Jerry Gordon (May 2011)
In George Orwell’s 1984 the totalitarian credo of the Party is ”Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past." If one looks at what passes for speech control in the European Union (EU), we see continued assault on basic freedoms. Freedoms that we take for granted in America under our Constitution's First Amendment - the masthead of the Bill of Rights. Notwithstanding this American bulwark in defense of free speech, we are witnessing the lawfare of Muslim Brotherhood front groups abetted by the US Department of Justice that seek to derogate and even supplant basic Constitutional protections via intimidation and the gradual insinuation of Shariah into our judicial system. That would explain the efforts led by David Yerushalmi, Esq. and the Public Policy Alliance who are endeavoring to introduce bills in a number of state legislatures seeking to bar Shariah from being used in our legal system based on the model ”American Laws for American Courts.” The EU unfortunately views criticism of Islam as tantamount to racism and official hate speech. It is a stalking horse for de facto adoption of Islamic blasphemy laws as sought by members of The Organization of Islamic Conference. Their most recent effort was overturned by the UN Council on Human Rights in late March. Criticism of any religion is protected under the US Constitution. Not so in many EU member countries. This is evident in several legal actions brought by public prosecutors in Holland against Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders, in Austria against Elisabeth Sabaditsch–Wolff and in Denmark against Lars Hedegaard, President of the Danish Free Press Society,who is also leader of the International Free Press Society. They all have dared to criticize Islam, a protected religion in many EU countries. Hedegaard’s case is particularly troubling, because he was ensnared in an interview, disseminated without his permission, during which he told the truth about Shariah – Islamic doctrine - that permits rape within a Muslim family and honor killings of women - daughters and wives. He was tried on a Kafkaesque hate speech complaint under an arcane Danish law and was acquitted on a technicality in late January, 2010, only to have the matter appealed by the public prosecutors. The case will be be heard again on April 26th by the Superior Court in Copenhagen. It is a show trial not seen since the Moscow purge trials in Stalin’s Russia in the 1930’s; this in liberal, tolerant Denmark. Hedegaard is seeking to advance the view that Islam is a totalitarian doctrine seeking world domination with what we have called, ”the thin veneer of religious practices.” Hedegaard has clearly rankled the politically correct ruling Danish elite by taking on the cause of criticizing Islam. They are trying to muzzle him for telling the truth by bringing him to trial a second time. He was informed by public prosecutors that the matter of truth about Islam has nothing to do with the adjudication of the hate speech charges brought against him. Hedegaard will not be muzzled. In this regard he joins courageous Scandinavian champions of free speech and free expression, fellow Dane and political cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, and Swedish artist Lars Vilks, who have dared to criticize, at great personal risk, the exemplar of Jihadist Islam, Mohammed. The Danish prosecutors’ arguments are akin to the exchange between Humpty Dumpty and Alice in the topsy turvy world of Though the Looking Glass:
"When I use a word,' 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master — that's all."
Prior to Hedegaard’s Copenhagen Superior Court hearing, we were afforded the opportunity to interview him.
Watch this incisive RT interview with Lars Hedegaard about his legal battle for free speech in Denmark and note his comment: ”the Fate of Free Speech in the Europe is being determined, now.”
Gordon: Lars Hedegaard, thank you for kindly consenting to this timely interview.
Hedegaard: Thank you for inviting me.
Gordon: Could you provide us with your background as a journalist, historian, free speech advocate in Denmark and the EU.
Hedegaard: I hold degrees in history (my major subject) and English from the Universities of Aarhus and Copenhagen. This prepared me for a teaching career, but after five years at a junior college, I decided that teaching was not for me. My wife and I moved to California, where I somehow landed a job as a book editor in Beverly Hills. After five years in the US, I moved back to Denmark and took up a career as an author, journalist and editor and for three years I was chief editor of the Copenhagen intellectual daily Information. For ten years I was an almost daily columnist with the leading Conservative daily Berlingske Tidende until I was fired for writing too much and too un-pc on Islam and immigration. In my spare time I have written books on historical and political subjects – in the beginning from a clearly Marxist perspective. I no longer believe in utopia, but my analytical approach to history and power politics hasn't changed. Recently most of my writing has been on Islam and Islamic history. In 2004 I was asked to become the head figure of a new free speech organisation, Trykkefrihedsselskabet (The Free Press Society) and later of The International Free Press Society. I am still President of both organisations.
Gordon: You are one of several prominent anti-Shariah opponents in the EU who have been put on trial for alleged hate speech and criticism of Islamic doctrine. Why in your opinion has this occurred with Geert Wilders in Holland, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Austria and you in Denmark?
Hedegaard: There is a simple explanation for these and many other such cases: For decades, Europeans have been told – by their governments, by the European Union, by the press and by so-called "experts" – that Islam is the religion of peace and tolerance and that mass immigration is an enrichment. Anyone who has voiced doubts about these supposedly self-evident truths has been labelled a racist if not a Nazi. Courageous opponents of the official fiction have had their careers ruined and have been expelled from polite company. The current lawfare tsunami is simply a logical extension of previous efforts to silence all critics.
