Danish-Iranian artist convicted of racism for "Islamophobia"

[Spekio]

Firoozeh Bazrafkan was found guilty of racism after writing in her blog that Muslim men use Islam to justify violence against women
A Danish-Iranian artist was found guilty of racism by the Western High Court on Monday for statements she made about Muslim men.

Firoozeh Bazrafkan was charged with racism after writing in a blog entry, published in Jyllands-Posten newspaper in December 2011, that she was "very convinced that Muslim men around the world rape, abuse and kill their daughters".

She added: "This is, according to my understanding as a Danish-Iranian, the result of 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 Koran, is more immoral, deplorable and crazy than manuals of the two other global religions combined."

READ THE FULL INTERVIEW WITH FIROOZEH BAZRAFKAN HERE

Appeal to the Supreme Court
Aarhus City Court decided not to convict Bazrafkan under anti-racism legislation, section 266b of the penal code, last December.

The prosecution appealed the decision to the Western High Court, which on Monday found her guilty, handing her a 5,000 kroner fine, or five days in prison.

"The court argued that what I wrote about Muslim men was condescending and a generalisation," Bazrafkan told The Copenhagen Post. "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."

A chain of racist statements
Bazrafkan’s racism sentence is the fourth in a chain of statements that have resulted in charges under the anti-racism law.

The first was Lars Hedegaard, the leader of the free press society Trykkefrihedsselskabet, 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 publicised.

READ MORE: Hedegaard lashes out following failed assassination attempt

Jesper Langballe, a former MP for Dansk Folkeparti, was subsequently charged and convicted of racism because of statements he made when defending Hedegaard in an opinion piece in Berlingske newspaper.

Lars Kragh Andersen, a notorious free speech activist, was the third to be charged with racism after writing in an article on 180grader.dk that he was, “convinced that Muslim men around the world both abuse and killed their daughters”.

It was this passage that Bazrafkan repeated and which resulted in her being charged with racism.

A controversial artist
Bazrafkan – a controversial artist known for integrating her Muslim background into her work – says that her adaptation and use of Andersen's text was a “political happening” that was designed to expose the problem with the racism law.

She argues that she was not accusing all Muslim men of using Islamic codes to justify horrific acts against women, only that violence against women and children was often excused by citing Islam.

"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."

High Court unconvinced
The verdict was decided by a panel of three judges and three jurors. Five of the six decided that section 266b of the penal code applied, as her message in the blog was that Muslim men in general commit severe crime.

“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," the Western High Court stated in its verdict. "We therefore find the defendant guilty."

Bazrafkan said she would rather spend the time in prison than pay the fine, and that she was prepared to take the case to the Supreme Court.

Source

So, In light of previous discussion about criticizing Islam, I believed this is relevant. Stating facts cannot and should not be considered racism.

[Patroklos]

when did muslim become a race?

There is definetly some craptastic comments from her outside stating the obvious about violence against women, delaring the wellspring of much of modern mathematics and medicine not a culture ("if you can even call it a culture") particularly daft. Sure they may not be at the top of their game right now, but they are one in the same and that should teach us something. Still not racism.

[Simon_Jester]

This is particularly sticky because in a real sense, it acts to silence an oppressed group (Islamic women) from admitting that there is a problem.

[Batman]

when did muslim become a race?
There is definetly some craptastic comments from her outside stating the obvious about violence against women, declaring the wellspring of much of modern mathematics and medicine not a culture ("if you can even call it a culture") particularly daft. Sure they may not be at the top of their game right now, but they are one in the same and that should teach us something. Still not racism.

Muslim/Islam isn't a culture any more than it is a race. It's a religion. And I'm very much afraid that she's got a pretty solid point about how a lot of the cultures which are currently...majorly influenced by that religion have a pretty shitty track record where the treatment of women is concerned.

Not that whether or not the lady is right is in any way relevant-unless danish law seriously redefined the term 'racism', even full fledged raving about how all muslim men are rapists who abuse their wives and daughters would not qualify (hate speech, probably, racism, no.)

[Grumman]

Hate speech laws suck. Even if you want to criminalise speech about groups defined by who their parents are (race), it is inexcusable to give the same protection to groups defined by what they think and what they do. People should be judged by what they think and what they do. If you think that anyone leaving your group should be murdered, you are a horrible person. Nothing changes if your group is called "Islam" and you call leaving "apostasy".

[Batman]

Funny. And here I thought that's exactly what hate speech laws DO (or are intended to at any rate). You know, the whole 'you either join us or will be killed, nevermind what we will do to your women' definitely qualifying as hate speech regardless of religion? Unless hate speech laws make a special exception if Muslims say it?

