Free speech dies in Denmark

Lars Hedegaard, President of the Danish Free Press Society and The International Free Press Society, was found guilty of hate speech under the Danish penal code. His crime was to draw attention to child abuse and violence against women in Muslim culture. The day after the interview, he stressed that his opinions were about Islam and not intended to refer to all Muslims.
The trial was a show trial in which Hedegaard was unable to mount a defence, because under the Orwellian rules of the Danish legal system he was in effect convicted before his trial even took place.
Where are the western feminists and defenders of free speech now?

Read more at Spectator


"Of course I made clear that I was not talking about every Muslim man in the country or in the world. By the way, I was not talking specifically about conditions in Denmark," Hedegaard explained.
Hedegaard said it's a fact that can be backed up by hard evidence. But in Denmark, that doesn't matter.
Under Denmark's hate speech law, it doesn't matter if what you said was true. It doesn't matter if it is factual - if it offends someone, you could be charged.

From CBN

The Resilience of the Commoners

Lars Hedegaards's article Country Report on Islamization: Denmark, presented in Brussels in 2007, is visionary, practical and self standing, is just like an action plan , one of the best...
He supports the idea of resistance, the idea of a large coalition of people and countries to preserve liberty.

1. We must define who is the "we" which the umma is trying to subjugate and which must therefore defend itself. This we must know to be able to identify our potential allies.
Clearly we cannot be defined as "white", "Europeans", "Westerners", "Christian", "people of Greco-Roman or Judeo-Christian background" or the like. People fitting these descriptions are certainly prominent in our ranks, but then we have many other friends who do not match these labels.
The common characteristic of all those who have refused to accept the yoke of islam is precisely that they are determined to preserve our freedom or regain it if it has been lost. Little more can be said of them as a collective.

2. In the likely event that parts of Europe – and probably parts of other Western countries such as the U.S., Canada and Australia – will be lost to parallel societies outside of our political and judicial control – at least temporarily – we need to define achievable objectives for our defensive strategy.
It is clearly not enough for the voters in the democratic countries to elect new governments even if they promise to stem the inundation by umma-members or to resist the islamisation of our countries. Many of our institutions have already been undermined to a degree where they have effectively been turned into bastions of our enemies, and there is little any government, however well-intentioned it may be, can
do to counteract this pernicious influence in the absence of independent and determined popular resistance.

3. We need to develop a strategy that may allow us to achieve our objectives. This means that we must develop a comprehensive and deep strategy equal to that of islam. This strategy must take into account that some of our public and private institutions may opt to side with our enemies unless we force them to side with us.
A successful defensive strategy may necessitate the creation of parallel institutions under our control accompanied by civil disobedience vis-à-vis the official, dhimmified ones – which it a classical occurrence in occupied countries.

Read the complete report (PDF)