THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume XIV, Issue # 71, April 8, 2012
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
ROUND THREE OF THE TRIAL OF LARS HEDEGAARD
By Ann Snyder
THE STATE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN THE WEST TODAY & IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE: "HATE SPEECH" LAWS LEADING US TOWARD CENSORSHIP,
THOUGHT CONTROL, & SUPPRESSION OF FREE SPEECH -- THE WILLINGNESS OF THE WORLD'S THOUGHT POLICE & JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS TO GO AFTER EXPRESSION
OF UNPOPULAR, UNACCEPTABLE VIEWS & OPINIONS, EVEN IN THE PRIVATE SPHERE, REVEALING JUST HOW DETERMINED THEY ARE TO IMPOSE THE LIMITATIONS
OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS ON THE REST OF US -- HEALTHY, OPEN DISCUSSION & PUBLIC DEBATE ESSENTIAL TO THE EXISTENCE OF A FREE SOCIETY & THE
EFFECTIVE OPERATION OF A GENUINE CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT
FULL STORY:
In Denmark, sticks and stones may break your bones, but insulting words will get you fined — to the tune of 5,000 kroner (or about $1,000). Article 266(b) of the
Danish penal code, one of the more sweeping of the "hate speech" provisions, criminalizes, among other things, merely insulting groups of people due to their
membership in enumerated protected classes.
On April 13, 2012, Lars Hedegaard — a journalist, historian, and President of the Danish Free Press Society – took the appeal of his conviction under Article
266(b) to the Danish Supreme Court. Readers may recall that, back in January of 2011, Hedegaard was tried and acquitted for remarks he made during a 2009
interview concerning sexual abuse within Muslim communities. (In a related story, Danish MP Jesper Langballe "confessed," pleading guilty to violating Article
266(b) for remarks he made in support of Hedegaard.) But, in a strange twist, Hedegaard's acquittal was appealed. He was retried on April 26, 2011, and
convicted on May 3.
THRICE PUT IN JEOPARDY
When Hedegaard appealed his conviction to the Danish Supreme Court, the prosecutor cross-appealed, demanding an increase in the fine. In an interview with
the Legal Project of the Middle East Forum, Mr. Hedegaard provided some thoughts on the process:
"You could say in our country — as opposed to yours — we have not
double but triple jeopardy. If the prosecutor doesn't have his way in
lower court, he can appeal to Superior Court. And, if he doesn't get it
there, he can appeal to the Supreme Court. So, you can certainly be
dragged through a legal process lasting years and years in this country.
That is the sad state of affairs."
And dragged through an endless process Hedegaard has been. The remarks on which his conviction rests were made over two years ago. Since then, he has
endured two trials, and the appeal to the Supreme Court is number three. But the fact that Denmark's high court has chosen to hear Hedegaard's appeal is
significant. As with the U.S. Supreme Court, review is at the discretion of the Court. Hedegaard remarked:
"In my case, it is questionable what can be overturned by the Supreme
Court. The very fact that they have even allowed my case to go in front
of the Supreme Court is very strange and very rare. There is a special
committee that grants you the right to appeal to the Supreme Court.
You cannot just do it. You need a special commission to do that. The
very fact that I have been given this right might indicate that the Court
has found some technical problems with my conviction."
Further, rumor has it that seven judges are set to participate, a suggestion that the Court may consider its upcoming decision to be of precedential value.
STIFLING THE TRUTH
In a defamation case in the United States, the truth of the statement at issue is a defense to the cause of action. Not so for prosecutions under Article 266(b);
truth is not an available defense. In his first two trials, Hedegaard was not allowed to offer any evidence that what he said was actually true (though he was
permitted to reference it in his closing remarks), nor will he be allowed to offer such evidence at the Supreme Court. According to Hedegaard:
"I should have the right to prove my case. I could have called witnesses.
I could have quoted holy books and statements, and I could have
referred to facts. But you cannot do that in a court of law in Denmark, if
you are accused under this infamous Article 266(b). Whether or not
what you are saying is true is immaterial. If somebody feels offended or
if the prosecutor thinks that somebody has a reason to feel offended,
whether or not you speak the truth has no bearing on the case. That is
what is surprising about Danish jurisprudence."
Though evidence of the truth of the statements is no defense, that did not stop the prosecutor in the Superior Court trial from raising the issue himself.
According to Hedegaard, "Of course I wasn't asked about evidence in favor of my contention that sexual assaults are prevalent or a big problem in Muslim
culture." He went on to say, "But the prosecutor took the liberty of referring to the content of what I had said, and he said you can't even prove that. Which,
of course, was quite true — I couldn't prove it because I wasn't allowed to prove any of it." But beyond Hedegaard, who is being prosecuted for daring to raise
the issues, who are the real victims of our not being able to have an open and honest discussion about sexual violence in any community?
THE END OF PRIVACY?
Article 266(b), by its plain language, requires that, for statements to be actionable under the provision, they must be made "publicly or with the intent of public
dissemination." Hedegaard maintains that he never intended his remarks, which were not made in public, to be publicly disseminated. The lower court found
this issue dispositive in his case and acquitted him. In a statement following his acquittal, Hedegaard said that his "detractors" might claim he was acquitted on
a mere technicality. While it is a "technicality" in one sense — Hedegaard's right to say what he did should not rest on such unsure footing as whether a
statement was made publicly or privately — that technicality has implications for privacy, too. Hedegaard explains:
"I fully agree that I was acquitted on a technicality. There is no question
about that. But it goes further than that. If I had been convicted as I
eventually was [in the Superior Court], then, of course, it goes to the
problem of privacy. What can you say in your home? What can you say
among a small circle of friends or supposed friends, if somebody
overhears what you are saying? Somebody with a cell phone can take
down what you are saying and claim that you said that and you should
have known that he was there with a tape recorder with him. You can
then be convicted. In that case, we will be close to a totalitarian state, in
which the right of privacy no longer exists."
In my case, I knew that I was being taped because the interviewer
wanted to publicize something. I had no idea that I was also being filmed.
The crucial point, however, is that, of course, I had not given the
interviewer permission to just disseminate my remarks without giving me
a chance to review them. I never give interviews without making sure that
nothing is disseminated without my consent. This time the interviewer
presented himself as a friend and admirer. He turned out not to be. In fact,
he later witnessed against me. So, I maintain that my remarks were private
and not public. Otherwise, you would have to condone entrapment in
your own home."
The fact that the world's thought police are willing to go after speech even in the private sphere reveals just how intent they are to impose their Political
Correctness-limitations on the rest of us — truth, public debate on critical issues, and now privacy be damned. If you failed to understand where "hate speech"
laws were leading us, let this turn of events underscore the point for you.
To be clear, a merely offensive remark should not be actionable whether made in public or private. Trying to keep all offensive speech within the private sphere
is no solution. Indeed, much worthy public debate has the concomitant effect of hurting somebody's feelings. That is part and parcel of healthy, open discussion
— and life, frankly — a lesson the "sticks and stones" adage of childhood should have taught us.
But the lesson Hedegaard's prosecution is teaching us is very different. It isn't about the punishment of one man. It is a lesson about the state of freedom of
speech in the West today.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
Political Correctness, Censorship, Thought Control:
Supression of Unacceptable Views & Opinions
Personal Rights & Liberties -- Issues Relating to
Individual Rights & Liberties under Natural & Civil Law
Lawfare -- The Use of Law as a Weapon in War & Politics:
Islamist Lawfare & the "Legal" Jihad Against America & the West
U.S. Constitutional Law & Political Philosophy
The Constitution of the United States of America
The Constitution of the Kingdom of Denmark
CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY & OTHER POLITICAL REGIMES
Modern Constitutional Democracy:
Fundamental Character & Essential Ingredients
Constitutionalism: The First Essential Ingredient
of Modern Constitutional Democracy
Dictatorship: The Opposite of Constitutionalism
Representative Democracy: The Second Essential Ingredient
of Modern Constitutional Democracy
Direct Democracy & Representative Democracy
Political Culture & Modern Constitutional Democracy
Modern Constitutional Democracy:
Summary & Conclusion
Ann Snyder is a practicing attorney in Pennsylvania and a fellow at the Legal Project of the Middle East Forum. She earned a Bachelor of Arts degree at the
University of Pennsylvania and a Juris Doctor degree at Harvard Law School.
The foregoing article by Ann Snyder was originally published in PJ Media, April 8, 2012, and can be found on the Internet website maintained by the
Middle East Forum, a foreign policy think tank which seeks to define and promote American interests in the Middle East, defining U.S. interests to include
fighting radical Islam, working for Palestinian Arab acceptance of the State of Israel, improving the management of U.S. efforts to promote constitutional
democracy in the Middle East, reducing America's energy dependence on the Middle East, more robustly asserting U.S. interests vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia, and
countering the Iranian threat. (URL: http://www.meforum.org/3209/lars-hedegaard-trial)
Republished with Permission of the Middle East Forum
Reprinted from the Middle East Forum News
mefnews@meforum.org (MEF NEWS)
April 8, 2012
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume XIV, 2011
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity