This just came in:
Copenhagen, January 31, 2011
As my ancient forefathers, the Vikings, would have said: It is always good to fight. It is better to win.
My detractors — the foes of free speech and the enablers of an Islamic ascendancy in the West — will claim that I was acquitted on a technicality, namely that the judge in the Court of Frederiksberg resolved that my supposedly offensive comments on the violations against little Muslim girls were not intended for public dissemination.
That is absolutely true. The judge chose to the way out provided by my capable counsel.
However, the public prosecutor has been privy to the circumstances surrounding my case for a year — and yet he chose to prosecute me. Obviously in the hope that he could secure a conviction given the Islamophile sentiment among our ruling classes.
My acquittal is therefore a major victory for free speech.
I have no doubt that the massive support I have received from freedom fighters around the world has been instrumental in securing my acquittal.
This outcome will encourage people all over the West and beyond to speak up.
The battle for freedom is far from lost.
Courage!
16 comments:
This is a good news.
Courage indeed.
I am so pleased with this.
The trial is the punishment.
This is no victory. If your speech was intended for public dissemination, you would presumably have been found guilty.
This is nothing to celebrate.
Certainly we can be thankful that Lars escaped punishment, but all this did was make clear that public speaking of truth about Muslims, Immigrants, and other favored groups criticizing them or pointing out facts that others may not like to be pointed out....is to be avoided by people that dont want to be prosecuted by the criminal justice system, and be punished.
Victory will be when these infringements upon free political speech and speaking truth are rescinded and denounced by Parliment.
Indeed, this victory might be Phyrric.
For Jesper Langballe, who came out in public support of Lars Hedegaard, was convicted for that - for what he said was clearly intended for public dissemination.
These laws, which were created to protect minorities from slander, are irrecoverably broken and need to be removed.
My detractors — the foes of free speech and the enablers of an Islamic ascendancy in the West
Indeed. They are eroding free speech by using free speech as a political weapon and setting leftwing-ideologically defined limits to free speech.
The propaganda associated with the PC fascism has programmed us to believe that hate-speech laws "it's for your own good to save you from your inherent tendency to racism as a white man".
PC-fascism is pure racism pointing the finger at opponents in order to achieve ideologically motivated ends.
Socialism like Islam has the ability to wash itself of its excesses and frame its opponents. They will never take responsibility and that makes them so dangerous.
I also agree, the trial is the punishment. It's a warning to those who dare speak that they will have to shell out money, blood sweat and tears and have their name run through the mud.
Between Hedegaard and the Florida Obamacare Decision - things are looking up, two(2) blows struck for Liberty, "as in olden times." Dr. Shalit
Islam is a deathcult.
Mohammad was a terrorist, pedophile, slaveholder, rapist and mass-murdering maniac.
Sue me.
Excellent news !
If the 'trial was a punishment' then it was a punishment administered with insufficient forethought. The establishment's concern was, presumably, that Lars Hedegaard's comments served to undermine the multicultural society by focusing attention on Islam's incompatability with Western life -hence it sought to shut him up.
Yet in the process of doing this it drew the public's attention to Hedegaard's words when they otherwise may not have been noticed by them - as Hedegaard says, his comments "...were not intended for public dissemination".
Did the establishment (i.e. those that made the decision to prosecute Mr Hedegaard) not consider this unintended consequence? Or did they think that its long term message outweighed the immediate disadvantages?
Or is there another explanation? Maybe those that brought the prosecution sought to facilitate the dissemination of Mr Hedegaard's views!
Every trial, while hard for the accused, forces judges to 'read up' on what they have never bothered about and causes the public to become nervous about this new fascist, totalitarian political system. The number of shari'ah laws already in our judiciary are shocking.
Now we just need a main stream media brave enough to report the truth! (The lies told about E.S.Wolff in Vienna newspapers and on the TV - you would not believe!)
It may be the case that the law used to prosecute Mr. Hedegaard was inapplicable, and therefore he was acquitted. It does not follow that anyone saying the same thing in public (as opposed to within the four walls of one's own house) will be found guilty.
In English law, there is a similar criteria which must be met - that is to say if you look at Section 4A of the Public Order Act, you find that 'no offence is committed' if one is 'inside a dwelling'. However there are other criteria which must be met before one is found guilty too.
One also has recourse to Article 10 of the Human Rights Act (or if one is a practicing Christian, Article 9 as well).
There have been several cases where people have challenged cases brought against them by individual states and they have been overturned due to Article 10.
So as I said: speaking somewhere other than within one's home need not inevitably result in a successful prosection.
Think of it this way: cases such as these help establish legal precedent, which will serve to weaken any future cases brought by the state.
So it's all good.
Lars Hedegaard is speaking out his rear when he says "This outcome will encourage people all over the West and beyond to speak up". Is he serious? His defense was that he DIDN'T speak up... If he really ment it, he should have brought the fight to the prosecutor, but he didn't. He chickened out.
Personally I'm dissapointed with Hedegaard. He didn't stand for freedom of speech, he stood for "ooh, let's see if we can find a loophole"...
Regards
I agree essentially with laller above.
Hedegaard's posture is the familiar one among many within the ragged ambit of the still inchoate anti-Islam movement -- basically, the Desperately and Cringingly Grateful for Whatever Meager Crumbs Fall from the PC MC Table On High.
Hesperado --
To be fair to Lars, it's a little more nuanced than that. It's easy to judge his actions from our safe seats, but it is, after all, his own rear end that was on the line. He was the one who had to face a big fine or jail time.
I'd like to think that I'd be noble enough to fall on my sword for the sake of the cause, but I'd probably be just as eager to find any dodge I could to beat the rap. And most people would do the same, in my opinion.
I dont abscond Lars for winning his case in the manner that he did.
I just dont see it as win for Freedom of Speech.
Post a Comment