DENMARK: LANGBALLE PLEADS GUILTY

After voting in parliament to remove his own parliamentary immunity, Jesper Langballe appeared in court today to respond to charges that he violated the controversial "racism paragraf".

Langballe surprised many by pleading guilty. He said he did not want to participate in "this circus" and issued a statement:

Confession

Her ved retsmødets begyndelse vil jeg gerne fremsætte en erklæring, der formentlig betyder, at vi kan komme tidligt hjem. Here the legal beginning, I would like to make a statement that probably means we can come home early.

Mit budskab er, at jeg tilstår; jeg erklærer mig skyldig.

My message is, I confess, I declare myself guilty. Og jeg vil gerne begrunde det: And I want to justify it:

Jeg har tidligere beklaget, at tonen i den avistekst, der har ført til tiltalerejsningen, var lovlig kæk og sarkastisk.

I have previously complained that the tone of the newspaper text, which has led to the prosecution, was lawful cocky and sarcastic.

Det misklædte det dybt alvorlige emne, jeg omtalte - nemlig de forfærdelige æresdrab, der finder sted i nogle muslimske familier, hvor en ung pige bliver myrdet af sin far eller broder, fordi hun er blevet forelsket i en ”forkert” mand.

It misklædte the profoundly serious issue I mentioned - namely the horrible honor killings that take place in some Muslim families where a young girl is murdered by her father or brother because she was in love with a "wrong" man.

I Danmark er der i snit begået ca.

Denmark has committed an average of approx. ét drab om året, i Tyrkiet gennemsnitligt ét om dagen ifølge de tyrkiske myndigheders statistik.

one homicide a year in Turkey, an average of one a day, according to the Turkish authorities' statistics.

Hertil kommer så mine ord om fædre, der ser gennem fingre med onklers og fætres voldtægter af døtrene. In addition to my words about fathers who look through your fingers with uncles and cousins rape of their daughters. Det er en velbevidnet sag. It is a velbevidnet case. Jeg kan her blot henvise til Ayaan Hirsi Alis skil¬drin¬ger og her i Danmark til Kristina Aamands gribende bog ”Mødom på mode” om unge i herboende muslimske familier. I can here only refer to Ayaan Hirsi Ali disassemble ¬ ¬ drin Ger and here in Denmark Kristina Aamand radical book "virginity in vogue" for young people in Muslim families living here.

Det var den saglige baggrund for den passage i et indlæg i Berlingske Tidende, jeg er tiltalt for. It was the factual background to the passage in an article in Berlingske Tidende, I was charged. Da jeg ikke er jurist, havde jeg set hen til at føre sandhedsbevis for mine ord og således bidrage til at kaste lys over substansen – de gruopvækkende æresdrab. Since I am not a lawyer, I had looked forward to lead truth proof of my words and thus help to shed light on substance - the gruesome honor killing. I Folketinget stemte jeg derfor - i modsætning til resten af min folketingsgruppe - for, at min parlamentariske immunitet skulle ophæves, så at retssagen kunne gennemføres. The parliament voted I therefore - unlike the rest of my Democratic MPs - that my parliamentary immunity be lifted so that the trial could be completed.

Siden er jeg blevet klar over, at i sager anlagt i ht § 266 b har der hidtil ikke kunnet føres sandhedsbevis. Since I have become aware that in cases brought ht § 266 b, there has so far failed to be truly evidence. Med denne paragraf og dens placering i straffeloven må jeg altså anses for at væ¬re dømt på forhånd. This article and its placement in the Penal Code, I must therefore be regarded as signifi ¬ re doomed in advance. Et sådant cirkus agter jeg ikke at deltage i. – Derfor tilstår jeg. Such a circus I do not intend to participate in. - Therefore, I admit. Der vil jo også væ¬re korrespondance mellem den dom, jeg om lidt får, og den underlødige lovparagraf, jeg dømmes efter. There will of course also signifi ¬ re correspondence between the ruling I am a little sheep, and the inferior paragraphs of law, I judged.

Hertil kommer, at der er anlagt en injuriesag mod mig i samme anledning, og her vil jeg være sikret mulighed for at føre sandhedsbevis. Moreover, brought a libel suit against me at the same occasion, and I would be guaranteed the opportunity to pursue truth proof. Men strafbarheds-kriteriet i § 266 b er altså alene, om nogen føler sig krænkede eller ”forhånede” – ikke om det, jeg har sagt, er sandhed eller løgn. Hvil¬ket må siges at være i fuld overensstemmelse med den almindelige ”krænkelseskultur”, som har bredt sig, og som § 266 b så smukt understøtter. I visse kredse er det jo nærmest en sport at føle sig krænket – over karikaturtegninger i en avis, over religionskritiske udsagn etc. etc.

But criminal safety criterion in § 266 b is thus only whether someone feels offended or "reviling" - not about what I have said is truth or lie. Rest ¬ Ket be said to be in full accord with the general "violation culture "which has spread, and § 266 b so beautifully supports. In some circles it's almost a sport to feel offended - over cartoons in a newspaper, the religion-critical statements, etc., etc.

Lad mig til slut nævne, at jeg er blevet beskyldt for at generalisere – så at min udtalelse skulle ramme samtlige muslimer. Let me finally mention that I have been accused of making generalizations - so that my opinion should hit all Muslims. Det er en meningsløs fortolkning. It is a meaningless interpretation. Omtalen af æresdrab i min tekst viser hen til udtrykket, ”…at der er muslimske fædre, som…” Og ordene ”der er” kan aldrig betegne alle, men vil altid beteg¬ne en delmængde. The mention of honor killing in my text suggests the phrase, "... that there are Muslim fathers who ..." And the words "is" can never describe all, but will always indications ¬ ne a subset. Som kontraprøve kan man blot forestille sig, at jeg havde skrevet det modsatte: ”Der er ikke muslimske fædre [der slår deres døtre ihjel]”. As a counter-test can only imagine that I had written the opposite: "There is no Muslim fathers [who beat their daughters to death]." Så ville jo enhver, der er rimeligt orienteret, vide, at det var en grov usandhed. So would indeed anyone who is reasonably informed, know that it was a blatant falsehood.

Summa summarum: I bagklogskabens lys bryder jeg mig ikke selv om tonen i den på¬gældende tekst-passage. In summary, with hindsight I do not care even if the tone of ¬ current text passage. Sandhedsværdien står jeg derimod fuldt og helt ved. Truth value is, however, I completely understand. Og ærlig talt: Personligt finder jeg selve sagen – de grufulde mord på uskyldige unge piger – noget væsentligere. And frankly: Personally, I find the subject matter itself - the gruesome murder of innocent young girls - something more essential.

Det sidste ord: Om § 266 b The last word: Whether § 266 b
I min personlige optik er det ikke først og fremmest mig, der i dag er på anklagebænken, men straffelovens § 266 b, som jeg er dømt efter. In my personal view, it is not first and foremost me that today is the dock, but the Penal Code § 266 b, as I have been convicted for.

Denne paragraf er en skændsel for retssamfundet. This article is a disgrace to the legal community.