Mogens Camre: Convicted of “Racism” for a “Hate”-Tweet

All across Western Europe there is an increasing trend towards prosecuting people for speaking out against mass immigration or Islam. Ten years ago such prosecutions were very rare, but today they are a routine occurrence, to the point where it is no longer possible to keep a comprehensive list of dissidents who have been hauled into court.

It used to be that Denmark was different. It was a bastion of free speech back in the days when “hate speech” was being juridically punished in Britain, Sweden, France, the Netherlands, and other PC bastions in Western Europe. But nowadays you can get tried and convicted even in Denmark if you say negative things about immigrants or Islam.

Mogens Camre is a Danish politician, one of the founders of Dansk Folkeparti (Danish People’s Party). In his role as an elder statesman for the party, he came into his own in recent years as the European migration crisis caused public opinion in Denmark to swing towards DF and support policies that restrict immigration, crack down on migrant crime, and limit the social benefits handed out to recent immigrants.

Today Mr. Camre’s conviction for making a “racist” tweet was upheld by the Eastern High Court (landsret) in Denmark. Below are excerpts from an article in The Local describing his crime:

The Eastern High Court found Mogens Camre, a 79-year-old former MP and MEP for the Danish People’s Party and current member of the Gladsaxe city council, guilty of racism on Tuesday and slapped him with an 8,000 kroner fine.

The court thus upheld a previous ruling by the Glostrup City Court.


The two convictions stem from a tweet Camre wrote in July 2014 that compared Muslims to Adolf Hitler.

“Regarding the Jews’ situation in Europe: The Muslims are continuing where Hitler left off. Only the same treatment Hitler received will change the situation,” he wrote in the now-deleted tweet.

Two separate individuals filed racism charges against Camre after his tweet garnered national attention.


Danish People’s Party leadership said that Camre’s racism conviction would not affect his standing in the party.

Camre previously compared Muslims to Nazis in a 2009 Dutch TV interview.

“The German soldiers in our streets behaved better than the Muslim boys — much better, they were well disciplined,” he said in a clip that can be viewed here.

In 2003, Camre was charged with racism for saying that all Western countries have been infiltrated by Muslims planning to take over, and in 2005 he was reported to police for blaming Denmark’s low birth rate on the “immigrant burden” and for saying that “immigrants in Denmark as a whole do not contribute anything at all to society.”

Mogens Camre is being made an example of precisely because of the huge popularity of the Dansk Folkeparti’s policies, which are fragmenting the Left in the Danish parliament. Some socialist MPs are actually feeling forced to vote for DPP initiatives because of their huge public appeal.

At 79 years of age, Mr. Camre has been there from the very beginning, and now that the party he and others created is finally wielding power — having been proven right after all these years — this judicial assassination is how Denmark’s “Legacy Left” is petulantly getting its revenge.

Below are both the English and original Danish versions of the speech given by Mogens Camre in the High Court in Copenhagen last Friday. First, the English:

Speech by Mogens Camre MB, in the case against him tried at the High Court in Copenhagen, on 29 January 2016.

Honourable Officers of the High Court.

I have asked to make a closing statement summarizing my views in this case.

If free speech is to be limited only to formalized academic remarks, in language alien to the general public, which thereby obfuscates important problems certain interests in our society obviously wish to keep hidden, then it is simply impossible to work as a politician. I wish to underline this fact.

Nevertheless, I have contributed to a balanced academic debate. Both alone and in tandem with well-known intellectuals, I have written five books concerning the now widespread problems which have hit Denmark and Europe, due to the advance into our continent of a barbaric culture. Nobody has been able to point to errors, or statements open to refutation, in any of these books. Nor has any legal challenge ever been issued against the content of these books, which present my message in more detail. Neither has anyone ever been charged for their publication.

The High Court is now forced to judge whether a distillation of this body of work, reduced by the prosecutor to a single tweet, bound by the 140 characters limiting this medium – which therefore compels the use of figurative language – can credibly be interpreted in such a way that it constitutes a breach of the law.

Directly attached to the aforementioned tweet, were four subsequent tweets in which my opinions were immediately explained further. I do not think it possible to separate out, part of the entirety of my message, contained within the sum of these five tweets: thus criminalizing one tweet only by deliberately ignoring the meaning conveyed by all five.

There is nothing in my tweets, however, that can be interpreted as a threat against anyone, concrete or otherwise. Neither is there any sentiment contained within them that has not been expressed by other politicians, either verbally or in writing. When a political party prints election posters which contain the phrase, “Nazi Islamism,” this is an analogous simplification. It is self-evidently not a statement by The Conservatives that all Islamists are Nazis.

The most widespread persecution of Jews in Germany took place under the Nazi regime. It is therefore only natural that the ambassador of Israel, in Berlin, would make a comparison between the situation facing Jews in Germany in the summer of 2014, with the torments endured by Jews in 1938. It is similarly only natural, that I, in a political debate, be allowed to comment on what is again being allowed to happen to the Jews in a number of European countries.

When the imam of the Grimhøj mosque in Aarhus can declare, “Allah, kill the Zionist Jews. It is an easy task for you. Count them and kill every single one,” without fear of prosecution or punishment, as reported by tv2 news on 22 July 2014, then it must surely be within the acceptable bounds of free speech, for a politician to draw the obvious comparison that exists between the words of Abu Bilal, and the persecutions suffered by Jews under Nazism – in the condensed format of a tweet, and to a limited group of followers.

In his views Imam Bilal scarcely travels alone within his community. You will know this.

Every society will face problems when a religion, or an ideology, has the unchallenged freedom to refer to writings as holy, that contain unambiguous demands that Jews be murdered. These tenets have been translated into brutal reality several times in France, Belgium and Denmark, and throughout the Middle East.

A three-year scientific research project, conducted by Dr Tina Magaard, compared the foundational texts of ten different religions. The Danish linguist reached the following conclusion, she writes:

“The texts of Islam clearly distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions, by entreating violence and aggression against other believers, to a much higher degree. There are also direct calls for terror. For a long time this has been a taboo within research on Islam, but it is nevertheless a fact that must be recognized.”

If we as politicians are to be denied the right – through pithy, clear language accessible to ordinary people – to reject articles of faith and behaviour that in our culture are considered irrational, immoral and frankly inhumane, without incurring the risk of persecution through the courts, then clearly free speech has already been limited only to what Islam will allow. And with this, our democracy dies, which is precisely what this alien culture desires.

Original Danish:

Høje landsret

Jeg har bedt om nogle afsluttende bemærkninger for at forklare min holdning i denne sag.

Jeg vil fastholde, at det er umuligt at arbejde som politiker, hvis ytringsfriheden kun omfatter akademiske, formaliserede ytringer, som går hen over hovedet på den brede offentlighed og dermed også går uden om vigtige problemer, som visse kræfter i samfundet ønsker fortiet.

Jeg har bidraget til den akademiske debat. Dels alene, dels sammen med kendte samfundsdebattører har jeg skrevet fem bøger om de omfattende problemer, som har ramt Danmark og Europa på grund af en fremmed kulturs fremmarch. Ingen har kunnet påvise fejl eller angribelige betragtninger i disse bøger. Der har heller ikke været den store debat om bøgernes indhold, som mere udførligt fremlægger mit budskab. Og ingen er blevet retsforfulgt.

Men her skal landsretten så tage stilling til, om et koncentrat – som anklagemyndigheden oven i købet har reduceret til én såkaldt twitter – inden for de i dette medie tilladte 140 anslag og derfor skrevet i billedligt sprog, kan udlægges på en sådan måde, at det udgør en lovovertrædelse.

I direkte tilknytning til denne twitter har jeg umiddelbart efter uddybet i fire andre twitters, hvad jeg mener. Man kan da ikke udskille en del af den helhed, disse i alt 5 twitters udgør, og kriminalisere den ene, uden blik for, hvad der fremgår af de samlede 5.

Der er intet i mine twitters, som kan udlægges som en konkretiseret trussel mod nogen. Der er heller ikke noget, som ikke også er udtrykt af andre politikere i tale og på skrift. Når f.eks. et politisk parti som de Konservative opsætter valgplakater med teksten “Nazi islamisme” er det en tilsvarende forenkling, som selvfølgelig ikke betyder, at alle islamister er nazister.

