Truth on Trial in Denmark
The British National Party Newsroom
A Danish author and historian is set to go on trial for his comments about Muslim sexual abuse and honour killings, in yet another country where the truth is no defence.
Lars Hedegaard, the president of The Danish Free Press Society, will appear in court in Denmark on 24 January on charges of “racism” for speaking about the issue of familial rape in Islamic cultures.
His supposed crime is stating that part of the so-called Muslim honour code includes the act of fathers raping their daughters as a punishment.
Lars Hedegaard, the president of The Danish Free Press Society, will appear in court in Denmark on 24 January on charges of “racism” for speaking about the issue of familial rape in Islamic cultures.
His supposed crime is stating that part of the so-called Muslim honour code includes the act of fathers raping their daughters as a punishment.
After drawing heavy fire from politically correct quarters in Denmark, Mr Hedegaard defended his comments by citing both recent honour crimes in Denmark and studies on the issue, including the British Crimes of the Community: Honour-Based Violence in the UK, which states that 17,000 women in Britain alone are victims of various honour crimes every year.
However, despite his reasoning, Mr Hedegaard’s chances in court do not look good, due to the anti-free speech laws entrenched in Denmark’s legal system.
A related case came to court just last month, when Danish MP Jesper Langballe was found guilty of “hate speech” for writing that some Muslims carry out honour killings on their daughters. In a trial reminiscent of Nick Griffin’s, when he dared to speak about the issue of Muslim grooming, Mr Langballe was summarily told that the truth is no defence.
In other words, the Danish “justice” system does not take into account whether a defendant is right or wrong, but merely if what he says could cause offence to those of other races or religions.
That being the case, Mr Langballe subsequently confessed, stating, "With this article in the penal code, I must be assumed convicted in advance. I have no intention of participating in this circus. Therefore I confess.”
He went on to criticise what he called a "culture of offence" that has taken root in Denmark and which is supported by its penal code. “In certain circles it has almost become a hobby to feel offended – by caricatures in a newspaper, by criticism of religion and so on,” he said.
The article to which he referred is Article 266b of the Danish Penal Code, which states:
“Whoever publicly or with the intent of public dissemination issues a pronouncement or other communication by which a group of persons are threatened, insulted or denigrated due to their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation is liable to a fine or incarceration for up to two years.”
Mr Langballe was sentenced to a fine of 5,000 Danish Kroner (approximately £565) or ten days in jail. Both Mr Hedegaard and Mr Langballe also have to face separate libel suits for their remarks in addition to their original court trials.
He went on to criticise what he called a "culture of offence" that has taken root in Denmark and which is supported by its penal code. “In certain circles it has almost become a hobby to feel offended – by caricatures in a newspaper, by criticism of religion and so on,” he said.
The article to which he referred is Article 266b of the Danish Penal Code, which states:
“Whoever publicly or with the intent of public dissemination issues a pronouncement or other communication by which a group of persons are threatened, insulted or denigrated due to their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation is liable to a fine or incarceration for up to two years.”
Mr Langballe was sentenced to a fine of 5,000 Danish Kroner (approximately £565) or ten days in jail. Both Mr Hedegaard and Mr Langballe also have to face separate libel suits for their remarks in addition to their original court trials.
As in Britain and all other Western countries, free speech is only free if you agree with the government; otherwise it always carries a very heavy price.
