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
Home Page   Main Menu   Recent Articles   Site Map   Website Index   Issues & Controversies
  Cyberland University   Political Science, Philosophy, & History: Lectures   U.S. Constitution
  American Constitutional Law   American Constitutional System   American Political System
  Conservatism, Liberalism, & Radicalism   How America Goes to War
  World War IV: Islamist Terror War Against the U.S.A. & the West

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--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




LINKS TO PARTICULAR ISSUES & SUBJECT MATTER CATEGORIES
TREATED IN THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, U.S.A.:

Africa: Black Africa * Africa: North Africa * American Government 1
American Government 2 * American Government 3 * American Government 4
American Government 5 * American Politics * Anglosphere * Arabs
Arms Control & WMD * Aztlan Separatists * Big Government
Black Africa * Bureaucracy * Canada * China * Civil Liberties * Communism
Congress, U.S. * Conservative Groups * Conservative vs. Liberal
Constitutional Law * Counterterrorism * Criminal Justice * Disloyalty * Economy
Education * Elections, U.S. * Eminent Domain * Energy & Environment
English-Speaking World * Ethnicity & Race * Europe * Europe: Jews
Family Values * Far East * Fiscal Policy, U.S. * Foreign Aid, U.S. * Foreign Policy, U.S.
France * Germany * Hispanic Separatism * Hispanic Treason * Human Health * Immigration * Infrastructure, U.S. * Intelligence, U.S. * Iran * Iraq * Islamic North Africa
Islamic Threat * Islamism * Israeli vs. Arabs * Jews & Anti-Semitism
Jihad & Jihadism * Jihad Manifesto I * Jihad Manifesto II * Judges, U.S. Federal
Judicial Appointments * Judiciary, American * Latin America * Latino Separatism
Latino Treason * Lebanon * Leftists/Liberals * Legal Issues
Local Government, U.S. * Marriage & Family * Media Political Bias
Middle East: Arabs * Middle East: Iran * Middle East: Iraq * Middle East: Israel
Middle East: Lebanon * Middle East: Syria * Middle East: Tunisia
Middle East: Turkey * Militant Islam * Military Defense * Military Justice
Military Weaponry * Modern Welfare State * Morality & Decency
National Identity * National Security * Natural Resources * News Media Bias
North Africa * Patriot Act, USA * Patriotism * Political Culture * Political Ideologies
Political Parties * Political Philosophy * Politics, American * Presidency, U.S.
Private Property * Property Rights * Public Assistance * Radical Islam
Religion & America * Rogue States & WMD * Russia * Science & Ethics
Sedition & Treason * Senate, U.S. * Social Welfare Policy * South Africa
State Government, U.S. * Subsaharan Africa * Subversion * Syria * Terrorism 1
Terrorism 2 * Treason & Sedition * Tunisia * Turkey * Ukraine
UnAmerican Activity * UN & Its Agencies * USA Patriot Act * U.S. Foreign Aid
U.S. Infrastructure * U.S. Intelligence * U.S. Senate * War & Peace
Welfare Policy * WMD & Arms Control


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