September 27-2013
An Iranian-born woman who is now a Danish citizen has been convicted by a Danish court of racism for saying the Islamic faith is defective in that it allows Muslim men to abuse, rape and kill their daughters.
Firoozeh Bazrafkan has been sentenced to a fine of 5,000 kroner ($900) or five days in jail. She said she would take the jail time. But first she plans to appeal the decision.
Bazrafkan was arrested two years ago after writing: “I am very convinced that Muslim men around the world rape, abuse and kill their daughters. This is, according to my understanding as a Danish-Iranian, due to a defective and inhumane culture – if you can even call it a culture at all. But you can say, I think, that it is a defective and inhumane religion whose textbook, the Qoran, is more immoral, deplorable and crazy than manuals of the two other global religions combined.”
She wrote that in December 2011 in a blog entry in the daily Jyllands-Posten, the same newspaper that made itself world famous a few years earlier by soliciting cartoons about the Prophet Mohammad. The newspaper was not charged with any offense for publishing those cartoons.
In Bazrafkan’s case, she was charged with racism. The trial court found her not guilty. But the state appealed that decision. And the appeals court—comprised of three judges and three jurors—found her guilty last Monday on a 5-1 vote.
Bazrafkan argues that the anti-racism legislation is stifling free expression.
Bazrafkan’s blog was a commentary on an article published by free speech activist Lars Pedersen, who has also been convicted of racism after publishing a critique of Islam in the online newspaper 180grader.dk.
Bazrafkan argues in an interview with The Copenhagen Post that Danish anti-racism legislation should not apply to a critique of religion. And many of the comments posted to news stories about her conviction have asked how Denmark can claim to be any different from the Islamic Republic with its conviction of Bazrafkan.
She said, “My blog didn’t threaten anyone. It was a criticism of Islamic codes.”
She added, “I wrote it as an artistic manifesto to show that we cannot say what we want [in Denmark] and we cannot criticize Islamic regimes. I wanted to show Lars support because, as a Danish Iranian, I know what a big problem Islamic regimes are in both Iran and the Middle East. These Islamic codes give men the rights to do whatever they want to women and children and I think it’s disgusting. They also prevent people in Iran from discussing and saying what they want. This is what I wanted to criticize.”
She noted that the court concluded that what she wrote about Muslim men was condescending and a generalization. “But that’s unfair, because there are many Islamic codes that are being used by Islamic men to justify their actions against women and children,” she said.
“It’s important to remember that I did not write that ALL Muslim men committed horrible acts and used Islamic codes to justify them. I wrote that Muslim men around the world can do these things because it is allowed according to these codes. It’s not the same thing. For example, Muslims around the world protested at the Mohammed cartoons, and doctors around the world misdiagnose patients, but not all Muslims protested, and not all doctors misdiagnose.”
She added: “It’s idiotic to suggest that I think that all Muslim men are rapists.”
She said she has also been critical of Judaism and Christianity. “But I was born in Iran as a Muslim. I have family members in Iran who don’t have the same democratic rights and freedom to express their anger as I do. I do my best to get the point out in my artwork because I want to criticize the Iranian regime my way. If I want to be angry, I should have the right to be angry and call the Islamic regime anything I want. The state shouldn’t go in and take away my rights.
“My point is that I want to give men and women the right to write whatever they want. I don’t care if it’s stupid or well formulated. People should just have the right to say what they want so long as they don’t threaten other people.”
She said she herself had been threatened and complained to the police. “One person said he wanted to chop me up and feed me to his dogs. I reported it to the police, but they didn’t charge him because the threats weren’t threatening enough,” she said.
The Copenhagen Post says Bazrafkan’s racism sentence is the fourth in a series of anti-Islam comments that have resulted in charges under Denmark’s anti-racism law.
The first was Lars Hedegaard, the leader of the free press society Trykkefrihedssels-kabet, who was convicted of racism in 2011 for statements he made in private about Muslim men. He was cleared in 2012 when the Supreme Court decided that the statements were not made with the intention that they would be published.
Jesper Langballe, a former member of the Danish parliament, was subsequently convicted of racism because of statements he made when defending Hedegaard in an opinion piece in the Berlingske newspaper.
Lars Kragh Andersen, another free speech activist, was the third to be charged with racism after writing his article on 180grader.dk saying he was “convinced that Muslim men around the world both abuse and kill their daughters.”
It was this passage that Bazrafkan repeated and which resulted in her being charged with racism.
Bazrafkan is a controversial artist known for integrating her Muslim background into her work. She said that her use of Andersen’s text was a “political happening” that was designed to expose the problem with the Danish racism law.
But the Western High Court wrote on its decision: “By publishing the statement in the blog, the defendant presented statements in which a group of people are mocked and degraded because of their belief. We therefore find the defendant guilty.”
In the United States, mockery is fully protected under freedom of speech. Even threats voiced in anger are protected unless they are immediate and compelling. The classic US formulation of speech that is not protected is falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater.
The prosecution in Bazraf-kan’s case noted that while the Danish Constitution guarantees free speech, it also mentions “responsibility before the courts,” thus giving parliament the right to regulate what can be said and what is punishable under the law. The prosecution also cited the European Human Rights Convention, which explicitly permits regulation of speech to protect the “public order.”