WELCOME
Mehwish Aleem
The Official Apology
One among many letters
This is why the danes fight
DDF in american newspaper
The Western World has been caught with its pants down
All European life died in Auschwitz
Don't go to stores that boycott Danish products
Cartoon crisis: was it for good or bad
The Cartoon Crisis: Anger on Demand
Collapse of the idea of a moderate Muslim majority in Denmark
Face of Muhammed Press Release
Face of Muhammed Decision
Are We ready for confrontation

                                                                                                             RIGSADVOKATEN

Press Release                                                                      FREDERIKSHOLMS KANAL 16

                                                                                                         1220 KØBENHAVN K

15 March 2006

                                                                               TELEFON 33 12 72 00 FAX 33 43 67 10

The Decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions in the case of Jyllands-Posten's Article "The Face of Muhammed"

I have today decided not to institute criminal proceedings in the case of Jyllands-Posten's article "The Face of Muhammed", which was published on 30 September 2005 and where complaints were filed against Jyllands-Posten for violation of Sections 140 and 266 b of the Danish Criminal Code.

My decision is that there is no violation of the said rules of the Danish Criminal Code. My decision is published on the homepage of the Director of Public Prosecutions (www.rigsadvokaten.dk).

Although there is no basis for instituting criminal proceedings in this case, it should be noted that both provisions of the Danish Criminal Code contain a restriction of the freedom of expression. Section 140 of the Criminal Code protects religious feelings against mockery and scorn and Section 266 b protects groups of persons against scorn and degradation on account of their religion among other things. To the extent publicly made expressions fall within the scope of these rules there is, therefore, no free and


unrestricted right to express opinions about religious subjects. It is thus not a correct description of existing law when the article in Jyllands-Posten states that it is incompatible with the right to freedom of expression to demand special consideration for religious feelings and one has to be ready to put up with “scorn, mockery and ridicule”.

My decision in the matter cannot be appealed to a higher RIGSADVOKATEN

administrative authority. This follows from Section 99(3) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.                                                                                                    

Henning Fode