Når historiens mest omfattende jødeforfølgelser fandt sted under det nazistiske regime i Tyskland, er det naturligt for den israelske ambassadør i Berlin at drage sammenligninger mellem overgreb mod jøder i Tyskland i sommeren 2014 og jødernes situation i 1938. Og det er naturligt, at jeg i en politisk debat kommenterer det, som i dag overgår jøderne i en række europæiske lande.

Og når imam Abub Bilal fra Grimhøj moskeen i Aarhus i flg. tv2 nyhederne 22. juli 2014 ustraffet kan udtale: (Citat) “Allah, dræb de zionistiske jøder. Det er en nem opgave for dig. Tæl dem og dræb hver eneste af dem”, (citat slut) så må det også være inden for en politikers ytringsfrihed i det korte format, som en twitter holder til en lille kreds af følgere at drage en sammenligning med jødeforfølgelserne under nazismen. Bilal er jo som bekendt absolut ikke en enlig svale.

Det er et problem i ethvert samfund, at der er adgang for en religion eller en ideologi til at henvise til skrifter, som hævdes at være hellige, og som indeholder utvetydige tilkendegivelser om at dræbe jøderne. Opfordringerne er også siden 2014 blevet brutal virkelighed flere gange i Frankrig, Belgien og Danmark foruden i hele Mellemøsten.

Den danske forsker dr. Tina Magaard har i et treårigt forskningsprojekt sammenlignet 10 religioners grundtekster. Hun siger herom: (Citat)

»Teksterne i islam adskiller sig klart fra de øvrige religioners tekster ved i højere grad at opfordre til vold og aggression over for anderledes troende. Der findes også direkte opfordringer til terror. Det har længe været et tabu i islam-forskningen, men det er et faktum, som man er nødt til at forholde sig til.« (Citat slut)

Hvis vi som politikere ikke har adgang til – også i kort, klart og dermed for almindelige mennesker begribeligt sprog – at afvise trossætninger og adfærdsformer, som i vores kultur anses for at være irrationelle, umoralske eller direkte umenneskelige, uden at risikere retsforfølgelse, så er ytringsfriheden allerede begrænset til det, som islam vil tillade. Og så dør demokratiet, præcis som den fremmede kultur ønsker det.

42 thoughts on “Mogens Camre: Convicted of “Racism” for a “Hate”-Tweet

  1. Think this is not happening in the US? Here is something from my home state in the people’s republic of Minnesota.

    It is now officially “un-Minnesotan” to criticize Islam, as signed by all the leading socialists. All done in the name of stopping “hate speech”, which is actually limiting your ability to engage in freedom of speech. Democrats actually do not care about Muslims, all they care about is gaining power. If all the gun control measures did not scare you, does banning your right to free speech scare you? This is what we are up against, a total attempt to control the population with the socialists deciding what actually constitutes “hate speech” (basically anything they don’t like), and controlling any means of revolt or dissent. Notice that the CEO of Mayo Clinic signed as well. Mayo does quite a business providing health care to citizens of middle eastern countries with oil money. We also have a federal medical prison in town. Guess where your friends in the orange jumpsuits get their medical care? Yep, the finest America has to offer, good old Mayo Clinic. I’ve seen them walking down the sidewalks with the guards.

    • Just wait till a few of the NPR Euphorics are massacred by some angry Somalis. Some people have to learn the hard way. No doubt they will also be electing the Arab-owned liar and criminal, Clinton.

      Minnesota Nice is Minnesota Hypocrisy, as most of the population would never have a Somali across their threshold.

    • You do realize that Denmark is a socialist country right? Stop attributing the attitudes of the regressive left to those of liberals in general. Liberalism is completely at odds with the tenets and teachings of Islam, so stop lumping the regressive lefts political correctness and censorship onto all liberals. Its disingenuous at best. And it’s only Democrats who care about obtaining power and not conservatives? [Ad hominems redacted]. On gun control measures, what gun control measures? None have been able to be passed, simple ones like background checks at gun shows. How can anyone be opposed to this? Who has banned anyones free speech in America? From what I can tell liberals like Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Maajid Nawaz, Dave Rubin, and a multitude of others all speak out about the threat of fundamentalist ISLAMIC terrorism without being censored by anyone. So whose free speech has been taken to court and prosecuted? Since [ad hominem redacted], please stop conflating it with the threat of Islam, which real liberals have clearly spoken up against. Finally, we don’t always, but should treat our prisoners of war in Guantanamo and elsewhere with the respect with which we want our POW’s to be treated. I am baffled why Americans so quickly abandon our own values in the face of those who would do us harm. We do not lower our selves to their level, we rise above it. So we provide health care to our prisoners of war, armed combatants, etc, and thats a bad thing? We are morally better than them, in every way possible, stop stooping to the simplicities of barbarians.

