but was capable, reporters present: Among many other MPs and ministers Søren Krarup and Jesper Langballe , Professor Bent Jensen , journalists Mikael Jalving and Ms. Dahlerup , philosopher Kai Southern Norway, Kit Louise Beach, Kirsten Damgaard, Eva Agnes Selsing, Geoffrey Cain, Jette Dali and Katrine Winkel Holm .

The small courtroom was expanded with seating for 35 spectators, not a few more than the surrounding sales violence trials. Berlingske Tidende live blogged, but Lars Hedegaard must wait a week on his appeal. Here is everything about the state versus Hedegaard . Lars Hedegaard’s final request to the court – after the prosecutor and defense’s procedural found here below. – The President denies charges of racism, many sympathizers have turned up in court , Hedegaard: Is there something you can not afford to say about Islam? (photos: click f. helskærm)

Give me above all else freedom

Lars Hedegaard to speak last and appeal to the court:

The truth is irrelevant

My defender has instructed me that in cases brought under § 266b, only forhånelsesaspektet which affect whether you get convicted or not, while there may be truth proof of the claim.

The section deals with publicly made statements, whereby a group of persons “threatened, insulted or degraded.” But as my defender has already explained, I have not publicly made ytringer. Når terms of Article 266b, is not equality before the law. I get daily insulted and humiliated over something I read or hear, and I am sure that most feel the same way.

I feel insulted

I get such. not only insulted and humiliated and threatened, but shocked in my heart when I hear a famous Danish imams say that of course, Sharia – Islamic law – be introduced as the official legal system in Denmark, when an adequate number of Muslims.

I highly recommend the country’s lawyers to familiarize themselves with what Sharia means, not just for Muslims, but just as much to non-Muslims if they are lucky, being relegated to a life as lawless in humans.

And if you do not want to read boring papers, one could look at the legal situation where Sharia law prevails, either in law or in fact legal. Then you will see conditions that we have hardly known in Denmark since the Royal Law was introduced in 1241 and probably not before.

But the imam will therefore have this disorder introduced in my motherland. And I must openly and acknowledge that it bothers me. It bothers me also, when the same imam defends killing of Muslims who have left Islam, or when he confirms that women and men who commit adultery, of course awash with stones until they are dead. For it believes he is God’s commandment that we can not ignore.

Should I go to the police and tell how threatened, insulted and humiliated I feel?
I could never dream, for I am namely supporter of freedom of expression and if it is to have any real meaning, then it must also – and especially – to protect the speech, people will not hear. And no matter how vile, these statements must occur.

An open gate to inequality before the law

Moreover, it would be halsløs deed to sign the imam and his ilk to the police, the prosecution would never bring any action against them. Otherwise it was probably made long ago.

As case law demonstrates, not only in Denmark but in all European countries having similar forhånelsesparagraffer in their penal code, these forhånelsesparagraffer an open gate to inequality before the law.

There are reviling enjoying prosecution’s aching attention, and then there are the less advantaged referred to bite insults at him.

But it might have something to do with that one should not deride minorities, while minorities are allowed to be denigrating majorities? If that is the explanation that I find myself in court today, then it quite strange.

In 2002, the imam, I have already mentioned, during a Friday prayer in Fælledparken and told his congregation that all Muslims in the world -1.6 billion or how many there are now – are single people, one Ummah.

The same is underlined by the Organisation of Islamic Conference, OIC, which has 57 member countries. Opposite Umma represents the five million non-Muslim Danes in other words, a microscopic minority, but nevertheless a minority whose members stand to punishment if they speak about cultural features of Umma.

That hope the prosecution to accomplish by getting me convicted? It can pull me in court, it can try to make me a racist, extremist and inhuman Højer. The same can do against hundreds and thousands of others who insist on their freedom of speech to describe Islam and Muslim culture in the same way as we in a free society would talk about any other phenomenon.

But what has so wrought?

They think that people will start to mention Islam and Muslim culture with greater respect and reverence? Yes, perhaps in public spaces because they fear fines and imprisonment. But what will people say to each other when they do not consider themselves watched by the thought police?

And what do prosecutors that people will think of a religion, a political ideology and a culture that must be protected by lawmakers, police, prosecutors and judges, because it did not even manage to defend themselves in a free and open debate?

Give me above all else freedom

In 1644, when the British parliament was considering to impose religious censorship, wrote the Christian pastor and free speech campaigner John Milton:

I have yet to mention the incredible losses and the damage that this censorship invention cause and which is far greater than that which could be added to us by a hostile naval power that blocked all our harbors and inlets and fjords, it hinders and slows imports of our most important commodity, the truth. “

And he wrote further:

There are people who constantly complain … and consider it an accident if someone does not agree with them in their dogmas. It is their own arrogance and ignorance that is causing the disturbance, because they will neither hear with humility or abilities to persuade, and yet, everything is suppressed which does not exist in their manual. “

And he ended with this appeal:

Give me above all else freedom, the freedom to recognize to speak, to unbridled to argue according to my conscience.”