By now it is becoming uncomfortably evident that European policies on Islam and integration have failed utterly. Most European countries are falling apart and governments have no idea how to reverse the trends they have set in motion.
So instead of facing a reality, they can do nothing about unless they were to admit that they have lied and deceived, they have chosen to prosecute those who talk about it.
Of course that strategy will also fail. Reality is a hard taskmaster, as our governments and elites will soon learn to their detriment.
Gordon: Do you find it ironic that hate speech laws in many EU countries were adopted in the 1930’s and Post WWII environment to combat antisemitism and now are being manipulated by fundamentalist Muslims to further criminalize any criticism of Islamic doctrine, especially Shariah?
Hedegaard: Absolutely. Speech regulation and thought control haven't worked in the past and won't in the future. All you can accomplish is to create a bifurcated climate of debate. In the public sphere people will only say and hear what the government will allow – this will be very bad for the newspapers because few will want to pay for government propaganda or tracts by religious madmen. The real debate, what people really have on their minds, will unfold behind closed doors or man to man when agents of the rulers are not listening.
Speech regulation creates a pressure cooker of dissatisfaction and resentment that is bound to explode at some point.
Gordon: Could you describe the events that led up to your January trial in Copenhagen and the legal basis under Danish law for public prosecution of alleged ‘racist’ remarks regarding Islam?
Hedegaard: There is no legal basis for the lawsuit against me. Article 266b of our penal code – despicable as it is – at least provides the protection that to be criminal statements have to be made with the intent of public dissemination. I did not get a chance to authorise my comments for publication.
The public prosecutor is well aware of this fact, as was the judge in the lower court who acquitted me. The public prosecutor nonetheless went ahead and appealed to superior court.
I have no idea what has been going on between the government, the Justice Department and the prosecutor. All I know is that somebody is trying to get me, as they would have tried to get any president of The Free Press Society. The keepers of the public faith consider our organisation a stone in their shoes that has to be got rid of.
Gordon: In your view, how radical are the Danish Imams and what are their connections to Salafist centers in the Muslim ummah?
Hedegaard: That is no secret. The leaders of Islamisk Trossamfund (The Islamic Faith Community) have made no bones about the fact that they are salafists with close connections to Saudi Arabia and other radical states. If there is one "moderate" imam in the country, I haven't heard of him.
Gordon: Have you been afforded personal protection by the Danish Police Intelligence service in view of threats made against you?
Hedegaard: I haven't received many threats. A couple of Muslims have written on the internet that they hope I'll be dead soon, but that is all. I have no police protection. My circumstances may change if I am convicted in superior court. With an official label as a "racist" and menace to society, men of violence may determine that I am fair and easy game.
Gordon: What facilitated the entry and growth in the numbers of Muslim immigrants to Denmark?
Hedegaard: To begin with – when it started in the late 1960s – immigration from Muslim countries was driven by the captains of industry who were in need of cheap, unskilled labour. The first immigrants were called "guest workers" and the assumption was that they would return to their native countries once they had outlasted their usefulness. Many of these immigrants were illiterate and had no idea of how to behave in a developed country.
As it happened, they never returned but were allowed to settle and bring their extended families – entire clans – to Denmark. This new policy soon facilitated an avalanche of Muslim immigration as it became known back in Anatolia, Pakistan and Somalia that one could simply get on a plane to Copenhagen, claim to be persecuted and then live a life of leisure at the expense of the Danish taxpayers.
This development was greatly facilitated by a Law on Foreigners passed by Parliament in 1983, which practically provided free access to anyone who could pay for forged documents or engage a people smuggler.
The real question is the cui bono. Here one has to remember that socialism was on its hind legs. The Soviet empire was crumbling at the same time as the traditional working class was becoming "bourgeois." Consequently, the Left was in need of a new "revolutionary subject" whose supposed plight might justify the Left's continued ideological hegemony.
This strategy succeeded famously. The Muslim immigrants had the immeasurable advantage over the traditional proletariat that they would never integrate and would thus constitute a permanent focus of resentment for which the Left elite could claim to be the genuine champion.
The Left substituted its traditional socialism with "antiracism," and as private property rights were no longer challenged, the parties on the right were only too happy to accept antiracism, blind toleration, multiculturalism and finally cultural relativism as the ideology of the land.
As it happened, that was precisely what the European Union advocated. The great historian and Islamic scholar Bat Ye'or has documented the entire story in her book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis.
The implicit deal that came out of this unprecedented rapprochement can be summed up as follows: You – the Left – leave capitalism alone; we – the capitalists – won't challenge your ideological hegemony so long as you stick to "antiracism," "human rights" and such; the bill is sent to the taxpayers and good riddance to the country.
Gordon: How demographically assimilated is the Danish Muslim population?
Hedegaard: There is no question of assimilation. Quite the contrary. Islam does not penetrate the Dar al-Harb in order to assimilate or integrate but in order to dominate. That has not changed for 1400 years and won't change so long as Muslims believe that assimilation to the values of the infidels will lead straight to hell.
Gordon: How did they benefit from tolerant Danish cultural values, social welfare and legal system?
Hedegaard: They have been given the opportunity of settling in the country without changing an iota of their culture and ideology. So why would they accept our values or our legal system? It must be said, however, that many of the immigrants have assimilated wonderfully to our social welfare system as it affords them the opportunity to have all their expenses paid for by Danish taxpayers.
Gordon: Has the national parliament in Denmark debated any legislation to curtail Muslim immigration? If not, what has prevented it from being considered given l’affaires Westergaard, your own legal matter and other incidents?
Hedegaard: Never. Parliament has had many debates on immigration in general and has passed a number of laws aimed at limiting immigration. These laws have been systematically undermined by the EU and especially by the verdicts of the EU Court, which is a unique institution in Western culture. It does not operate under a fixed and transparent legal system. It is like God: it creates what it says. So Europeans have no idea what the law says until the EU Court has spoken. This is the same as saying that we have no law.
So far our governments have been happy to submit to this Star Chamber system of jurisprudence.
The number of Muslims in Denmark is kept as a state secret because the official ideology is that all religions are equally good. Unofficially it is believed that Muslims constitute approximately 5 percent of the population – not counting those who live here illegally. Muslims are expected to form a majority well before the end of the century.
Gordon: You facilitated the publication of Nicolai Sennels' book in Denmark, AmongCriminal Muslims: A Psychologist's Experiences from the Copenhagen Municipality. His work is based on the failure of therapeutic programs involving young Muslim offenders in Copenhagen. Do you agree with his conclusions based on his clinical research that Muslims reject Western values and are not assimiliable?
Hedegaard: I edited his book for publication. I am not a psychologist and therefore not qualified to offer a scientific opinion. But as far as I can tell, Sennels’ method is solid as are his conclusions. Otherwise The Free Speech Library would not have lent its good name to this publication. What Sennels documents is very much in line with what I would expect on the basis of my own extensive research on Islam and Islamic history.
Gordon: In your capacity as President of the Danish Free Press Society, what are you views regarding demands for criminalization of Islamic blasphemy proposed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva?
Hedegaard: All along, we and the International Free Press Society have been campaigning against blasphemy laws. The very concept of blasphemy has no place in a civilised society. Although I am of little faith, I think it an abomination to consider God to be so impotent that he is in need of legal protection.
Gordon: Geert Wilders has been an advocate for the adoption of an EU parliamentary version of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Do you believe that the EU Parliament would take up such a measure? If not, why not?
Hedegaard: The European Parliament would never do that as it aims to undermine the national cohesion of the EU member states. It could be done nationally. All it takes is the will to stand up, and I am all in favour of it.
Gordon: Do you view as significant the statements of German Chancellor Merkel, President Sarkozy of France and PM David Cameron of the U.K. on the failure of multiculturalism?
Hedegaard: Talk is cheap. It is significant that they should feel a need to make such statements. But are they going to do something about it? As far as I can tell, they have no such intention. They seem to think that they can fool all of the people all of the time.
Gordon: Do you consider the Swiss ban on minarets and the French National Assembly Ban on burkas indicative of a groundswell of public concerns about Islamic culture in their respective countries?
Hedegaard: Undoubtedly. These pinpricks are indications that something is going on among the aboriginal peoples of Europe.
Gordon: America currently has a legal doctrine that protects so-called hate speech under the 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio US Supreme Court decision. Yet, there is a current effort to pass anti-Shariah legislation in a number of States and anti-Shariah Finance litigation in our federal courts. As an international observer concerned about free speech, how you view these developments?
Hedegaard: I'm familiar with the Brandenburg decision, which – by and large – I consider a fair compromise between free speech and the obligation to maintain security and free institutions.
I very much support current attempts to legislate against Shariah-based institutions and practices. A free and democratic state cannot have dual jurisprudence. I think that you have a great legal precedent in the US Supreme Court's decision on Reynolds v. United States in 1878, which stated that polygamy is incompatible with democracy. So are Shariah law and Shariah practice.
Gordon: Geert Wilders in his recent speech at the Magna Carta Foundation in Rome cited the dangers of politically correct multiculturalism supplanting sovereign cultures in the EU nations. Do you agree with his positions?
Hedegaard: Wilders' speech stands out as one of the great speeches of our time. I wish that every concerned citizen would read it. The speech is mercifully free from the usual fare of pc gobbledygook that European politicians serve up these days. Here is a man who speaks the truth as he sees it. No wonder that he is hated and feared by the European elites whose own project is coming down like a ton of bricks. In addition, Wilders' Rome speech stands out for its grasp of history. Our leaders haven't spoken this way since the days of Churchill and Enoch Powell.
Gordon: Thank you for this engrossing, yet disturbing, interview on stifling free speech in Denmark and the EU.
Hedegaard: You’re welcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment