Danish magazine for lawyers: Free speech is only democratic as long as it does not provoke violent people

SignIslamFreeSpeechWesternTerrorismRecently the UK Law Society introduced a guide to sharia law. And in Denmark, law professor Trine Baumbach attacks the freedom of speech in the latest issue of Juristen (The Lawyer). Via 10news.dk, translated from Uriasposten:

Freedom of expression can be seen as an expression of democracy — but only to the extent that free speech is used for the benefit of a democratic society and its citizens. … Freedom of expression is one of the foundations of democratic societies, but only to the extent that freedom of expression is not misused to violate the rights of others or used in a way that society risks being plunged into social unrest and civil peace being threatened.

Danish police search mosque for firearms, find machetes, four men arrested
Twitter unblocks "blasphemous" tweets in Pakistan
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. Peter Buckley says

    So the logic is: If you tell the truth, it might upset “certain people”, therefore you can’t tell the truth. Hilarious…..

    • kikorikid says

      “What we have here is a failure to communicate.”
      This crap is simply Sharia Compliance. NOTHING may be said about
      Islam that is not considered “Blaspheme” according to Sharia Law,
      punishable by death.
      DEATH TO JIHADIS!

  2. says

    “Freedom of expression … is not (to be) used in a way that society risks being plunged into social unrest…” You better take that back Trine Baumbach or I’m gonna riot!

  3. Tradewinds says

    OK we get it – you fear the Muslims and their Jihad ideology and rightfully so.

    Which means Islam should be condemned, and loudly. As Sir Salman Rushdie has said,

    “What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend it doesn’t exist.”

    Offend Islam! Stop appeasing the barbarians! Grow a pair, man.

    • Burt says

      So law professor Trine Baumbach is Islamophobic in the real meaning of the word, fearing violent Muslims …oh the irony.

  4. pdxnag says

    So, you can’t call a thug a thug because the thug will act like a thug. (. . . even chop your head off while chanting Allahu Akbar.)

    It is useful to note that the US Bill of Rights is derived from an assessment of the distinguishing features of tyrannical governments. What is it that tyrants typically do? They typically deny certain describable rights.

    Islam is a special case here because not only do its believers demand that you yield to their practice of their supremacist faith but they insist on displacing all competing forms of government. They double down on tyranny by banning any criticism of the Islamic government and its officials, which invariably are just people. Even the most ordinary of people can suffer from the tendency to seek more power when in a position of power. Core free speech is a right to criticize government rather than just religion or neighbors. Muslims demand both freedom from criticism of their religion but also of their post-conquest replacement Islamic government. They are no ordinary thug, they are super-thugs.

    • Betty says

      these super thugs are super thugs only if we let them be. people better wise up and rise up or you will be banging you head in a couple of years on those prayer rugs. and you women will never feel the breeze blowing through hair ever again no Daisy Dukes shorts no bathing suits just floor dragging black dresses and you will be called rag heads. is this what you want? if these muslims dress like they do saying it is a choice I do not believe it if they were not made to do this you would not be seeing it. not in temps running over 100 + weather.

  5. Christopher says

    What a sniveling coward! If saying things provokes certain communities (Islamic!) to violence then what you do is use the POLICE and the MILITARY for what they were designed to do!

    They are not only cowards, they are idiots, because we have by far the overwhelming advantage when it comes to force, at least for the time being.

  6. el-cid says

    The problem is that Islam is a political ideology masquerading as a religion. The goal of Islam is conquest and subjugation, the tools are intimidation, propaganda, law-fare, and violence.

    Who can imagine Europe today putting up with terrorists such as the Red Army Faction (Baader-Meinhof), allowing them to have their own laws and courts, putting up with their intimidation, or allowing them to build cultural centers financed by foreign money to recruit and train people to engage in terrorism?

    But, that is what Europe is doing now. Would Baumbach instruct us NOT to stand-up to Baader-Meinhof in the name of democracy?

  7. mortimer says

    Have Danish judges knelt before the superior wisdom of the violent?

    Har danske dommere knælede foran den overlegne visdom af voldelige barbarer ?

  8. mortimer says

    Trine Baumbach is arguing that Muslims have a right not to hear anything they dislike…a right denied to Danes.

  9. big mess says

    “Freedom of expression can be seen as an expression of democracy — but only to the extent that free speech is used for the benefit of a democratic society and its citizens. … Freedom of expression is one of the foundations of democratic societies, but only to the extent that freedom of expression is not misused to violate the rights of others or used in a way that society risks being plunged into social unrest and civil peace being threatened.”

