Danish MP Jesper Langballe pleads guilty of hate speech after being denied the right to prove his case
On December 3, 2010 the municipal court in Randers, Denmark found the Danish Member of Parliament Jesper Langballe (Danish People’s Party) guilty of hate speech under Article 266b of the Danish penal code. In accordance with Danish legal precedent he was denied the opportunity to prove his allegation that honour killings and sexual abuse take place in Muslim families. Under Danish jurisprudence it is immaterial whether a statement is true or untrue. All that is needed for a conviction is that somebody feels offended. “With this article in the penal code,” commented Mr. Langballe, “I must be assumed convicted in advance. I have no intention of participating in this circus. Therefore I confess.”
Mr. Langballe was sentenced to a fine of DKK 5,000 (approximately $1000) or ten days in jail.
Here is a translation of Jesper Langballe’s full confession in court.
“Here at the start of my trial I wish to make a statement that will probably allow us to get home early. My message is that I confess. I plead guilty. And I wish to state my reasons.
I have already expressed my regret that the tone of the newspaper piece that has lead to me being charged was too rash and sarcastic. It did not do justice to the deeply serious issue I adressed, i.e. the terrible honour killings that take place in some Muslim families where a young girl is being murdered by her father or brother because she has fallen in love with the “wrong” man. In Denmark there is an average of approximately one honour killing per year. In Turkey there is an average of one a day according to the Turkish authorities’ statistics.
In addition I have spoken about fathers who look the other way while uncles or cousins rape their daughters. That is a well attested fact. Suffice it to refer to Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s descriptions and here in Denmark to Kristina Aamund’s touching book Mødom på mode (Virginity in vogue) about young people in Muslim families.
That was the factual basis for the passage in my comment in Berlingske Tidende (a Copenhagen daily, ed.). As I am not a lawyer, I had been looking forward to an opportunity to prove my words and thus to shed light over the substance of my remarks – the horrific honour killings. That was why I – as opposed to the rest of my parliamentary group – voted in favour of lifting my immunity as a parliamentarian in order that the trial might go forward.
I have since learned that according to current legal usage defendants in cases brought under Article 266b are denied the right to prove their case. With this article in the penal code I must be assumed convicted in advance. I have no intention to participate in this circus. Therefore I confess. This will also ensure agreement between the verdict I shall be handed in a few moments and the unbecoming article in the penal code according to which I am convicted.
In addition I am facing a libel suit for the statements I am tried for today. An in a libel suit I shall have the opportunity to prove my words. Article 266b’s sole criterion of culpability, however, is whether someone feels offended or insulted – not whether what I have said is true or false. This must be said to be in full accordance with the general “culture of offence” that has taken root and which is so magnificently supported by Article 266b. In certain circles is has almost become a hobby to feel offended – by caricatures in a newspaper, by criticism of religion etc. etc.
Let my finally address the accusation that I have generalized – to the effect that my remarks might be seen to encompass every Muslim. That is a meaningless interpretation. The mentioning of honour killings in my text refers to the passage that “there are Muslim fathers who …” And the words “there are” can never express a totality but must always mean a subset. Let us assume – as a counter test – that I had written the opposite: “There are no Muslim fathers [who kill their daughters].” Any reasonably knowledgeable person would recognize this as a flagrant untruth.
To sum up: In the clear light of hindsight I do not like the tone in that passage. The truth of it, however, I stand by completely. And frankly, personally I find the case itself – those gruesome murders of innocent young girls – a good deal more relevant that the question of my failing stylistic abilities.”
§ 266b of the Danish penal code
“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.
Here is what Jesper Langballe wrote
“Of course Lars Hedegaard should not have said that there are Muslim fathers who rape their daughters when the truth appears to be that they make due with killing their daughters (the so-called honour killings) and leave it to their uncles to rape them.”
Note: President of The Free Press Society Lars Hedegaard is facing criminal trial followed by a libel suit for remarks he made in December 2009. The criminal trial takes place in Frederiksberg Court on January 24, 2011.
Translation: Sappho.dk – the web magazine of the Danish Free Press Society
Intellectual fear is a thing I never hear discussed, but it is indeed real. I remember reading Mein Kampf and, on getting to a chapter named “The Jews”, feeling real, actual fear. “What if I agree with this bastard? What if he’s right? I don’t want to be a Nazi! I don’t want to have to build a little Hitler shrine in my closet and mutter to myself about Jewish conspiracies” That’s how liberals feel about analyzing the Quran. They sort of know where it is leading and fear that they’ll become the anti-Muslim mob in “Slumdog Millionaire” if they allow the truth to pass before their eyes. Islam was invented post Christianity, so it has the advantage of being able to predict how Christians will react to certain stimuli. In other words, Islam is a custom-built Christian-killing machine, that sees ’em coming a mile away. Mohammed designed Islam to be so extremely horrific and disgusting that no Christian (or Jew) would even be able to discuss it, let alone react to it, while still maintaining his religious principals. In fighting Islam, the Christian must choose between abandoning his religion and fighting back, or abandoning his religion and losing. Cute, eh? The fundamental problem is that Jesus, or at least the one we’ve read about, wouldn’t have known what to do about Mohammed. There is no Christian way of dealing with Islam. Turning the other cheek would have been disastrous advice. Loving him wouldn’t have helped. If Mohammed had met Jesus, he would have had him assassinated. The long and the short of it is that Islam has us scared silly and is devouring us as we tremble and pee ourselves, and that ain’t no accident.
Chris you are right, all we can do is fight back and pray for forgiveness, yet the Bible does allow for self defense, and Jesus and his disciples did carry swords in their journey so any sin we are committing by fighting back isn’t one of the deadly sins.
re: christians can’t deal with muhammad. That puts me in mind of a joke I make about my home town, a place with the most PHDs per capita in the US. I say as a joke the people there are pathologically reasonable. People always laugh at that because eveyone knows someone who is who is “reasonable beyond all reason”. It now appears to be less funny when one looks at how poorly Europe has coped with Islamic aggression (and most other crisies). Part of the reason that people like Langballe and Wilders, have been reviled because they are no longer as “reasonable” as the grey beurocrats around them think they should be.
Being reasonable and open to argument is a fine western trait but the Muslim Brotherhood has specialized in exploiting the reasonableness of educated elites and Al Quida in frightening those same elites. The reasonable can take care of things fine when there is no threat but bury their heads when there is. That’s when you need the people who know there can be a difference between reasonableness and common sense.
As a 72year old white male, I have been having trouble figuring out what is happening to this country. I finally figured it out after watching the tv series “Fringe”. I believe I have become trapped in a parallel universe.
This is despicable.
When the original libel and slander laws were first drafted in England (now Britainistan), it was claimed that “the truth cannot be libeled”. Now, the only criteria for taking action against someone is whether they “offend” you.
Well, for my two bits, Islam is offensive to me (and countless billions of other people who value freedom and human rights).
So who is going to take the world’s Muslims to court?
Old Guy personally I would like to move to an uninhabited universe, one we could limit who is allowed in, no leftists and no Moslems allowed. All others welcome