Sweden: Higher Court Throws out Paludan Ban

Last year, Rasmus Paludan, the anti-Islam activist who holds both Danish and Swedish citizenship, caused several riots in Sweden when he burned Korans in a series of cities. The Swedish police in Norrköping then denied him a demonstration permit. Now a Swedish appeals court has ruled that the police were in error. 

The below article from Samnytt is translated by Fousesquawk.

 https://samnytt.se/paludan-hade-ratt-att-branna-koran-domstol-upphaver-polisbeslut/

Paludan had the right to burn Koran- Court overturns police decision

Published 12:30

Last year, police unilaterally decided to refuse a demonstration permit to free speech fighter and Islam critic, Rasmus Paludan, in Norrköping. The decision was made considering that disturbances would likely occur from the Muslim side since Paludan intended to burn a copy of the Koran. The appeals court has now ruled that police who denied permission errored.

During 2022, the Danish-Swedish opinion maker, Rasmus Paludan, burned Korans in a series of demonstrations. The thinking was to test Muslim respect for Western democratic freedom of expression and whether Muslims could handle the provocations. The result was striking-a wave of brutal immigrant violence that subjected police, among others, to extreme strain at its worst and left in its wake ongoing legal proceedings. 

Therefore, police were not especially enthusiastic to grant Paludan permission to hold new demonstrations. In an attempt to stop Paludan, they, therefore, chose to deny him a demonstration permit in Norrköping with reference to the Public Order Law. The argument was that since disturbances were likely, the police could preventively deny the demonstration permit.

Now, however, the police have been reprimanded by the appeals court that tried the case and concluded that the interpretation of the order law was faulty.

“The majority does not all find that the provisions of the Public Order Law give police the possibility to cancel public gatherings as a result of disturbances that have occurred or feared. Instead, it is the provisions on breaking up gatherings that can become relevant.”

The appeals court’s opinion is that the Public Order Law cannot be used for preventive purposes. On the contrary, it can only be used to break up a demonstration already in the making and which police consider that there is reason to shut it down. Therefore, the appeals court choose to overturn the police decision after the fact.

Authors of text: Editorial staff.