    That’s precisely why Nazi Prophet Muhammad should have never been published and why Islam must be banned.

    • eib says

      Freedom of expression is the practice of democracy, democracy in action. Majority rule is not the only thing that characterizes it, majority rule without minority protection through these rights is not democracy. It is the tyranny of the majority.
      Democracy is not the tyranny of the majority.
      Know the difference and make sure others do.
      Especially in Britain, where “social cohesion” seems to be more important than human dignity in the individual.
      If anyone’s offended I DON’T CARE.

      • RobUK78 says

        I’ll have a go.

        There has to come a point when majority rule takes precedent. Otherwise the nation loses it’s ability to control those who would wish it harm. For example, the propagators of Nazism. Would you agree that any person within a state has the right to call for, and organise for the subjugation of that state, to call for the deportation of Jews and to use violence towards those ends? You would rightly lock them up, right?

        What the Danes and the British seem to be doing is locking up the occasional individual and letting the group go about its business unmolested. I am not seeing the sense there and I doubt that many would.

        The problem would seem to be more to do with a tyranny of the minority rather than the majority.

        • eib says

          Quote:
          There has to come a point when majority rule takes precedent.
          end

          The Muslim majority that rises in the next three or four generations in the Western countries will be quite pleased with democracy as a tyranny of the majority.
          Wherever they manage to impose something they call democracy, this is what the people get.
          I don’t see much happiness in Egypt or in Libya.

      • kikorikid says

        Well stated!
        It is the precise reason the US “Bill of Rights” are expressly
        dedicated to the Individual. It is why the intellectual fascism of “Political
        Correctness” has fostered a “Tyranny of the Minority” to become
        ensconced here in the US. Jihadis will surely inflict lethality on our society
        but we, the People Armed, will kill them whenever they are bold enough
        to show their faces. Likewise it may become necessary to rid ourselves
        of the Tyranny already over us. We will do it as Freemen.

    • Betty says

      poor baby’s. look at them they go bananas . don’t look at them they go bananas so say what you want as long as it is the truth and they will still go bananas. surprised they all aren’t waring yellow banana suits so they can look like a banana peel flopping around. when they go nuts.

  10. eib says

    If freedom of expression is indeed Western terrorism, then the conflict is no longer asymmetric.
    We have an advantage and we should use it.
    The Danes . . . cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
    I’m not following suit.

    • Jay Boo says

      “then the conflict is no longer asymmetric.”

      That is an interesting choice of words

      • says

        One of the asymmetries of the world war we are in (aside from the most glaring one — the asymmetry of our enemy knowing, with vengeance, that it’s a world war, while we remain blithely oblivious to it) is a perversely paradoxical one dovetailed like some kind of grotesque Mobius strip:

        Simply put, the two pairs are:

        1) Our superiority in terms of power (and in terms of the cultural health that helps to grow true and stable sociopoltical and military power)

        2) Their inferiority (same parenthetical elucidation as above, in reverse)

        1a) Our Useful Idiocy unwittingly helping them (enormously) in their war against us

        2a) Their fanatically clear-eyed enmity against us under no delusions of any hope of any kind of real harmony or cooperation with us (but plenty of feigned, deceitful shows of harmony and cooperation and assimilation).

        The fuller explanation of the above:

        We are stupendously more powerful than they are (with our superiority contextualized by a superiority in both technological and cultural infrastructure, reflecting the astronomically healthier societies we cultivate (sans the usual litany of imperfections that all societies have which in this regard should remain unmentioned since they are not only irrelevant but tend to foster and reinforce our morbidly irrational cultivation of an Ego Quoque — ironically, the one imperfection we have which should be mentioned in this regard as highly relevant so that we may begin the process of curing ourselves of it and its larger paradigm, the ridiculous fashion of PC MC), while they are stupendously inferior to us in every way one can measure cultural superiority and inferiority (technological, scientific, philosophical, religious, political, cultural, legal, moral, psychological, sociological); and we are doing virtually everything we can, stupidly and unwittingly, to enable their stealth jihad infiltration and invasion which are necessary prerequisites for their ability to stand a chance of horribly damaging our infrastructure and mass-murdering perhaps millions of us in various terror attacks in various different cities, using various types of WMDs, over the coming decades — meanwhile they are cultivating the opposite mentality against us: a viciously unapologetic hatred and belligerence against us (combined, of course, with deceptively harmless taqiyya, which we gullibly and unwittingly swallow; cf. supra).