[Cycloneman]

Funny. And here I thought that's exactly what hate speech laws DO (or are intended to at any rate). You know, the whole 'you either join us or will be killed, nevermind what we will do to your women' definitely qualifying as hate speech regardless of religion? Unless hate speech laws make a special exception if Muslims say it?

I think his point is that beliefs can be horrible and it shouldn't be considered "hate speech" to call them such. To put it another way, "religion" - a voluntary set of beliefs and behavior which can have a severe negative effect on social cohesion - should never be protected under hate speech laws. I agree. Beliefs should never be free from criticism.

[hongi]

when did muslim become a race?

When did white and black become a race?

Race is a social phenomenon. If white can become a race through social construction from the 16th century onwards, then I see no reason why Muslim cannot be made into a race.

[Grumman]

Unless hate speech laws make a special exception if Muslims say it?

Yes, they do. While I haven't conducted a survey of every hate speech law in the world, the ones I'm familiar with explicitly grant religious actions protection unavailable to comparable secular actions.

when did muslim become a race?

When did white and black become a race?

Race is a social phenomenon. If white can become a race through social construction from the 16th century onwards, then I see no reason why Muslim cannot be made into a race.

A person's race - though an artificial categorisation - is a descriptor of their physical attributes. An African-American is still an African-American whether he's working at Walmart or sipping tea between games of croquet, and it does him a disservice to make assumptions one way or the other. This is not comparable to labels like "Muslim", "Democrat" or "lesbian", which are descriptors of how an individual thinks and/or acts, and not purely a descriptor of physical attributes.

[hongi]

A person's race - though an artificial categorisation - is a descriptor of their physical attributes. An African-American is still an African-American whether he's working at Walmart or sipping tea between games of croquet, and it does him a disservice to make assumptions one way or the other. This is not comparable to labels like "Muslim", "Democrat" or "lesbian", which are descriptors of how an individual thinks and/or acts, and not purely a descriptor of physical attributes.

Race has never been a purely biological concept. Categorising the Jews as a race involves as much of their religious and cultural characteristics as their physical ones. A Jew who is indistinguishable physically from an Anglo dude was and is still considered to be non-white by white supremacists.

[Carinthium]

The people who actually claim that a Jewish race exist would disagree with you- they tend to claim that it really is based on ancestry. They are mistaken as a matter of fact, but we must remember what their actual criterion are.

[eyl]

That's only partly correct, as you can join the Jewish "race" through conversion.

[Carinthium]

I'm looking at this not through the perspective of the Jews, but anti-Jewish racists. Said racists do not think things through, but judging from their claims that the modern Jews are not proper Jews (look up some of their websites) I think it flies fairly well.

[Irbis]

A person's race - though an artificial categorisation - is a descriptor of their physical attributes. An African-American is still an African-American whether he's working at Walmart or sipping tea between games of croquet, and it does him a disservice to make assumptions one way or the other. This is not comparable to labels like "Muslim", "Democrat" or "lesbian", which are descriptors of how an individual thinks and/or acts, and not purely a descriptor of physical attributes.

...

So, you think being lesbian is just way of thinking, and can be dropped like Muslim becoming atheist or Democrat becoming a Republican? Did I get this right?

[Simon_Jester]

Irbis, I don't think that follows from what Grumman is saying. "Lesbian" is a description of how a woman acts, and one which they don't carry around like a sign taped to their chest all the time. If it refers to any physical attribute of a woman, it's an invisible attribute that cannot normally be observed.

When I see an African-American I always know they are African-American. When I see a lesbian, I usually do not know she is a lesbian.

[Grumman]

A person's race - though an artificial categorisation - is a descriptor of their physical attributes. An African-American is still an African-American whether he's working at Walmart or sipping tea between games of croquet, and it does him a disservice to make assumptions one way or the other. This is not comparable to labels like "Muslim", "Democrat" or "lesbian", which are descriptors of how an individual thinks and/or acts, and not purely a descriptor of physical attributes.

...

So, you think being lesbian is just way of thinking, and can be dropped like Muslim becoming atheist or Democrat becoming a Republican? Did I get this right?

I think you just went off the deep end.

So, you think being lesbian is just way of thinking,...

Being a lesbian means three things, and three things only: that you are a woman (a physical attribute), that you are romantically and/or sexually attracted to women (how you think) and that you are not romantically and/or sexually attracted to men (how you think).

...and can be dropped like Muslim becoming atheist or Democrat becoming a Republican?

I did not even mention the possibility of this descriptor no longer applying in the future. That said, I don't think it is such a scandalous suggestion that a person's preferences might change over time.

[Irbis]

When I see an African-American I always know they are African-American. When I see a lesbian, I usually do not know she is a lesbian.

So, according to you, a man who lived in African-American family his entire life and identifies himself as African-American isn't allowed to call himself one if for some reason, say genetic quirk or genes from ancestor a few generations back, happens to have very light skin? Because you can't identify him as such at first glance?

No, both African-Americans and homosexuals are groups that have inherent, inborn identifiable traits making them what they are, it's not "just decision" unlike what ignorant people might say. Belittling one group just because you can't be bothered to learn anything about it or identify its members (who did NOT decide to become a part of the group) is IMHO despicable.

I think you just went off the deep end.

No, you did, with colossally idiotic argument.

Being a lesbian means three things, and three things only: that you are a woman (a physical attribute), that you are romantically and/or sexually attracted to women (how you think) and that you are not romantically and/or sexually attracted to men (how you think).

No, you ignoramus, there are concrete physiological differences between homo- and heterosexual people, going way deeper (like differences in brain structure) than superficial traits like skin colour. You're being as idiotic as someone claiming can of black paint is enough to make someone an African-American.

I did not even mention the possibility of this descriptor no longer applying in the future.

No, you only categorized it with several very weak descriptors that can be changed at will. Just like all the "non-racists" who try to smuggle derogatory terms next to several normal traits in order to appear reasonable.

That said, I don't think it is such a scandalous suggestion that a person's preferences might change over time.

So, you're basically pro what gay-conversion assholes are doing. Good to know, asshat.

[Grumman]

That said, I don't think it is such a scandalous suggestion that a person's preferences might change over time.

So, you're basically pro what gay-conversion assholes are doing. Good to know, asshat.

A person's sexuality might drift over time, but this does not mean that it is possible or ethical to try to force this to happen. If you weren't so set on working yourself up into a lather this would be obvious.

[amigocabal]

when did muslim become a race?
There is definetly some craptastic comments from her outside stating the obvious about violence against women, declaring the wellspring of much of modern mathematics and medicine not a culture ("if you can even call it a culture") particularly daft. Sure they may not be at the top of their game right now, but they are one in the same and that should teach us something. Still not racism.

Muslim/Islam isn't a culture any more than it is a race. It's a religion. And I'm very much afraid that she's got a pretty solid point about how a lot of the cultures which are currently...majorly influenced by that religion have a pretty shitty track record where the treatment of women is concerned.

Not that whether or not the lady is right is in any way relevant-unless danish law seriously redefined the term 'racism', even full fledged raving about how all muslim men are rapists who abuse their wives and daughters would not qualify (hate speech, probably, racism, no.)

Under Danish law, criticizing the Westboro Baptist Church would be racist hate speech.

[Batman]

Then I can only conclude danish law works in mysterious ways. But then, a lot of law the world over seems to.

[amigocabal]

When I see an African-American I always know they are African-American. When I see a lesbian, I usually do not know she is a lesbian.

So, according to you, a man who lived in African-American family his entire life and identifies himself as African-American isn't allowed to call himself one if for some reason, say genetic quirk or genes from ancestor a few generations back, happens to have very light skin? Because you can't identify him as such at first glance?

No, both African-Americans and homosexuals are groups that have inherent, inborn identifiable traits making them what they are, it's not "just decision" unlike what ignorant people might say. Belittling one group just because you can't be bothered to learn anything about it or identify its members (who did NOT decide to become a part of the group) is IMHO despicable.

I think you just went off the deep end.

No, you did, with colossally idiotic argument.

Being a lesbian means three things, and three things only: that you are a woman (a physical attribute), that you are romantically and/or sexually attracted to women (how you think) and that you are not romantically and/or sexually attracted to men (how you think).

No, you ignoramus, there are concrete physiological differences between homo- and heterosexual people, going way deeper (like differences in brain structure) than superficial traits like skin colour. You're being as idiotic as someone claiming can of black paint is enough to make someone an African-American.

Physiology may play a role, but there is evidence that it is not set on stone. Mrs. Bill DeBlasio can tell you about it.

(I do not suggest that Mrs. DeBlasio changed solely to a single choice, or it happened instantly in a single day.)

[Ralin]

Anecdotal, but from what I've read and been told it seems fairly common for transgendered people to find their orientations shifting during and after transitioning. To give another example.

[amigocabal]

Anecdotal, but from what I've read and been told it seems fairly common for transgendered people to find their orientations shifting during and after transitioning. To give another example.

There is a lot about this subject that is fluid, to say the least.

Imagine the complications experienced by people with chromosomal abnormalities like Swyer, Klinefelter, and De La Chapelle.