the Chairman of the party, firm, Rasmus Paludan, rejects Friday in Court in Glostrup, he has broken the law by violating the so-called racismeparagraf.
Flanked by his lawyer, Anders Voom, take Paludan defending himself against the accusations, as senior prosecutor, Danni Richter Larsen from Copenhagen is Ranked the Police present him with.
Paludan is accused of in a youtubevideo to have violated the penal code section 266 b.
In the indictment form part of a longer passage, where the City and among other things speaks of the “most negate in south Africa” and people with low intelligence. And it is the clutch, which according to the prosecution are illegal.
And the cost of a prison sentence, says Danni Richter Larsen.
– I believe that the penalty should be between 30 and 40 days in prison, and that the starting point should be an unconditional sentence of imprisonment, saith the senioranklageren.
the Rasmus Paludan even denies that he in any way has expressed the opinion that the blacks in south Africa or black in general – should be more or less intelligent than others.
– No. For it is manifestly not true, saith the partiformanden, which enjoys great popularity among young users of YouTube.
Paludan, who incidentally is a lawyer, rejects, moreover, that the video, which was filmed for a year’s time ago, propagandakarakter. Precisely it is a part of the accusation against him.
And when Danni Richter Larsen asks whether the purpose of the video was to influence public opinion, is the answer from ralph waldo emerson:
– No. It was really to be known. We were addicted, that I became a public known person, tells the accused party chairman.
Paludan explains that, in his opinion, with the video alone was to say that the south africans, who votes on the party the ANC is ubegavede, because the party, despite many years in power has not created good circumstances in the country.
defense attorney Anders Voom talking smashing, that there must be an acquittal in the case. It’s all about freedom of expression, reads it from Voom.
– If I said to all the people who voted for a given party in the Parliament is ubegavede, so it is quite evident that it would not be a violation of section 266 b, it sounds from the lawyer.
the expected judgment in the case later Friday.