      [Note from the Baron: I’m tired of redacting your invective. Read the commenting guidelines (top left sidebar on the main page) and follow them. Otherwise, expect that your comments may be deleted completely in the future — it’s much quicker that way.]

      • Welcome @Dooker

        Your rant tells us what you don’t like, fine, we are used to hearing what Liberals and Socialists don’t like. What we never hear from them is the WHY.

        Does the fact that Denmark is socialist justify the denial of freedom of speech?

        Think about why gun control measures have not passed, could it be that the USA is still a democracy?

        Did prisoners in Guantanamo live in better conditions than most ISIS prisoners of war (who tend to have a very short lifespan anyway)?

        This is a classic liberal website, I suggest that you do a bit of research to find out what a classic liberal is, you will then be able to understand your own ‘Liberalism’ a bit better.

        • To the Baron et al,

          I’d like to thank you for not banning me completely from commenting on this debate forum/comment section. It is usually the unanimous response from those who dislike my view points.

          As far as my supposed ad hominems? Saying I think someone is being a hypocrite and stating I think painting socialism as an inherent evil is wrong, constitutes a personal attack? Not sure how, but you’re the boss here, so I digress.

          First, Sderot,

          Isn’t everyone here “ranting”? I would say it’s unfair to use it as a pejorative in the context of debate. I would say that your prejudice against those identifying as liberals puts you in a sort of epistemic closure. Where those who aren’t in your echo chamber and their ideas, are always wrong and cannot be trusted. If one doesn’t go down the ledger and check off the appropriate boxes than they must believe and adhere to all of the ideas you despise. In short I’d be happy to tell you “WHY” I just need to know with respects to which question or topic. Regardless I’ll try, here it goes…

          In regards to socialism, I think you missed my point. Being a socialist country, having socialist aspects of a country, or even socialist leaning cultures, has nothing to do with the curtailing of free speech. Do you think Denmark prosecuted this man simply because it’s socialist? This phenomenon and it’s sway has nothing to do with socialism. It does have everything to do with the regressive left and how out of control their ilk has become, but conflating socialism with it just wreaks of an ulterior agenda.

          The United States not passing simple gun control measures is embarrassing. I live in new hampshire, I have plenty of guns and I’m not worried about Obama coming and taking them all, but I do support common sense gun control legislation. I used to work with a New York city cop, huge Italian guy, who told me the majority of the fire arms they seized were from weapons purchased and traced to gun shows. Seems like a smart move to make sure criminals, psychopaths, and even islamic terrorists, don’t have an easy go-to option for anonymous purchasing of firearms. This notion that the government is coming to take everyones guns is just nonsense. It’s never going to happen, we have the second amendment, but somehow President Obama attempting to accomplish some meaningful reform in the form of requiring background checks at gun shows is seen as him trying to take our guns? Will it stop mass shootings, nope. Will it stop suicides, nope. Will it stop all gang violence, nope. But there is a chance it could help lower murder rates via fire arms and if thats the case, why would we be against it? Again, this notion that “they” are coming to take our guns just has to stop. It’s been going on for a half century and it hasn’t happened because of exactly what you said, we have a democracy. Nobody is going to take our guns, so can’t the conspiracies and paranoia stop?

          With respects to Guantanamo, we don’t torture our prisoners….period. When we do, we lower ourselves and leave our own soldiers and citizens open to torture and suffering themselves. Regardless of what the enemy does, we do not torture, because it only gives the enemy incentive to do the same or worse upon us. You may not think the Geneva convention applies anymore, but that was and has always been the thinking, and it is wise to follow it.

          Liberalism is founded on the values of liberty and equality. I have never found those ideas hard to understand or grasp, no matter what NativeGladius thinks. Show me where I’m wrong and I will gladly debate it with you.