Finally just this:

The prosecution has obviously not given thought to at least 20,000 women in the Muslim world who annually fall as victims of the so-called honor killings, or the 50,000 Muslim girls in Germany, according to federal police are threatened by genital mutilation.

Or the hundreds of thousands of little girls in Muslim majority societies, as their father or guardian has been sold into forced marriages with much older men and therefore must live a life of constant rapes, all while Islamic scholars preach that this is in best agreement with the religious orthodoxy.

I hope that the judge in contrast to the prosecution will consider these unfortunate human destiny, and I hope the judge will realize the absurdity of prosecuting me for statements made within my own four walls.

The prosecutor for ten months been aware of the circumstances under which my words fell. It has not challenged it.

I hope it will effect the judge.

Hedegaard: It was a charade

It was not doomsday for Free Press Society President, Lars Hedegaard. After an interesting morning in Courtroom L at the courthouse at Blegdamsvej in Copenhagen, the case was put forward. Judgement falls on 31 January.

Crowded courtroom

It was a charade, a political matter and especially a case which clearly shows that there is a difference in people, said Lars Hedegaard after a long morning at the dock. Right from the beginning, we realize that the next few hours would be interesting. In front of Courtroom L at Blegdamsvej in Copenhagen there was a large crowd flocked together. Laity, journalists and of course today’s protagonist, Lars Hedegaard, author, journalist and president of the Free Press Society.

The indictment was formed after the controversial racism Section 266b, and here you could read Hedegaards crime. Or you could?

No, thought defender Karoly Nemeth, the indictment consisted of only remix fragments of what Hedegaard had said during the infamous interview that ended up on the blog instead Snap Cock and hiked to 180 degrees and continue to blog after blog and was reproduced in newspapers.

– The indictment is a written together and not something that my client has said directly. Moreover, it says nothing in the indictment that my client has insulted or degraded any faith. What my client is presumed to have been guilty of, according to the indictment, is in quotes and, after writing “or similar”.

– I believe the case should be dismissed, said Karoly Nemeth.
It did not judge now,

It was a Christmas party

Lars Hedegaard explained that he shortly before July 2009 had been contacted by a blogger, Asger Trier Engberg, who wanted to talk to him about the book, he along with EU parliamentarian Mogens Camre was released shortly beforehand – 1400-year war.

– They were a few, and they thought it would be a good idea to turn the conversation with a Christmas party. I was not very willing, but said that we could, but then they had to even take food and drinks.

– The interview was conducted in English and it was ok with me. I knew that it was recorded on dictaphone. I myself have worked as a journalist for many years and I was also accustomed to using a tape recorder, so I was sure to understand it and get the details, so it was no great thing in.

– What I did not know was that the conversation was recorded on video. If I had known it, I should have taken a tie on, I would not have been drinking a beer – in fact I drank some only one day – and I would have insisted on not being video recorded from below. It is a cruel unattractive angle, explained Lars Hedegaard, when he was interrogated.

Forward Hedegaard explained that he, as a matter of course had hoped to get it finished editing result for approval before it was published. He would not. A few hours later it was the unedited interview on snaphanen.dk and then went spread rapidly.

Before Lars Hedegaard’s explanation and witness interrogations got right – and the packed courtroom – the opportunity to refresh what actually was said.

The interviewer Asger Trier Engberg says on the tape that he overheard a conversation between a group of Muslim boys and it was reported that 40 percent of girls in an undefined club had been raped. It was in this context that Hedegaard mention that women have no value in Islam.

They will give birth to soldiers, and they can be used for sexual purposes, but otherwise not. He mentions in general terms that women and girls raped by want and need.

Three times during heard that Lars Hedegaard make reservations and emphasizes that not all Muslim men who rape their daughters, and it is not even most, but it happens too often that one can pretend that the not happening.

It was a mistake

The interviewer Asger Engberg explained as a witness, the interview with Lars Hedegaard was needed on the international blog Gates of Vienna and the Danish / Swedish Snap Cock.

– There was no prior agreement with Hedegaard that he should have something for approval, but I recognize that it was a mistake that he did not get it. It is customary to give the interviewee the opportunity to correct misunderstandings and the like.

– I have subsequently mail complained against Lars Hedegaard. Incidentally, I was not aware that there was video, explained Asger Trier Engberg.

Steen Raaschou from blog spot Snaphanen confirmed Asger Trier Engberg’s explanation and added that he was to take a few pictures.

– I had just bought a new phone and I figured I would try the video feature worked. It did. The others present were not aware that almost the entire interview was videotaped.

– When we got home, I received shortly after the sound file from Asger, and everything was placed on Snaphanen unedited with a photo. And shortly after uploaded videos, explained Steen Raaschou.

The third witness was Kai Southern Norway, which is a good friend of Lars Hedegaard. He had not participated in the interview itself, but had immersed themselves in a book until it was time to take wet and dry. But he thought he could remember there had been talk that no one bothered to listen to a sound file, but he was not sure who had mentioned it.

UPDATE: This will in part redundant but the TT was just forwarded this as well:

My counsel has instructed me that in cases brought under Article 266b, the only thing that determines whether one is convicted or not is a matter of the perceived insult whereas one is barred from proving the truth of the statement.
The article deals with public statements whereby a group of people are “threatened, insulted or degraded”. But as my lawyer has already noted, I have made no public statement.
When it comes to Article 266b, there is no equality before the law. I am daily insulted and degraded by something I read or hear and I am sure that most people have the same experience.
For example, I am not only insulted and degraded and threatened, but shaken to the core of my being when I hear a well known Danish imam state that, of course, sharia law – Muslim law – will be instituted as Denmark’s official legal regime when there are a sufficient number of Muslims. I strongly urge our country’s jurists to get acquainted with the implications of the sharia, not only for Muslims but equally for non-Muslims, who – if they are lucky – will be reduced to a life as subhuman outlaws. And if one cannot be bothered with tedious dissertations, one may take a look at the legal order pertaining in areas where the sharia holds sway either de jure or de facto. One will then encounter a legal order the like of which we have not known since the passing of the Law of Jutland in 1241 and probably not before.
But the imam wants this disorder introduced in the country where I was born. And I must admit that I am troubled. I am also troubled when said imam defends the killing of Muslims who have left Islam and when he confirms that women and men guilty of fornication must be pelt with stones until they are dead. He thinks that is God’s commandment, which he cannot ignore.
Should I go to the police and tell them how threatened, insulted and degraded I feel? I wouldn’t dream of it for I support free speech. And if free speech has any real meaning, it must also – and in particular – protect statements people do not want to hear. Regardless of how revolting such statements may be.
Besides it would be futile to report the imam and those similarly disposed to the police for the public prosecutor would never indict them. Otherwise it would have happened long ago.
As jurisprudence shows, not only in Denmark but in all European countries with similar insult articles in their penal code, these insult articles open the gates to inequality before the law. There are insulted who enjoy the tender graces of the public prosecutor, and there are the less favoured who must endure insults directed at them.
But perhaps this is to do with the notion that one must not insult minorities whereas minorities are free to insult majorities? If that is the explanation of why I am in court today, it is a peculiar one. In 2002, the imam I have already mentioned explained to his flock that all Muslims in the world – 1,6 billion or whatever the number is – constitute one people, one umma. The same thing is emphasised by the Islamic Conference Organisation, OIC, encompassing 57 member countries. In other words, the five million non-Muslim Danes are a microscopic minority but nevertheless a minority whose members stand to be punished if they make statements on cultural norms in the umma.
What does the public prosecutor hope to accomplish by my conviction? He may drag me in front of a court. He may portray me as a racist, a right-wing extremist and a non-human. He may do the same to hundreds and thousands of others who insist on their right of free speech to describe Islam and Muslim culture just like we would deal with any other phenomenon in a free society.
But what will he have gained? Does the public prosecutor believe that people will start talking about Islam and Muslim culture with greater respect and reverence? Perhaps in public because people fear fines and jail. But what will people say to each other when they think that the thought police are not listening?
And what does the public prosecutor imagine people will think of a religion, a political ideology and a culture that need the protection of legislators, police, the public prosecutor and the courts because they cannot defend themselves in a free and open debate?
In 1644, when the English parliament considered the institution of religious censorship, that Christian defender of free speech John Milton wrote: “There is yet behind of what I purpos’d to lay open, the incredible losse, and detriment that this plot of licencing puts us to, more then if som enemy at sea should stop up all our hav’ns and ports, and creeks, it hinders and retards the importation of our richest Marchandize, Truth.”
And further:
“There be who perpetually complain of schisms and sects, and make it such a calamity that any man dissents from their maxims. ‘Tis their own pride and ignorance which causes the disturbing, who neither will hear with meeknes, nor can convince, yet all must be suppresst which is not found in their Syntagma.”
Milton concluded with this exhortation:
“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
In conclusion permit me to mention the true victims in this case. The public prosecutor has not considered the 20,000 women in the Muslim world who every year fall victim to so-called honour killings, or the 50,000 Muslim girls in Germany who the federal police consider threatened with genital mutilation, nor the hundreds of thousands of little girls in Muslim majority societies who have been sold into marriage with much older men and who must therefore live a life of constant rape, while Islamic scholars preach that this is in complete accordance with religious orthodoxy.
I hope that the judge as opposed to the public prosecutor will consider the fate of these unfortunate human beings. Likewise I hope that the judge will realise the absurdity of prosecuting me for statements made within the confines of my own four walls. For ten months the prosecutor has been aware of the conditions under which I spoke. That has not affected him in the slightest. I hope it will affect the judge.

3 Responses

  1. This is just ridiculous. It doesn’t matter if you think if Hedegaards’ opinion is right or wrong, he has the right to speak his mind. If freedom of speech is only meant for the right or acceptable opinions then why do we even have freedom of speech?

  2. as a born dane, i am totally ashamed, that lars hedegaard is even on trial. islam is the curse of the earth, far worse than communism-nazism, if you bow down to them, you will be doomed, its high time holger dansker wakes up. muslims have no respect for the europeans, they came 500 years ago and got kicked out, about time we do it again. there is no moderate islams.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *