|
The Committee on
the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, established under article 8 of the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination,
Meeting on 8 August 2007
Adopts the following:
Opinion
1.1 The petitioner is Mr. P. S. N., a Danish citizen born on 11 October 1969
in Pakistan, now residing in Denmark, and a practising Muslim. He alleges a
violation by Denmark [FN1] of articles 2, paragraph 1(d), 4 and 6 of the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. He is
represented by counsel, Miss Line Bøgsted of the Documentary and Advisory
Centre on Racial Discrimination (DACoRD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN1] The Convention was ratified by Denmark on 9 December 1971, and the
declaration under article 14 made on 11 October 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.2 In conformity with article 14, paragraph 6 (a), of the Convention, the
Committee transmitted the communication to the State party on 23 June 2006.
Factual Background:
2.1 In view of the elections of 15 November 2005, Ms. Louise Frevert, Member
of Parliament for the Danish People's Party, published on her website
statements against immigration and Muslims, under the headline "articles no
one dares to publish". These included statements relating to Muslims, such
as: "...because they think that we are the ones that should submit to Islam,
and they are confirmed in this belief by their preachers and leaders. (...)
Whatever happens, they believe that they have a right to rape Danish girls
and knock down Danish citizens."
2.2 In the same text, Ms. Frevert mentioned the possibility of deporting
young immigrants to Russian prisons, and added:
"Even this solution is a rather short-term one, however, because when they
return again, they will just be even more determined to kill Danes" [FN2].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN2] The State party provides the context of this statement, by quoting the
article: "(...) The law that Islam lays down as the only true law is the law
construed on the basis of the words of the Koran and as preached by their
preachers during prayers - and the boys have never in their short lives
heard any other interpretation. This is the only truth that they know, so no
Danish official will ever get a chance of influencing these boys into
another direction. As seen by Danish eyes, they are lost to society!
The Danish laws cannot handle these "misguided" young people at all, because
they think we are the ones that should submit to Islam, and they are
confirmed in this belief every day by their preachers and leaders. The fact
that they were born in Denmark and speak Danish does not alter their
fundamental attitude - whatever happens, they believe that they have a right
to rape Danish girls and cut down Danish citizens indiscriminately. If they
are caught and sentenced according to Danish law, it inspires them merely
with scorn and contempt - they will just become real martyrs and heroes
among their own people, for they have proved that they are the holy warriors
who will one day take over the leadership of the ungodly underlings, the
Danes.
So where is the way forward for Denmark?
We have to consider these young people our opponents at war and not just as
disturbed young Danish boys of Muslim background, and opponents at war must
be caught and rendered harmless. Our laws forbid us to kill our opponents
officially so we only have the option of filling our prisons with these
criminals.
This is an extremely costly solution, and as they will never repent of their
acts, they will quickly gain control of the prisons in the same way the
outlaw bikers do today. We probably have to think along other lines and, for
example, accept a Russian offer of keeping the petty criminals in Russian
prisons for DKK 25 per day - that is far cheaper, and their possibilities of
influencing their surroundings will be eliminated. Even this solution is a
rather short-term one, however, because when they return again, they will
just be even more determined to kill Danes.
(...)"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another article on the website stated that:
"We can spend billions of Kroner and hours in trying to integrate Muslims
into the country, but the result will be what the doctor observes. The
cancer spreads without hindrance while we are talking."
2.3 Several of these statements were previously published in a book by Ms.
Frevert, under the title "In short - a political statement". In this book,
other statements against Muslims read:
"We are hit by our own 'human rights' laws and have to see our culture and
governmental system yield to a superior force building on 1000 years of
dictatorship, a clerical rule" (page 36).
"The march of events is certainly true. It can be measured. But the Muslim
means of achieving the goal of the ongoing third holy war (third Jihad) are
secret" (page 37).
2.4 Ms. Frevert later withdrew some of the material from the webpage as a
result of the public debate generated by her statements. However, on 30
September 2005, in an interview to the Danish newspaper "Politiken", she
upheld the statements. The following extract is from an article entitled
"The Danes are overrun":
"(...) (Reporter) How many are there of those who believe that they have a
right to rape Danish girls?
(Ms. Frevert) I don't know anything about that. It should be seen in
consideration of the fact that the Koran says in certain places that you may
behave as you like to women in a male chauvinist spirit. It is a rhetorical
way of expression relative to the saying of the Koran.
(Reporter) Are you saying that it is ok according to the Koran to rape
Danish girls?
(Ms. Frevert) I am saying that the Koran allows you to use women as you
like.
(Reporter) How many Danish girls get raped by Muslims?
(Ms. Frevert) I have no knowledge about that as such, other than that it is
very well known that there has been a rape in a toilet by the courthouse. So
that is a concrete example. How many I don't know, but you know too from
court cases that there have been rapes.
(Reporter) Yes, but if it more or less appears from the Koran that rape is
ok, then one would presumably be able to bring forth substantially more
examples.
(Ms. Frevert) I am not saying that it is a pattern, I am saying that this is
what may happen.
(Reporter) In the chapter that you have now removed, you wrote that our laws
forbid us to kill them. Is that what you would like the most?
(Ms. Frevert) No, but I am certainly allowed to write it. I am allowed to
write exactly whatever suits me. If they rape and kill other people the way
they do with suicide bombs, etc.- well, you aren't allowed to do so in our
country, are you?"
2.5 On 30 September, 13 October and 1 November 2005, the DACoRD, on the
petitioner's behalf, filed three complaints against Ms. Frevert for
violations of section 266b of the Danish Criminal code [FN3], which
prohibits racial statements. In the first complaint, DACoRD claimed that the
website statements were directed against a specific group of people
(Muslims), that they were taunting and degrading, and that they had a
propagandistic character, as they were published on a website directed at a
large audience, and at the same time sent to various Danish newspapers for
purposes of publication. The DACoRD quoted several decisions of conviction
by Danish courts for statements published on websites, which were considered
as "dissemination to a wide circle of people". The second complaint related
to Ms. Frevert's book, in particular pages 31 to 41, which the petitioner
claimed contained threatening, taunting and degrading statements against
Muslims. The third complaint related to the article published in the "Politiken".
DACoRD claimed that the statements in the article violated section 266B of
the Criminal Code and that they confirmed the statements published on the
website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN3] "Section 266b.
(1) Any person who, publicly or with the intention of wider dissemination,
makes a statement or imparts other information by which a group of people
are threatened, insulted or degraded on account of their race, colour,
national or ethnic origin, religion, or sexual inclination shall be liable
to a fine or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years.
(2) When the sentence is meted out, the fact that the offence is in the
nature of propaganda activities shall be considered an aggravating
circumstance."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.6 The first complaint (relating to the website) against Ms. Frevert was
rejected by the Copenhagen Police on 10 October 2005, on the ground that
there was no reasonable evidence to support that an unlawful act had been
committed. In particular, the decision pointed out that it did not appear,
with the necessary reasonable prospect for a conviction, that Ms. Frevert
had the intent to disseminate the listed quotations, and that it appeared
that she was unaware that those statements had been posted on the web. The
webmaster (Mr. T.) took entire responsibility for the publication of the
statements and was charged with violation of section 266 b of the Criminal
Code. On 30 December 2005, the Copenhagen Police forwarded the case file to
the Helsingør Police for further investigation of the case against him. The
case is still under investigation by the Helsingør Police.
2.7 On 13 December 2005, the Regional Public Prosecutor of Copenhagen,
Frederiksberg and Tårnby confirmed the decision of the police not to
prosecute Ms. Frevert, because she and Mr. T. had concurrently explained
their collaboration and that the articles had by mistake been posted
unedited on the website. He found that it could not be proved that Ms.
Frevert had any knowledge that the articles were put on her website and that
she had the necessary intent to disseminate them. This decision cannot be
appealed.
2.8 The second complaint (relating to the book) was rejected by the
Commissioner of the Copenhagen Police on 18 October 2005, as there was no
reasonable evidence to support that an unlawful act had been committed. The
decision indicated that the book had been published for the purpose of a
political debate and did not contain specific statements which could be
covered under the Criminal code section 266b. The DACoRD did not appeal the
Commissioner's decision.
2.9 The third complaint (relating to the interview) was rejected by the
Commissioner of the Copenhagen Police on 9 February 2006, as there was no
reasonable evidence to support that an unlawful act had been committed. In
reaching this decision, the Commissioner took into consideration the
principles of freedom of expression and free debate. He also took into
account that the statements were made by a politician in the context of a
public debate on the situation of foreigners. He considered that in light of
the right of freedom of expression, the statements made by Ms. Frevert were
not offensive enough to constitute a violation of section 266b of the
Criminal Code.
2.10 On 19 May 2006, the Regional Public Prosecutor confirmed the police's
decision not to prosecute Ms. Frevert for the statements in the interview.
He considered that the representation of Muslims and second generation
immigrants by Ms. Frevert in the interview was not so offensive as to be
considered insulting or degrading to Muslims or second generation immigrants
within the meaning of section 266 b of the Criminal Code. This decision is
final and cannot be appealed.
2.11 The petitioner argues that questions relating to the pursuance by the
police of charges against individuals are entirely discretionary, and that
there is no possibility to bring the case before Danish courts. Legal
actions against Ms. Frevert would not be effective, given that the police
and prosecutor have rejected the complaints against her. The petitioner
refers to a decision of the Eastern High Court of 5 February 1999, where it
was held that an incident of racial discrimination does not in itself imply
a violation of the honour and reputation of a person under section 26 of the
Act in Civil Liability [FN4]. The petitioner concludes that he has no
further remedies under national law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN4] See Communication No. 17/1999, B.J. v Denmark, Opinion adopted on 17
March 2000, paras. 2.4 to 2.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.12 The petitioner indicates that he has not availed himself of any other
procedure of international investigation or settlement.
The Complaint
3.1 The petitioner claims that the decision of the Copenhagen police no to
initiate an investigation on the alleged facts, violates articles 2,
paragraph 1(d); 4(a); and 6 of the Convention, as the documentation
presented by the petitioner should have motivated the police to make a
thorough investigation of the matter. He contends that there have been no
effective means to protect him from racist statements in this case.
3.2 The petitioner further claims that the decisions of the Copenhagen
police and the prosecutor to reject his complaints violate article 6 of the
Convention. He contends that the Danish authorities did not examine the
material in full and did not take his arguments into account.
State Party's Observations on the Admissibility and Merits of the
Communication
4.1 On 10 November 2006, the State party made its submissions on the
admissibility and merits of the communication. On admissibility, it submits
that the claims fall outside the scope of the Convention and that the
petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for purposes of
admissibility, as a large number of the various statements comprised by the
communication concerns persons of a particular religion and not persons of a
particular "race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin" within the
meaning of article 1 of the Convention. However, the State party
acknowledges that it is possible to argue to a certain extent that the
statements refer to second-generation immigrants and set up a conflict
between "the Danes" and them, thereby falling to some degree within the
scope of the Convention.
4.2 The State party further submits that the part of the communication
relating to the statements in Ms. Frevert's book is inadmissible under
article 14, paragraph 7 (a), of the Convention, as the petitioner has not
exhausted all available domestic remedies. When the Commissioner of the
Copenhagen Police decided, on 18 October 2005, to discontinue investigation
of the case against Ms. Frevert in relation to the publication of her book,
the petitioner did not appeal the decision to the Regional Public
Prosecutor. Thus, he has failed to exhaust domestic remedies, and the part
of the communication concerning the statements in the book should be
declared inadmissible.
4.3 On the merits, the State party disputes that there was a violation of
articles 2, paragraph 1 (d), 4 and 6 of the Convention. On the claim that
the documentation presented to the police should have motivated it to
initiate a thorough investigation of the matter, the State party argues that
the Danish authorities' evaluation of the petitioner's reports of alleged
racial discrimination fully satisfies the requirements of the Convention,
even though they did not produce the outcome wanted by the petitioner. The
Convention does not guarantee a specific outcome of cases on alleged
racially insulting statements, but sets out certain requirements for the
authorities' investigation of such alleged statements. The State party
argues that these requirements have been satisfied in the case, as the
Danish authorities did take effective action, by processing and
investigating the reports lodged by the petitioner. Ms. Frevert's website
4.4 The State party indicates that under section 749(2) of the
Administration and Justice Act [FN5], the police may discontinue an
investigation already initiated when there is no basis for continuing the
investigation. In criminal proceedings, the prosecutor has the burden of
proof that a criminal offence was committed. It is important for the sake of
due process that the evidence is of certain strength for the courts to
convict an accused. Pursuant to section 96(2) of the Administration of
Justice Act [FN6], public prosecutors have a duty to observe the principle
of objectiveness. They cannot prosecute a person unless they are of the
opinion that the prosecution will lead to conviction with a reasonable
prospect of certainty. This principle is designed to protect innocent
persons from prosecution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN5] "Section 749.
(1) The police shall dismiss a report lodged if it deems that there is no
basis for initiating investigation.
(2) If there is no basis for continuing an investigation already initiated,
the police may decide to discontinue the investigation if no charge has been
made (...).
(3) If the report is dismissed or the investigation is discontinued, those
who may be presumed to have a reasonable interest therein shall be notified.
The decision can be appealed to the superior public prosecutor under the
rules of Part 10."
[FN6] "Section 96.
(1) It is the duty of the public prosecutors, in cooperation with the
police, to prosecute offences according to the rules of this Act.
(2) The public prosecutors shall dispatch any one case at the speed
permitted by the nature of the case, and shall thus ensure not only that
guilty persons are held responsible, but also that prosecution of innocent
persons does not occur."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.5 The State party is aware that it has a duty to initiate an investigation
when complaints related to acts of racial discrimination are filed. An
investigation must be carried out with due diligence and expeditiously, and
must be sufficient to determine whether or not an act of racial
discrimination has occurred.
4.6 The State party points out that upon receipt of the complaint regarding
Ms. Frevert's website, the Copenhagen Police initiated an investigation of
the case. When interviewed, both Ms. Frevert and Mr. T. stated that the
webmaster had created the website and that he had uploaded the relevant
material without Ms. Frevert's knowledge. The agreement was that only
articles and contributions approved by Ms. Frevert were to be posted on the
website. By mistake, 35 articles by Mr. T. were posted on the website in
unedited form and without Ms. Frevert's prior approval. When the mistake was
discovered, the articles were removed. The webmaster was charged with
violation of section 266b of the Criminal Code.
4.7 The State party contends that the police investigated the matter
thoroughly. Once it appeared that the articles were posted without Ms.
Frevert's knowledge, the public prosecutors rightly assessed that it would
not be possible to prove that she had intended a wide dissemination of the
statements. Criminal proceedings could therefore not be expected to result
in her conviction and the public prosecutors therefore decided not to
prosecute her. That the investigation against Mr. T. remains pending shows
that the police takes reported acts of racial discrimination seriously and
investigates them thoroughly and effectively. The State party argues that
the police made a thorough investigation of the matter, that the material
was examined in full and that the arguments presented by the DACoRD were
taken into consideration, in accordance with article 6 of the Convention.
The investigation revealed Ms. Frevert's lack of intent to violate section
266b of the Criminal Code. The fact that the case had another outcome than
wished by the petitioner is irrelevant. Ms. Frevert's book
4.8 Under section 749(1) [FN7] and section 742(2) [FN8] of the
Administration and Justice Act, the public prosecutor must assess whether a
criminal offence subject to public prosecution was committed. If there is no
basis for assuming that a criminal offence has been committed, the public
prosecutor has to dismiss the report. The Commissioner of the Copenhagen
Police discontinued the investigation concerning the book as it had been
published for the purpose of generating a political debate, and as it
contained no specific statements that might fall under section 266b of the
Criminal Code. In addition, the DACoRD did not mention in its report which
statements it considered to fall within the scope of that provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN7] See above.
[FN8] "Section 742.
(1) Criminal offences must be reported to the police.
(2) The police shall institute investigations upon a report lodged or on its
own initiative when it may reasonably be presumed that a criminal offence
subject to prosecution has been committed."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.9 The State party emphasises that there were no problems of evidence and
no need for the police to continue the investigation, as the police was in
possession of the book in question, and both Ms. Frevert and Mr. T. were
interviewed on this matter. Both stated that the disputed contribution to
the book was written by Mr. T., but that this contribution had been edited
and approved by Ms. Frevert, who was responsible for the publication of the
book. The only question left for the Police Commissioner was whether there
were statements in the book that could be considered to fall within the
scope of section 266b of the Criminal Code. After a thorough analysis of the
book's contents, he considered that the statements were broad and clearly
published as part of a political debate in anticipation of the upcoming
election. This legal assessment was thorough and adequate, and the public
prosecutor's handling of the case satisfied the requirements that can be
inferred from article 2, paragraph 1(d), and article 6 of the Convention.
Statements made by Ms. Frevert in the newspaper "Politiken" on 30 September
2005
4.10 The State party recalls that it does not follow from the Convention and
the jurisprudence of the Committee that prosecution should be initiated in
all cases reported to the police, in particular if no basis is found for
prosecution. In this case, there were no problems of evidence, as the
statements were printed in the newspaper as quotations of Ms. Frevert, and
therefore there was no need for the police to initiate an investigation to
identify the specific contents or the originator of the statements.
4.11 The State party argues that the legal assessment made by the public
prosecutors was thorough and adequate. They evaluated the statements in the
light of the fact that they were made by a politician in the context of a
political debate about religion and immigrants, and balancing the protection
of the right to freedom of expression, protection of the freedom of religion
and protection against racial discrimination. The statements must be seen in
the context in which they were made, namely as contributions to a political
debate about religion and immigrants, and without regard as to whether the
reader supports Ms. Frevert's viewpoint on these issues. A democratic
society has to make room for a debate about such viewpoints, within certain
limits. The prosecutors considered that the statements were not so gross
that they could be deemed "insulting or degrading" within the meaning of
section 266b of the Criminal Code.
4.12 The State party argues that the right to freedom of expression is
particularly imperative for an elected representative of the people. She
represents her electorate, draws attention to their preoccupations and
defends their interests. Accordingly, interferences with the freedom of
expression of a Member of Parliament, like Ms. Frevert, call for close
scrutiny on the part of public prosecutors. In this case, they interpreted
section 266b in the light of the context in which the statements were made
and with due consideration of the fundamental principle of the right to
freedom of expression for a Member of Parliament. The State party concludes
that the public prosecutors' handling of the case satisfies the requirements
that can be inferred from article 2, paragraph 1(d), and article 6 of the
Convention.
4.13 The State party concludes that it is not possible to infer an
obligation under the Convention to prosecute in situations that have been
found not to provide a basis for prosecution. The Administration of Justice
Act offers the requisite remedies compatible with the Convention and the
relevant authorities have fully met their obligations in this case.
Petitioner's Comments:
5.1 On 29 December 2006, the petitioner commented on the State party's
submissions. On the argument that domestic remedies were not exhausted with
regards to the complaint about Ms. Frevert's book, it is submitted that the
text of the book was also published on her website. The report to the police
was meant to cover the whole website, not only the articles under the
heading "Articles that nobody dares to publish". When she was interviewed
about the website, the police failed to ask her if she was the author of the
book, which had been posted as a document on the website. The police
apparently based its decision on a very small part of the material placed on
the website.
5.2 The petitioner acknowledges that no appeal was filed against the
decision of 18 October 2005 of the Copenhagen Police to discontinue the
investigation of the case in relation to the book. However, the day before,
a complaint was filed against the website, which included the text of the
book. Consequently, an appeal of that decision would only have been a
duplication of the complaint already sent to the regional prosecutor's
office. Therefore, the final decision by the Regional Prosecutor of 13
December 2005 is a final decision both regarding the statements posted on
the website and contained in the book. The petitioner therefore considers
that he exhausted domestic remedies in respect of all parts of the
complaint.
5.3 With respect to the argument that the communication falls outside the
scope of the Covenant, the petitioner contends that Islamophobia, just like
attacks against Jews, has manifested itself as a form of racism in many
European countries, including Denmark. After 11 September 2001, attacks
against Muslims have intensified in Denmark. Members of the Danish People's
Party use hate speech as a tool to stir up hatred against people of Arab and
Muslim background. In their view, culture and religion are connected in
Islam. The petitioner argues that CERD already concluded that Danish
authorities do not ensure an effective implementation of criminal law in
relation to hate speech against Muslims and Muslim culture, especially by
politicians. He invokes CERD's 2002 Concluding Observations on Denmark
[FN9]:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN9] CERD/C/60/CO/5, 21 May 2002 and CERD/C/CO/DEN/17, 19 October 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
["16.] The Committee is concerned about reports of a considerable increase
in reported cases of widespread harassment of people of Arab and Muslim
backgrounds since 11 September 2001. The Committee recommends that the State
party monitor this situation carefully, take decisive action to protect the
rights of victims and deal with perpetrators, and report on this matter in
its next periodic report".
["11.] The Committee, while taking note of the State party's efforts to
combat hate crimes, is concerned about the increase in the number of
racially motivated offences and in the number of complaints of hate speech.
The Committee is also concerned about hate speech by some politicians in
Denmark. While taking note of the statistical data provided on complaints
and prosecutions launched under section 266(b) of the Criminal Code, the
Committee notes the refusal by the Public Prosecutor to initiate court
proceedings in some cases, including the case of the publication of some
cartoons associating Islam with terrorism (arts. 4(a) and 6)" (emphasis
added).
5.4 On the merits, the petitioner refers to the fact that Ms. Frevert was
not found responsible for the material on the website. However, in the
interview, the journalist quoted the article and asked her "Are you saying
that it is ok according to the Koran to rape Danish girls?" She replied: "I
am saying that the Koran allows you to use women as you like". The
journalist gave her the possibility to disagree, but she stated that "I am
certainly allowed to write that. I am allowed to write exactly whatever
suits me. If they rape and kill other people the way they do...". The
petitioner considers that these statements are insulting and that the Danish
Courts should strike the balance between the right to freedom of speech for
politicians and the prohibition against hate speech. By not bringing the
case to court, the authorities violated articles 2, 4 and 6 of the
Convention.
Issues and Proceedings Before the Committee
6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a petition, the Committee on
the Elimination of Racial Discrimination must, in accordance with rule 91 of
its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the
Convention.
6.2 The Committee notes the State party's objection that the petitioner's
claims fall outside the scope of the Convention, because the statements in
question are directed at persons of a particular religion or religious
group, and not at persons of a particular "race, colour, descent, or
national or ethnic origin". It also takes note of the petitioner's
contention that the statements in question were indeed aimed at persons of
Muslim or Arab background. The Committee observes, however, that the
impugned statements specifically refer to the Koran, to Islam and to Muslims
in general, without any reference whatsoever to any race, colour, descent,
or national or ethnic origin. While the elements of the case file do not
allow the Committee to analyse and ascertain the intention of the impugned
statements, it remains that no specific national or ethnic groups were
directly targeted as such by these oral statements as reported and printed.
In fact, the Committee notes that the Muslims currently living in the State
party are of heterogeneous origin. They originate from at least 15 different
countries, are of diverse national and ethnic origins, and consist of
non-citizens, and Danish citizens, including Danish converts.
6.3 The Committee recognises the importance of the interface between race
and religion and considers that it would be competent to consider a claim of
"double" discrimination on the basis of religion and another ground
specifically provided for in article 1 of the Convention, including national
or ethnic origin. However, this is not the case in the current petition,
which exclusively relates to discrimination on religious grounds. The
Committee recalls that the Convention does not cover discrimination based on
religion alone, and that Islam is not a religion practised solely by a
particular group, which could otherwise be identified by its "race, colour,
descent, or national or ethnic origin." The Travaux Préparatoires of the
Convention reveal that the Third Committee of the General Assembly rejected
the proposal to include racial discrimination and religious intolerance in a
single instrument, and decided in the ICERD to focus exclusively on racial
discrimination. [FN10] It is unquestionable therefore that discrimination
based exclusively on religious grounds was not intended to fall within the
purview of the Convention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN10] General Assembly resolution 1779 (XVII), General Assembly resolution
1780 (XVII), and General Assembly resolution 1781 (XVII).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.4 The Committee recalls its prior jurisprudence in Quereshi v. Denmark
that, "a general reference to foreigners does not at present single out a
group of persons, contrary to article 1 of the Convention, on the basis of a
specific race, ethnicity, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin"
[FN11]. Similarly, in this particular case, it considers that the general
references to Muslims, do not single out a particular group of persons,
contrary to article 1 of the Convention. It, therefore, concludes that the
petition falls outside the scope of the Convention and declares it
inadmissible ratione materiae under article 14, paragraph 1, of the
Convention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN11] See Petition No. 33/2003, Opinion adopted on 9 March 2005, para. 7.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.5 Although the Committee considers that it is not within its competence to
examine the present petition, it takes note of the offensive nature of the
statements complained of and recalls that freedom of speech carries with it
both duties and responsibilities. It takes the opportunity to remind the
State party of its Concluding Observations, following consideration of the
State party's reports in 2002 and 2006, in which it had commented and made
recommendations upon: (a) the considerable increase in reported cases of
widespread harassment of people of Arab and Muslim backgrounds since 11
September 2001; (b) the increase in the number of racially motivated
offences; and (c) the increase in the number of complaints of hate speech,
including by politicians within the State party. [FN12] It also encourages
the State party to follow-up on its recommendations and to provide pertinent
information on the above concerns in the context of the Committee's
procedure for follow-up to its concluding observations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN12] CERD/C/60/CO/5, 21 May 2002, and CERD/C/DEN/CO/17, 19 October 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination therefore
decides:
(a) That the communication is inadmissible ratione materiae under article
14, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
(b) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the
petitioner.
|
|