          • To the extent that liberals, progressives, socialists, and communists believe that government may regulate or subsidize matters beyond providing for the health, welfare, safety, and morals of the citizens of a country (the traditional concept of the police powers), they chart and have charted a course into very familiar modern lands where the legislature and chief executive vote for measures that force people to support or subsidize behavior they find distasteful or destructive.

            No one wants to hand over money to street thugs at gunpoint but millions believe that the same money extracted for a parasitic underclass (and arithmetic-challenged middle class morons enamored of Ponzi schemes and crony capitalists) by a vote of the legislature backed by the guns of the coercive tax apparatus is not the equivalent of street crime under the guise of representative government.

            Your belief in the benign nature of socialism is enabled by the enormous surpluses that Western economies generated after WWII and, though morally wrong, the exactions from citizens to fund the pipe dreams of the left were tolerable.

            The exactions, however, became intolerable as the economic engines of all Western countries began to slow down.

            That did not faze the socialists, however. The great Yiddish aphorism provides exactly the right lesson: “Send a fool to close a window and he’ll close them all over town.” Emboldened by the power handed to them by gullible, greedy, and immoral voters, Western governments proceeded to expand welfare benefits and, to disguise their true costs so as to avoid alienating their loyal constituencies. You can see the results in the charts in this post by one of my favorite authors. The economics of the Western nations floated off into the land of fairies and unicorns.

            Moreover, the great Andrei Sakharov warned that “Socialism is easy to sample but hard to spit out.” And so we have witnessed authoritarian government take hold with a vengeance in the U.S. and the West.

            Liberals and their regressive leftist allies ALL beaver away in the U.S. to insinuate the idea of “hate” speech into First Amendment jurisprudence. In the other socialists countries in Europe, not constrained by anything like our First Amendment, we see vicious, vindictive, outrageous prosecutions of citizens — comedians, activists, authors, pet owners, even the leaders of major political parties — preceded by, accompanied by, or followed by loss of employment, stripping of parliamentary immunity, attacking the livelihood of authors, bestowing of the status of “non-person,” petty police harassment, prison beatings, and/or the “unofficial” violence beloved of AntiFa scum.

            This has happened in these socialist countries: Sweden, Denmark, Norway, France, Britain, Germany, Greece, Austria, and Canada. It even happens in the U.S. as Peter Brimelow, Sam Francis, and John Derbyshire can or could attest.

            Pursuant to the window-closing fool idea, Western governments with all the oppressive powers they command (cloaked by illusory institutions of representative government) pursue the insanities of multiculturalism, diversity, and globalism. From the diseased mind of Mona Sahlin, one time leader of the Social Democratic Party of Sweden and possible prime minister of Sweden, came this statement: “I hate everything that is genuine, typical Swedish.” (See the comments of Bowman2062 for examples of the diseased thinking of German politicians.) These are not people interested in free speech. But they are mainstream.

            In the face of this, you ask people to make a distinction between the “regressive left” and “liberals.” This is ridiculous. What we see above is behavior that is part and parcel of the governing style of mainstream Western political parties.

            I have not encountered one liberal in my adult life in America who ever uttered on their own initiative the words “Constitution” or “free speech.” What matters to them is their narrow social justice agenda and nothing more, and their carefully nurtured view of the diseased nature of their own country. What I see among non-conservatives is a wholesale active abandonment of constitutional restraints and an attack on fundamental liberties . . . or indifference thereto.

            For example, every Democrat in Congress voted for Obamacare completely indifferent to the fact that “health care” is nowhere mentioned in Art. I, Sect. 8 of the Constitution. Were these people voted into office by the “regressive left”?

            With these points in mind, you choose to focus on “reasonable” gun control. Who can object, you ask, to something as reasonable as background checks at gun shows? Moreover, there is no effort to take away our guns. Oh, no. It’s “just” gun shows that need to be tightened up, it’s “just” “high-capacity” magazines that need to be banned, it’s “just” ammunition that needs to be tagged, it’s “just” training requirements for CC that need to be expanded, it’s “just” a simple essay for you to write to explain why you want to carry concealed, it’s “just” “assault weapons” that need to be banned, it’s “just” gun safes that have to be used, it’s “just” veterans who are in need of care who need to be flagged, it’s “just” people with depression who need to be flagged, it’s “just” gun manufacturers who need to be sued if Dequavious splatters someone’s brains on the sidewalks of Southside Chiraq, and it’s “just” an executive order about guns that asserts powers not contemplated by Art. I, Sect. 8 or Art. II.

            Murders are not caused by firearms but by people who want to kill others. France has strict gun control laws but they were ignored by Muslims who didn’t care about other French laws such as homicide, discharging weapons inside city limits, littering, and speeding. Liberals will never admit that gun control laws never . . . that’s never . . . prevent criminals from getting guns.

            Your policeman friend is wrong. “[O]nly 2 percent of criminal guns come from gun shows.” If you’re going to weigh in in the “debate” about gun control at least get your facts straight.

          • We clearly have differing viewpoints as to what constitutes Liberalism. Its not a matter of being interested in trying to prove you wrong or engaging in a debate with you. I would only build resistance.

            You’re clearly not stupid. Challenge your own opinions, keep an open mind, assess the information from sites such as Gates of Vienna, Dr Warners Political Islam etc.

          • Look at American campuses with their now self segregation based on some safe space idea posed by “liberals.” Look at the shout down of people who disagree on those campuses and the constant “self hate” and garbage espoused by “liberals.” America has gun checks, I know, I buy them. If you get one and dont get a background check the guy selling it is already breaking the law, so what would more laws do?” the modern liberal is not really liberal, but a progressive. They are divorced from many of the founding principles that gave them the so called rights they love (and love to limit). Examples. Church and state. It is clear to any who reads the original writings of what the [leftist-liberal] calls white raciest founders that we are not supposed to have a separation of prayer and belief from the state. With out the deep esoteric and spiritual beliefs of the founders you would not have the GOD given fundamental rights they gave you. The state simply cant impose one belief on others,. Exposing is not imposing yet the prog. will delcare religion must be regulated to the home or church and not protected in the public square. The prog says that to speak out about culture and history or to mention those things about others in a less then positive light regardless of fact is racist. Yet Islam is not a race, gays are not a race, Hispanic is not a race as many and in fact all are mixed some being white others brown etc. If you look you will notice a constant anti-national, anit-white, anti-religious, anti-cultural and yes anti-freedom trend in progressive language and policy. For instance, a black like myself is not black if they do not agree with liberal ideas. All whites are guilty of what was done 100s of years ago without understanding world history, leaving no basis for those learning to see historical trends and make smart deductions but only to look down upon their own “epic faults as people.” Case in point slavery. Im sick of hearing about it when the Muslims had a massive slave trade at the same time including enslaving whites. Yet muslims are what? Black..thats funny considering what their great nations had to say about Africans. If you are going to teach, teach the truth about everything. But liberals dont. If they did we would understand in a world a shi* at least two nations *(england and mainly America) the concept of Human Rights took root and spread. But no. That doesn’t matter since people then were not perfect. I could go on and on. Simply put Kennedy, FDR, Frederick Douglas, Malcolm X etc would die if they could see the vile means and agenda that “new Liberals” espouse. It is as old as time in its power mongering and as foolish as ever in its disdain for self and country.

          • It is most amusing to me to hear you complain of censorship. Try being called a Nazi, fascist, homophobe, loony, nut job, islamophobe, and all the other invective thrown at the right wing by our “unbiased” media, all for expressing an opinion. Here’s my response:

            1) Socialism What part of noting that throughout history this form of government has failed wherever it was attempted (or is in the process of failing), and has led in its most extreme forms to the most repressive governments in the history of the planet (I include the Nazis in this category as well as they are not a right wing phenomenon at all). It is unsustainable in the long run because it rewards failure at the expense of the successful. Heard of the Euro-debt? Yep, that’s called failure. Now you want to bring that here with the US running a 19 trillion dollar deficit, and ~100 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities. You are going to pay for this how again? Taxing the rich? This is most humorous! Sorry, not feeling the Bern.

            2) Gun Control In every discussion of gun control, all the liberals point to Japan or Australia as models, yet you say we are in no danger of confiscation? Where is your proof? You defeat your own argument by stating that modest measures don’t work. I agree. What is left for liberals is then to promote the above models after they fail. It’s called divide and conquer. Ask for moderate changes knowing full well they are useless, then cite the failures as arguments for more severe measures.