  11. says

    So all that needs to be done to silence righteousness is to threaten violence. If Christians threaten violence when gay rights are broadcast, will that silence the gays? No, the leftist double standard will always win out.

    • RobUK78 says

      They might tell you that they have no love for hanging gays from cranes, and in that moment they believe that in their very core. But they will have no qualms about wanting Rouhani to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, even though he has no intention of stopping hanging gays from cranes.

      Holding two contradictory ideas at the same time and believing both to be fundamentally true is called Doublethink. Orwell invites us to revile and pity those who practice it.

  12. Greg Hamilton says

    We are rapidly adopting a submissive posture towards Islam and Muslims. We are beginning to submit to the Conditions of Omar. You can now register your personal refusal to accept these conditions and point others towards the fact of their existence. See here: http://enjoytheconditionsofomar.blogspot.co.uk/

    Enjoy The Conditions Of Omar

  13. Joe Murphy says

    >> Freedom of expression can be seen as an expression of democracy — but only to the extent that free speech is used for the benefit of a democratic society and its citizens

    What an absolute idiot. Is this a trained lawyer or a doe-eyed freshman who hasn’t learned to think yet?

    Who gets to decide exactly what speech is not ‘for the benefit of a democratic society and its citizens’ and for these reasons curtail it? He or she has an obvious wedge in the door here that can completely obliterate free speech under the tyranny of a government that gets to decide what is ‘for the benefit of a democratic society and its citizens’ and what is not. An invitation to totalitarianism — and one of the steps towards a totalitarian society.

    • kikorikid says

      Yes! Islam is a Totalitarian-Supremacist ideology that charades under
      a veneer/façade of Religiosity. It advances with every “demand” met.
      It is one way only with no return. Those who comply with their demands are Dhimmis who will shortly be told how much Gold they must pay as, Jizya,
      the Tax on Dhimmis which will afford them “Tolerance” from
      the “True Believers”. And if you don’t pay, “I will KEEEEL you”(Jeff Dunham)
      In short, Islam is “Strong-Arm Extortion”.

    • kikorikid says

      Yes! Islam is a Totalitarian-Supremacist ideology that charades under
      a veneer/façade of Religiosity. It advances with every “demand” met.
      It is one way only with no return. Those who comply with their demands are Dhimmis who will shortly be told how much Gold they must pay as, Jizya,
      the Tax on Dhimmis which will afford them “Tolerance” from
      the “True Believers”. And if you don’t pay, “I will KEEEEL you”(Jeff Dunham)
      In short, Islam is “Strong-Arm Extortion”.

  14. pumbar says

    Why hasn’t anybody commented that, “basically Denmark is finished, it’s their own fault as they are all cowardly dhimmis” (TM)?

  15. sidney penny says

    The law professor failed logic 101!

    How do they become law professors?

    They are supposed to be good at thinking logically and at reasoning!

    • Mirren10 says

      ”They are supposed to be good at thinking logically and at reasoning!”

      PC/MC claptrap trumps logic and reason.

      Indeed, anyone ‘educated’ after, say, the 1950’s, has no understanding of logic and reason, unless they have a lot of gumption.

  16. eib says

    Oh, but, I wasn’t talking about the U.S.
    I don’t believe in democracies per se. There are none.
    There are some governments that have democratic characteristics, but that is all.
    The tyranny of the majority is not democracy.
    I will never call it such.
    And neither should you. Because if you do, then the totalitarian impulse is closer to your mind than any thought of tolerance.

  17. eib says

    Quote:
    The Danish Political System is democratic. It is characteristic of Danish democracy that the administration of the State is based on a voluntary agreement between the constitutional monarchy and the citizens of the country. The citizens exert their influence indirectly through voting.
    end

    This is a pretty lie.
    All majority rule in a democracy is direct.
    And as for teaching Constitutional Theory.
    It’s wonderful that you theorize on the Constitution. Really.
    I don’t care very much about it.
    My interest is ideas, actions, practices, and their implications.
    For me, democracy is practice.
    I find it more preached than practiced in the present day.
    And so I don’t think theorizing about the Constitution or about democracy or about republicanism is an effectual exercise in the here and now. You’re just giving the preachers (like the writer of the quote above) more to hollowly boast.
    When political science is studied and taught such that people matter, I’ll take it seriously.