Muslim law suit against Jyllandsposten
On March 15th The Danish attorney general decided that there is no legal blasphemy case against the Jyllandsposten for publishing the Mohammed cartoons (link here). Jyllandsposten has not violated the Danish blasphemy article, - nor the racism article, according to the top public prosecutor.
Now 27 muslim organisations and the Islamic Faith Community have decided to sue Jyllandsposten in a civil law suit. It will attempt to use other articles from the Danish penal code, among others the article on libel.
Muslim organisations have considered the set up with an attorney general who is employed by the government undemocratic. The public prosecutor is an extension of the executive power. The maximum penalty of Jyllandsposten is a fine or up to 2 years of imprisonment.
Now 27 muslim organisations and the Islamic Faith Community have decided to sue Jyllandsposten in a civil law suit. It will attempt to use other articles from the Danish penal code, among others the article on libel.
Muslim organisations have considered the set up with an attorney general who is employed by the government undemocratic. The public prosecutor is an extension of the executive power. The maximum penalty of Jyllandsposten is a fine or up to 2 years of imprisonment.
posted by Cosmic Duck at 7:10 AM
5 Comments:
What a waste of time and money. Now is not the time for such an action, after public opinions in the whole world were set against them. They should have done it in the first place before politicizing the whole affair.
They should learn from jewish anti-defamation leagues.
Sophia hits the point. By the way, who should the public prosecutor be employed by if not the government? By a private company??? Now that would be interesting...
CO
In many American states and local governments, executive authority and law enforcement authority are separated by allowing citizens to directly elect public prosecutors (district attorneys and state attorneys-general). In some states, judges are also directly elected. But this is not so at the highest level, that of attorney general at federal level.
In Denmark the division of powers is not as consistently carried out
as in America. There has been criticism before of the concentration of power in the executive as being too strong.
The Danish justice system is a civil service career system, - with a lot of traditional "raison d'etat" thinking. Many of the judges have been serving careers in ministries, especially the ministry of justice and the ministry of the interior. It may be difficult for new immigrant groups to be heard and to have their interests taken care of.
Constant opposition,
My comment meant that the civil law suit will be tainted by the public opinion on the matter and this is why muslims should have considered this option in the first place instead of asking the danish government and its satellites (in the judicial and the media) to issue an apology. I am not criticising the suit per se but its timing.
Sophia, sorry, you got me wrong, by referring to the public prosecutor thing I didn't mean what you wrote above but what CD wrote in his entry:
Muslim organisations have considered the set up with an attorney general who is employed by the government undemocratic. The public prosecutor is an extension of the executive power.
So, presecutors must always be public service employers, not private. And whoever picks up the prosecutor - the government or the people - s/he's paid by the government anyway. Might look nasty but it's the least nasty of all alternatives.
The Danish (and I suppose not only the Danish but more like an all-European) career civil service is far better than prosecutors being directly elected in my opinion. The US system in my opinion will lead to the wealthiest and best-looking becoming the arm of the law. Heck, it should never be like that.
Not that I believe justice is perfect and infallible. If it were, what would we need several layers of courts then? If law is the same for evyrone and ordeals are infallible, why do we have for example supreme courts which sometimes decide completely on the contrary to the first dicision, based on the same facts?
Hey, this time I'm not disagreeing with either of you. I seem to have a soft day today ;-).
CO
Post a Comment
<< Home