            No one on the left ever mentions Mexico as a model for working gun control laws, they have very restrictive laws, but horrific gun violence (I know, it’s all our fault). How has banning anything from cocaine to alcohol stopped its usage by the criminal class? All banning something does is create more criminals and criminal enterprises. We can now create a new class of criminal gun runner, thus, we increase crime, not decrease it. If the left were so worried about crime, why not go after the criminals instead? Nope, we need to attack a inanimate object that can harm someone, and the people we need to attack the most are the ones not misusing it (only the honest gun owner responds to laws). Are we to ban cars, propane tanks, gasoline? All can be used to inflict mass damage. I’m sure you have heard this all before, but somehow the total futility of proposing such laws has escaped you, so you are all too willing to trample the rights of the law abiding citizen to accomplish nothing and create a new criminal class. How noble of you! It’s about time you wake up and see through all the [bovine excreta] of the left. It’s about control of the population, the left does not care if some criminal kills you. Oh, and let’s be sure to lump suicides in with gun violence, that way we can skew the statistics even more. Never mind that Japan has a huge suicide rate, but very strict gun laws.

            3) Civil Rights: Who said anything about torture? I just want to know why they are so deserving of the best medical care money can buy? That’s a long way from torture. ISIS does not recognize the Geneva convention, and conventions only work if all parties involved are responsive to them. Ask my neighbor who served in the Marines during Guadalcanal in WWII about how much they cared about the Geneva convention. In a fight to the death all that goes out the window. How horrifying for you in your safe little, liberal New Hampshire conclave.

            Now, there a lot of questions above for you to answer, so get typing, as I really enjoy laughing at the irrational thoughts of the left.

          • Col. B bunny and a few others made so many assumptions, assertions, and conflations about my beliefs I don’t know where to begin and won’t. I’ll just supporting liberal principles in no way aligns me with what you precieve to the agenda of the regressive left. My belief in the value of certain aspects of socialism, in no way aligns me with the ideas of the regressive left. I don’t identify with any one body politic. In fact I think the assertions the bunny made about me simply because I hold those two beliefs among many others, is part of the problem that stifles any constructive debate. To quote obi wan kenobi: “only the sith deal in absolutes”

  2. It doesn’t matter they can see it all around them, what will they do about it?
    Is the wilding at the train station a start? I hope so
    BTW,who knows who those people were that came into the train station,,,
    They had balaclavas on. . Were they “far right extremest soccer hooligans”or were they the fathers and brothers of women that can no longer walk to a train without an ecsourt.

    • Babs, the attacks at the train station were in Sweden. Mogens Camre is in Denmark.

      I haven’t seen any reports from Denmark like the ones from Sweden, not yet.

  3. I don’t see this situation getting any better as leftist political factions begin to have the heat ramped up against them by conditions on the ground. If anything we are just going to see more persecution of anyone who dissents against neo-Marxist (modern leftist) orthodoxy.

    Europe has done the equivalent of eating a salad of field greens containing toxic leaves, all because they bought into the idea that “all green leaves are equally nutritious and healthy for you”.

    • In the current climate in Europe ramping up conditions against citizens acting against our invaders will only create more fierce resistance.

      • European citizens better hurry up and stand up against these invaders since their neo-Marxist leaders are pushing for shiria law and total control. Since criticism or even self defense is outlawed and prosecuted in England, Holland, Germany, etc seems they have already installed a form of shiria law in increments and will only get worse. Talk or news of any deportations will cause an uprising and out of control mayhem. Police and other authorities will run and hide. Europe is just about over and done, not much time left.

  4. There is an obvious solution: just quote verbatim, with attribution, from the Qur’an and ahadith. Points about the motivation and culture of Muslims will be exposed, and judges would be loath to label Qur’an and ahadith hate speech.

    • Wilders did this in Holland and got aquitted, unfortunately, judges often try to treat the koran the way that the established churches treat the bible; as ‘flexible’ and out dated, they do not understand koranic concpts like Dar al salaam/harb and do not understand abrogation. They believe that all cultures are equal so they WANT to see Islam as a religion of peace and of nice people, and in so doing they willinglygloss over the finer, more violent, points, especially when those points are presented by ‘white supremacists’.

      ‘Justice’ is not about truth, it is about maintaining a status quo in favour of the elite.

        • Not being acquitted cast the judiciary and legal system in Austria in the worst possible way. Welcome to Totalitarian Austria – and sets the stage for justified resistance to Islam.

        • You have been clearly a victim of justice. But the situation will improve. Just wait when the FPÖ is in charge. HC will clean the courts from this leftwing filth judges with his iron fist.

  5. Mogens Camre is a brave man. His speech to the so called high court should be widely shared, and he should NEVER pay that disgusting fine. Danes no doubt are proud of him as they should be.

  6. This is why I wrote my allegorical short story “The Alienork Way.”
    We are coming to the point where we will have to speak in code to speak honestly.
    The next test will come when even the use of the word Ork to describe a member of a certain unnamable barbaric supremacist death cult will be outlawed.

    • The same happened in both Libya and Iraq: we never used the dictators’ names. We always used code words. In the case of Saddam Hussein, it was Karl-Heinz.

      As a matter of fact, I’ve used code words all my life, though even more so in recent years.

      How sad that we’ve sunk so low as to speak in code language in a supposedly free country.

  7. At least we have the First Amendment, but I know some Islamist and commie Leftist want to take that away and turn criticism of Islam no matter how true into hate speech. Could I one day be arrested and prosecuted for my past and future articles about Islam? Whether you are a writer or not we must all be concerned. The traitorous House Dems already attempted to pass such a draconian Bill. Thank God they failed or for at least now.

    • This decision is easily appealable. In Danish law. Muslims are a race because of Islam. Therefore Islam is a racial ideology, a supremacist one, and an ideology of racial apartheid aimed at dominating everyone of non-Muslim race.

  8. Eventually there will be an underground resistance movement initiated by patriots and disaffected military officers who are already angry. It seems the ruling elites don’t give a damn about their citizens and therefore, they are digging their own graves.

  9. We Europeans do not have freedom of speech, nor do we have even reasonable democratic representation, we are not all treated equally under law, nor do we even have the fundamental right to physically defend ourselves from criminals or tyrannical governments.

    This is directly related to the existential threat we face from ever increasing Islam. Even if we cease and reverse Islamic immigration we would only have dealt with a symptom, not an underlying cause.

    • The solution is for europe countries to dump NATO and EU to stop them from consolidating power.

      • European nations benefit from working together when it is in our common interests but respecting our differences also.

  10. Socialists are sleeping with globalists again to destabilize and depopulate the world. Do not forget that Hitler is a socialist.

  11. I would be interested to know if any Muslim Imams in Denmark have been prosecuted , under the same legislation, for hate speeches in their mosques or are they, as in other European countries, especially in the UK, seemingly above the law?

    • And why is this? It can only be because the establishment fears a Muslim response and the concomitant further undermining of the establishment’s world view.

  12. What if EVERYBODY in Denmark seized on various (NEVER the same ones, please) bits of ‘their book’ and charged ’em with “hate speech”? Not all at once, please–just over a period of weeks and months and essentially overwhelm the system?
    Make a good case for banning ‘the book’ as part (and essential part) of the “hate”. That one is a no-brainer.
    Do it all over the country, but especially in the smaller towns and cities where the courts are more likely to be responsive to the citizens.
    I’m sure that a creative use of defamation law could be used against those who instigated the suit against Camre as well–especially if the right venue was chosen.
    The term is “pushback”!!
    Get organized.

  13. What those leftists don’t understand is where this is leading. As their positions on Islamism depart further and further from reality, the only option left to people who value their freedom will be violence. That leads to a very messy war in the streets of all major cities in Western Europe.
    Acknowledge the truth about Islam now, and that horrible future can be avoided.

  14. Processes are not rare in Europe – forgive my disagreement! Europe already processed based on the person’s opinion. I will cite just one example: homosexual behavior; if you make a criticism of homosexuality, or sexual lifestyle or the promotion and practice teaching in academic institutions, or if you post any comments in public forum, or even on social networks earns him process, and even imprisonment . Baron, I believe that what is new, it’s just a process critical to Islam! I follow the Christian Concern and the Christian Institute, and well before you sue someone for speaking of Islam, already processed who speak evil of homosexual behavior or the homosexual lobby in educational institutions.

    Political correctness was only noticed because Islam’s problem is much more poignant. The OSCE itself attests to what I’m saying.

Comments are closed.