[2] The racism paragraph appears in chapter 27 (violations of peace and honour) of the penal code: Whoever publicly, or with intent to distribute in a wider circle, presents a proclamation or some other message by which a group of persons is threatened, mocked or degraded because of its race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation, is to be punished with fine or prison up to 2 years.
:[3] § 266 b. Whoever, by spreading false rumours or accusations, persecutes or incites hatred against a group of the Danish population because of its faith, heritage or status of national citizenship, is punished with jail or, under extenuating circumstances, with a fine.
If the rumours or accusations have been put forth in printed writing, or by other means by which they have reached a larger circle, the punishment is jail, or under aggravating circumstances, prison up to 1 year.The wording was changed in 1971, by the incorporation of the UN convention on racial discrimination.
Søren Krarup (who would become MP for DF) also opposed the law in general, and specifically the usage of the "vulgar Darwinistic and purely biological" concept of race.
[8]The national attorney further writes: The liability [of the statement] does not depend on whether the group in question has in actuality felt threatened, mocked or degraded.
In a commented edition of the particular part of the penal code, Vagn Greve explains that[9] It is assumed that certain utterings or drawings may seem degrading, even though they are not mocking.
(...) There exists a particularly extensive freedom of expression for politicians on controversial societal matters, but this limit can also be crossed.Mogens Glistrup, founder of Fremskridtspartiet, has been convicted of hate speech thrice.
The Supreme Court sentenced him to seven days of suspended prison for aggravated racist statements on TV in 1997, where he referred to Muslims as "criminals of the world" who wanted to subject the Danes to "castration and murder", and stated that "anyone who has studied Mohamedanism knows that they are only here to ingratiate themselves until they are strong enough to execute us".
In 2003, he was sentenced to 20 days of unsuspended prison for, in the context of his reentry into Fremskridtspartiet, having said, among other things, that "Mohamedans should be round up, gathered in camps and sold to the highest bidder".
Finally, in October 2004, he was sentenced to 30 days suspended prison at Østre Landsret for statements made at a caucus and in a TV program in 2001.
[10] In October 2002, Morten Messerschmidt, Kenneth Kristensen Berth and two other former board members from Dansk Folkeparties Ungdom were sentenced to 7 days' suspended prison violating subsection 1 of § 266.
The offending uttering was a 2001 advertisement[11] in Studiemagasinet, with the text: "Mass rape, aggravated violence, insecurity, forced marriages, oppression of women, gang crime.
An extract of the comments from the court follows: (...) [T]he message is sent that an identification may be made between faith in the Quran on one hand and mass rape, aggravated violence, insecurity, forced marriages, oppression of women and gang crime on the other.
The ad and poster hereby present a population group for hatred due to its faith and origin, and the message is highly mocking and degrading to people of Muslim observance.The two editors of the magazine were each sentenced to five fines of each 500 DKK.
[15] In 2001, Landsforeningen for bøsser og lesbiske reported Bruno Hollendsted, a parliamentary candidate from Kristeligt Folkeparti, for having said: "homosexuality is an abnormal sexual malformation related to pedophilia and necrophilia.
[25][26][27] On 18 August 2015, Mogens Camre was sentenced to ten fines of 800 DKK in a 2–1 decision for having tweeted, on 24 July 2014, "On the situation of the Jews in Europe: The Muslims continue where Hitler ended.
reported that the defense attempted to "document that academic discussions have taken place over many years in Danish and foreign universities about the levels of intelligence of different countries",[36] and to give the impression that "it must be considered fully legal to debate these issues politically".