An internal email from three mps about a well-known debater, was three years ago for a public affair, which was talked about, that they should have committed a karaktermord.
Now, the Eastern high Court to determine whether the three has overstepped the bounds and should be punished for defamation.
The private criminal case is raised by Sherin Khankan, a sociologist of religion, an imam and director of the Exitcirklen. She was the target of an email message, as Naser Khader (C), Marcus Knuth (K), Martin Henriksen (DF) in 2017 sent to other udlændingeordførere.
the Trio tried to convince their colleagues from other parties, to Exitcirklen should not have 680.000 million from the rate adjustment pool to work with honour-related conflicts. This had been recommended by the relevant authority.
In the email stated, among other things, that Sherin Khankan 'in 2011, the defense piskeslagsstraffen for adultery'. This refuses she.
The subsequent public debate unfolded also on Facebook. Here wrote Naser Khader on Khankans 'black islamist past'.
Monday will the parties sit face to face in a court room on Fremtidsvej in Søborg. Because of the fundamental significance of the Copenhagen city Court pushed upwards in the system to three landsdommere in The high Court.
Among other things, they must look at a provision in the Constitution. Here it says that mps can not be held responsible for their statements in the Parliament without claiming consent. The email can be assimilated to an utterance, and therefore the court should dismiss the case, believes the defendant's lawyers.
Furthermore, policy-makers an expanded freedom of expression, points out the so-called påstandsdokumenter.
Here one can also read that Naser Its lawyer turns on, that 'islamist' is not to be understood as a supporter of an islamic state, but as a muslim with fundamentalist positions.
However, Sherin Khankan, that the three not only assessments, but has raised the actual allegations against her in order to go in for lashes, which corresponds to the brutal violence. Her reputation was damaged, just like her personal security was put at risk, it sounds.
the Lawsuit is actually an attempt to protect freedom of expression, states in her lawyer's pleading. It should not be accepted, that politicians take advantage of their special position to personangreb and thereby discourages others from engaging in the public debate, he believes. The requirement is 10,000 dollars.