Last updated on July 3rd, 2023 at 11:50 am

ConThe author A.W.P., Danish citizen, adheres to the Muslim faith. The author considers that statements of the members of Danish Peoples Party, comparing Islam with Nazism is a personal insult, which creates a hostile environment and discrimination.

The author appealed the decision to the Public Prosecutor General who upheld the decision of the Regional Prosecutor stating that neither the author nor his counsel could be considered legitimate complainants in the case. Statements covered by section 266 (b) of the Criminal Code are usually of such a general nature that there generally would be no individuals who are legitimate complainants. It was also added that there was no information proving that the author could be regarded as an injured person according to the Act on the Administration of Justice section 749 (3). He could not be said to have such a substantial, direct, personal and legal interest in the outcome of the case to be considered as a legitimate complainant.
The author presented complaisance to CCPR v. Denmark in violation of articles 2, 20, paragraph 2, and 27 of the Covenant.

According to the author, the comparison made in the incriminating statements between Islam and Nazism is just one example of the ongoing campaign by members of the DPP to stir up hatred against Danish Muslims. Some people who are influenced by such statements take action in the form of hate crimes against Muslims living in Denmark.

Since the author has failed to demonstrate that he was a victim for purposes of admissibility in relation to articles 20, paragraph 2 and 27 of the Covenant, his allegation of a violation of article 2 of the Covenant is inadmissible, for lack of substantiation, under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
cerning A.W.P. vs Denmark for violation of articles 2, 20 and 27 of DACoRD.

On 18 April 2007, Member of Parliament (MP) and member of the Danish Popular Party (DPP) Søren Krarup, expressed his views in an article from the newspaper “Jyllands-Posten”, about allowing a female parliamentary candidate to speak in Parliament wearing her Muslim scarf. Mr. Krarup stated that “just like the Nazis believed that everyone from another race should be eliminated it is the belief in Islam that everyone of another faith must be converted and if not eliminated”. On 20 April 2007, MP Morten Messerschmidt from the DPP stated in an article from Nyhedsavisen that “Muslim societies are per definition losers. Muslims cannot think critically […] and this produces losers […]” On the same date, Member of the European Parliament Mogens Camre from the same political party stated in the same newspaper article that “the idea that a fundamentalist with headscarf should become member of the Danish Parliament is sick. She (the candidate for Parliament) needs mental treatment […]”.

The author is a Muslim. In his opinion, the statement comparing Islam with Nazism is a personal insult to him. Furthermore, it creates a hostile environment and concrete discrimination against him. The police decided not to prosecute the three above-mentioned members.Thus a complaint was sent to DACoRD. The Committee considers that the author has failed to establish that those specific statements had specific consequences for him, and therefore declares this communication to be inadmissible.