It is not every day, three politicians represent the scene in a civil action. But it is now once the reality of which meetings one-on Fremtidsvej in Denmark, Naser Khader (K), Martin Henriksen (DF) and Marcus Knuth (K) is sued by Sherin Khankan of the libelous allegations.
In an email to three folketingskolleger warned the three politicians, namely from paying scheme to Khankans organization Exitcirklen, because Khankan, according to them, was a 'controversial figure', that would not take distance from the piskeslagsstraf and sharia law.
There is expected a conviction 23. June, but already during today's hour-long hearing was the tone further tip between the actors.
Poul Hauch Fenger, who is a lawyer for Sherin Khankan, argued that the statements from the mail, which was restored to the press afterwards, have the character of outright abuse of power. He referred to the fact that politicians bear a special responsibility to make accusations directed against civilians. Especially if these can harm ordinary citizens ' reputation and professional work.
- Allegations are made in bad faith, and therefore politicians cannot hide behind their expanded freedom of expression, said Poul Hauch Fenger and added that the case carries the stamp of being 'pure populism'.
He pointed further that the defamatory statements are rooted in the personal conflict between Naser Khader and Sherin Khankan. The two have previously formed pair.
Sherin Khankan has in the past during the interrogation explained that she has lost fondspenge as a consequence of all the controversy that was created in the wake of the leaked email.
But according to Marcus Knuth was the mail 'completely within the dial'.
- It is a part of my work in the Parliament, we are discussing things. People who advocate sharia should not be part of the Danish taxpayers ' money, said Marcus Knuth, today, Tuesday, issued statements by the parties in the crowded court room.
Almost the same wording came from both Khader and Henriksen, when they had to tell about that email that was sent 30. september 2017 and later leaked to the Telegraph.
- When I have the opinions I have, and I am bound constitutionally out from them, I can't sit and say that public funds should go to Sherin Khankan. It is madness. I am islamkritiker, told Martin Henriksen in connection with the first hearing.
- It may well be that some politicians operate with the arm's length principle. But it will so to say be similar to that of man, as a politician, disclaims responsibility, he clarified.
Naser Khader, who in his time wrote the email, then the software controlling its explanation on both Facebook and to the press that Sherin Khankan is 'islamist'.
Whether he and his colleagues should be fine for the opinions, much depends on whether the high court freder politicians or not.
The three politicians, a namely, as mps protected by parliamentary immunity of the basic law, article 57 and can therefore not be prosecuted or punished. But the Parliament can go in and waive immunity, if a majority want it.
- To this case at all is reaching this point, is a mystery to me, it sounded from Klaus Ewald, who is a lawyer for Martin Henriksen.
- You try to give the three politicians gagged. Therefore, I can not see anything else, than that the high court gave judgment in favour of them, since they do not have traded cross-border, but rather cared for their work.
TV - 23. mar. 2019 - at. 19:16 of her best companions as children - enemies as adults