Denmark / Supreme Court / U.2012.2361H

Country

Denmark

Title

Denmark / Supreme Court / U.2012.2361H

View full Case

Year

2012

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Friday, April 20, 2012

Incident(s) concerned/related

Incitement to violence or hatred

Related Bias motivation

Religion

Groups affected

Muslims

Court/Body type

National Court

Court/Body

Danish Supreme Court (Højesteret)

Key facts of the case

The defendant is a journalist and was the chair of the Freedom of Press Association. He was interviewed in 2009 by an online magazine. During this interview, he made several degrading remarks about Islam and Muslims, including: “When a Muslim man rapes a woman, it is his right to do so. When Swedish girls are raped, gang-raped, etc., etc., there is nothing wrong with that, from a Muslim perspective – that’s your right.” “They rape their own children. You hear that all the time. Girls in Muslim families are raped by their uncles, their cousins or their fathers.”

Main reasoning/argumentation

The defendant’s attorney argued that the relevant paragraph in the Danish Criminal Code, known as “the racism paragraph” (Racismeparagraffen) requires the statement in question to be both “degrading[or similar]” and “in public or with intent to be made public”. The previous ruling from the Danish High Court had established that while the defendant had not intended for the statements to be made public, he should have realised, based on the facts of the case, that they would be made public. The Supreme Court rejected this line of argument, pointing out that the racism paragraph required intent, and as this intent to make public was lacking, acquitted the defendant.

Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?

Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case

The question of whether a person should be trialled under "the racism paragraph" which requires a statement to be both degrading and humiliating and made with intent of publication.

Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case

The Supreme Court found that the defendant had made degrading statements, but that he had not intended for those statements to be made public.

Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details

DISCLAIMERThe information presented here is collected under contract by the FRA's research network FRANET. The information and views contained do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA.