When anti-hate laws squelch free speech
The right to free speech is once again on trial in Denmark.
On April 13, Lars Hedegaard, a prominent journalist, historian and president of the Danish Free Press Society and The International Free Press Society, appeared before Denmark’s Supreme Court to appeal his 2011 conviction under Article 266(b) of that country’s penal code for being guilty of “racism” and “hate speech” for allegedly saying Muslim women have suffered under Islam.
The initial process against Hedegaard began following remarks he made in his private home in December 2009, which included references to sexual abuse suffered by Muslim females, often at the hands of male relatives.
An individual present at the gathering made Hedegaard’s purported remarks known via a blog, resulting in the district prosecutor for Copenhagen and Bornholm laying charges at the request of several individuals, reportedly mostly Muslims, on the basis of Article 266(b). The legislation penalizes “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 . . . .”
Those found guilty may be fined the equivalent of $1,000 or imprisoned for up to two years.
During his first trial in January 2011, Hedegaard was acquitted, primarily because he had not made his remarks publicly, or had attempted to personally disseminate them for public consumption.
However, prosecutors appealed his acquittal and, in a second trial by Denmark’s Superior Court, he was convicted on May 3, 2011.
This, in turn, resulted in an appeal to Denmark’s Supreme Court, a development that some saw as suggesting the court’s final ruling could have precedent-setting implications for how such cases should be interpreted, given widespread opposition to Article 266(b).
And that opposition is not limited solely to Denmark. Numerous civil rights groups in western countries have been vocal in their condemnation of such laws denying legitimate free speech.
The fact an individual can be charged with a hate crime for simply making statements that are true and provable, has been increasingly denounced as a direct infringement on freedom of speech.
In the case of Hedegaard, he was not allowed under Article 266(b) to cite sources that validated his comments about the abuses inflicted on Muslim women, including authenticated proof of such abuses, including honour killings.
(Canadians themselves were shocked when an Afghan father and son were recently convicted in a Canadian court of murdering three daughters/sisters and the father’s first wife in an honour killing.)
As one human rights advocate expressed it, “As liability under the law is based only on the plaintiff’s perception or feeling threatened, denigrated or insulted, truth is not a defence.”
Civil rights groups say Danish anti-hate and defamation laws have been utilized to suppress free speech. In 2009, a classaction suit by Muslims threatened 11 Danish publications with lawsuits if they didn’t remove controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad from their websites.
Civil rights groups say that Denmark is far from an isolated case when it comes to such legislation. Many European countries have similar laws. Legal proceedings against Dutch MP Geert Wilders are cited as an example of attempts to muzzle free speech, especially Wilder’s criticism of Holland’s immigration policies.
Canada itself has not been immune to controversies regarding the right of citizens to express their opinions on such topics as the religious and cultural practices of various groups within Canadian society, including Muslims. Efforts by Muslims to have Canadian journalist Ezra Levant prosecuted for remarks he made that they felt exposed their community to criticism made it clear that freedom of speech is not something that can be taken for granted in any society.
Putting aside the latest court case of Hedegaard, it is obvious that laws that are established to rightly restrict and punish those who wilfully seek to undermine the rights and security of others — including incitements to violence against certain groups — should not be such that they instead restrict legitimate criticism and the right of peaceful freedom of speech.
Laws that effectively allow any groups — religious, racial, ethnic or otherwise — to censor free speech simply because they do not like what is being said, in essence are anti-democratic and threaten the fundamentals of open societies, which expect all citizens to be tolerant towards society’s diverse communities, whether one agrees with their beliefs and practices or not.
To do otherwise is to invite social tension that only benefits those who have no interest in open-minded societies where everyone’s rights are honoured and protected.
In the final analysis, all laws, including anti-hate laws, should be protecting and promoting peaceful free speech, not muzzling it.