Ytringsfrihed – igen og igen og

Af Jacob Mchangama, Cepos 166

Tidligere i dag blev islam-kritikeren og formand for Trykkefrihedsselskabet Lars Hedegaard forsøgt myrdet i sin bolig på Frederiksberg. Det er selvfølgeligt for tidligt positivt at konkludere, at der er tale om et politisk motiveret attentat begrundet i Lars Hedegaards mange stærkt kritiske udtalelser om Islam og muslimsk indvandring. Men i lyset af de mange attentater og attentatforsøg mod islam-kritikere i Danmark og Europa, Lars Hedegaards markante islam-kritik og signalementet af gerningsmanden vover jeg gerne det ene øje (og står til ansvar her på bloggen hvis min antagelse er forkert).

Mordforsøget på Lars Hedegaard er endnu et kapitel i den lange række af anslag mod ytringsfriheden, som siden Salman Rushdies De Sataniske Vers, har været en alt for nærværende del af Vestens virkelighed og som har krævet dødsofre såsom Theo Van Gogh og attentatforsøg mod Kurt Westergaard, Jyllands-Posten, Charlie Hebdo og mange mange andre. Ofte ledsaget af hændervriden og skyden skylden for religiøs ekstremisme på islam-kritikere. Med de sædvanlige undtagelser i debatfora på Internettet har alle udmeldinger fra politikere og debattører dog i denne omgang inkluderet kraftig afstandtagen fra mordet og udtrykt solidaritet med Hedegaard – og det kunne bare ligne andet. Men der er alligevel grund til at hæfte sig ved flere af udtalelserne. Da de konservatives formand Lars Barfoed var i TV2 News udtalte han: (citeret fra tv-klip) “at der er mørke afstumpede kræfter, der søger at komme vores værdier til livs angribe vores ytringsfriheden det [forsvaret for ytringsfriheden] skal vi aldrig nogensinde vige fra”

Men i 2010 blev netop Lars Hedegaard tiltalt for overtrædelse af racismeparagraffen for udtalelser om muslimske mænds voldtægter af døtre m.v. På daværende tidspunkt var netop Lars Barfoed justitsminister og her udtalte han:

»Jeg er som udgangspunkt glad for racismeparagraffen, som den er. Den skal hverken afskaffes eller udvandes til at være en nullitet«

Samt

Ytringsfriheden skal imidlertid udøves med fornøden respekt for andre menneskerettigheder, herunder retten til beskyttelse mod trosdiskriminerende forhånelse og nedværdigelse.

 Der er naturligvis helt afgørende forskel på at ville slå folk ihjel og at ville straffe dem med love vedtaget af et demokratisk flertal. Men rent principielt er der i begge situationer tale om at man finder nogle ytringer så uacceptable, at de ikke må udtales i offentligheden. Spørgsmålet er så om Lars Barfoed og alle de andre politikere, såsom Villy Søvndal, der i dag er sprunget ud som ytringsfrihedsfundamentalister mener at Hedegaards udtalelser burde straffes ved domstolene og derfor ”kun” tager afstand fra vold eller om de endelig har nået den erkendelse, at krænkelsesparagrafferne i straffeloven er uacceptable begrænsninger af ytringsfriheden. For som jeg har skrevet om tidligere er der ikke tale om et dansk fænomen men derimod en global værdikamp, hvis udfald har store konsekvenser for såvel folk i Vesten som i den muslimske verden.

I den kommende tid vil vi utvivlsomt også blive mødt med formaninger om at ”dialog” og samtale er svaret på ekstremismen. For mange inklusiv undertegnede vil det frembringe en følelse af ubehag, fordi der med dialog ofte menes en bestemt diskurs med faste præmisser. Men i stedet for at afvise dialogen opfordrer jeg til at tage mangfoldighedsfundamentalisterne og dialogisterne på ordet. For en reel dialog forudsætter, at man anerkender sine modstanderes ytringsfrihed, i modsat fald er der tale om monolog.

166 kommentarer RSS

  1. Af Axel Eriksen

    -

    @ Balther Jensen!

    Kære Balther.

    Selv om man ikke er født ind i en cirkusfamilie, kan man da godt optræde i cirkus!

    Den rolle som: “Gammel Klovn” klarer du med bravour – men som en elskelig en af slagsen.

    Din optræden i Cirkus-Islam her i Danmark er måske ikke det rette sted for det rette publikum!

    Men der har vi jo netop det med ytringsfriheden:

    Her kan man sige, hvad man mener!
    Kunne du også gøre det et islamisk samfund??

  2. Af Balther Jensen

    -

    @ Axel Eriksen, 13. februar 2013 kl. 12:19

    Ja, Axel, under islam er der full ytringsfrihed, men kun hvis man taler sandheden.

    Her er en lille smule af hvordan man skal tale og handle, Jeg haaber at du kan lase Engelsk ?

    Truthfulness

    Just as truthfulness is the very cornerstone of the upright person’s character and the springboard for his virtuousness, falsehood, its opposite, is the foundation of a person’s depravity and the launch pad for his wickedness. Just as the truthfulness of a person starts from within — that is, it is a reflection of a state of true faith — a person’s dishonesty, lying and deceit is also a reflection of the inner state. This is why God mentions truthfulness as being the opposite of hypocrisy:
    “That God may reward the truthful for their truthfulness, and punish the hypocrites if He wills, or turn mercifully towards them…” (Qur’an 33:24)
    Little wonder then that the most righteous and truthful of people, the Prophets of God and their true followers, were not belied, denounced, opposed, oppressed and rejected except by those who were given to dishonesty, deceit and hypocrisy.
    “It is only those who believe not in the Signs of God, who fabricate falsehood, and it is they who are the liars.” (Qur’an 16:105)
    That is regarding falsehood in faith. As for falsehood in deeds, God states in the Qur’an.
    “…that He may try you, which of you is the best in deeds.” (Qur’an 67:2)
    A scholar from the early period of Islam, Fudail bin Iyaad, commented on this verse, explaining: “Which of you Is the best in deeds means the most sincere and correct. If the deed is sincere and not correct, it will not be accepted, and if it is correct and not sincere, it will not be accepted. It will not be accepted until it is both sincere and correct.”
    One everyday example of where sincerity and correction of action are often subverted by falsehood is in the buying and selling of goods. Hence we find the Prophet saying:
    “If they (two parties meeting to trade) are truthful and clarify (any and all deficiency in their goods), their transaction will be blessed. But if they lie and conceal (any deficiency in their goods), the blessings of their transaction will be eradicated.”
    And what of falsehood in speech? Falsehood of the tongue, or what is more commonly referred to as lying, is a characteristic roundly even if?rejected by the entire world its inhabitants may fall into it from time to time.
    God says: “If he (Prophet Muhammad) had invented false sayings concerning Us, We would surely have grasped him firmly, and then cut off the artery of his heart, and none of you could have withheld Us from doing this.” (Qur’an 69:44-7)
    Then how could lying be acceptable from anyone. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), the truthful one, said: “A slave’s faith will not be upright until his heart is upright, and his heart will not be upright until his tongue is upright, and a man whose neighbor is not safe from his harm will not enter Paradise.”
    The Prophet said: “A person lies and lies, until he is written with God as a habitual liar.” (Saheeh Al-Bukhari)
    Thus, the habitual liar is despised, truly and thoroughly despised, by all even his own kind as no one can trust a liar, not even other liars. And just as clarity in speech is a sign of truthfulness, so then ambiguity, innuendo, sarcasm and every other form of deception and trickery of the tongue is denounced in Islam.
    Even lying in jest has been condemned by the Prophet when he said: “I guarantee a house in the middle of Paradise for the one who leaves off lying even if it be in jest.”
    The Prophet also said: “Woe to the person who lies to make people laugh! Woe to him, woe to him!”
    The Prophet’s closest friend and immediate temporal successor, Abu Bakr Siddeeq (i.e. the truthful — so named by the Prophet due to the truthfulness of his faith), further said: “Beware of lying, for lying opposes (true) faith.”
    And the daughter of Abu Bakr, Ayesha, who was the beloved wife of the Prophet, said: “There was no trait more abhorrent to the Messenger of God, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, than lying.”
    Suffice as a deterrence from lying is its being listed as a trait of that most wretched of conditions: hypocrisy. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “The signs of the hypocrite are three: When he speaks he lies; when he makes an oath he breaks it; and when he is entrusted with something he betrays that trust.”
    Not only do we learn about the abhorrence of directly lying itself, but Islam also mercifully educates us as to the dangers of all that which indirectly leads to lying.
    Again from Ayesha we learn that the Prophet would invoke his Lord, praying: “O God! I seek refuge with you from all sins, and from being in debt. When asked: O Messenger of God! You frequently seek refuge with God from being in debt! The Prophet of God replied: If a person is in debt, he tells lies when he speaks, and breaks his promises when he promises.”
    In the same vein, the Prophet explicitly ordered his followers: “Leave that which causes you doubt for that which does not cause you doubt. For in truthfulness lies tranquility, and in lying lies doubt.”
    Striving for truthfulness then, in spirit, word and deed, is a matter which requires the utmost steadfastness from the believer, as well as the utmost vigilance against the dangers of falsehood, insincerity, deceit and hypocrisy.
    “That God will reward the People of Truth for their truth, and punish the hypocrites if that be His Will, or turn to them in Mercy; for God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 33:24)

  3. Af Axel Eriksen

    -

    @ Balther Jensen!

    Kære Balther!

    Yes, I am able to read English and other different languages!

    Men her i Danmark, hvor jeg for nuværende befinder mig, er jeg tilbøjelig til at bruge dansk. Derfor:

    Du har din tro – Allah og Muhammed være med dig – men befri dog andre for at blive belemret med den!

    Eet er, hvad der står på skrift – men noget andet er, hvordan det efterleves i praksis!

    Muslimer er vist ikke generelt særlge “sandhedsvidner”!

  4. Af Axel Eriksen

    -

    @ Balther!

    Lige en tilføjelse:

    Var der under den såkaldte “Muhammed-krise” ikke her i landet bosiddende muslimer, der turnerede rundt i Mellemøsten og udbredte løgnagtige påstande?

    Den virkelige og store “Muhammed-krise” for verdenen skete for ca. 1.400 år siden, da en pædofil karavanerøver og massemorder påstod, at han havde fået “åbenbaringer”, der med vold og magt skulle udbredes overalt!

  5. Af Balther Jensen

    -

    @ Axel Eriksen, 13. februar 2013 kl. 17:53

    Axel, Du skriver:

    ” Muslimer er vist ikke generelt særlge “sandhedsvidner” ”

    Nej, du har ret, men dem som ikke taler sandheden ryger lige ret i helvedet, lige som alle de Kristne og Joderne og alle andre som ikke taler sandheden.

  6. Af Balther Jensen

    -

    @ Axel Eriksen, 13. februar 2013 kl. 18:20

    Axel, du skriver:

    “Den virkelige og store “Muhammed-krise” for verdenen skete for ca. 1.400 år siden, da en pædofil karavanerøver og massemorder påstod, at han havde fået “åbenbaringer”, der med vold og magt skulle udbredes overalt!”

    Axel! hvor ved du fra at Muhammad var en “padofil,karanevanerover,massemorder” ?

    Var du i Saudi Arabien for 1400 aar siden, og saa med dine egne ojne at Muhammad var en “padofil,karavanerover og massemorder” ?

    Eller er det bare noget som nogen har fortalt dig, og du bare lober med sladder?

    Eller er det bare fordi du ikke har nogen respekt for andre menneskers tro og religion ?

    Eller hvad vil du sige til hvis der var nogen som rente rundt og sagde at ham Axel Eriksen var en ” padofil, Karavanerover og massemorder” ?

    Det tror jeg ikke at du ville bryde dig om ?

    Assalam Aleikum.

  7. Af Balther Jensen

    -

    @ Axel Eriksen, 13. februar 2013 kl. 18:20

    Axel, here is something for you to think about:

    In the last few weeks the world has witnessed the response to an evil, insulting and abhorrent movie that attempted to malign the noble character of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Such insult to a religious icon has brought about overwhelming condemnation, and we believe that the vast majority of Americans disapprove of such attempts to sow seeds of hatred among people of different faiths and ethnic backgrounds. We would like to help our fellow citizens understand the complicated yet extremely sensitive nature of the whole situation. This in no way should be seen as condoning any violence in the name of our religion. There are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims in the world today, representing different ethnicities and speaking different languages.
    The American Muslim population is estimated to comprise almost every ethnicity of the world. What unites them is their faith in God Almighty and their belief in Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as the last Prophet of God.
    Muslims all over the world love the Prophet (pbuh). This love for him takes precedence over the love of their own families and even love for themselves. They regard him as a man who, through amazing moral strength and absolute commitment to the Message of God, brought about a revolution in the deserts of Arabia. A revolution that spanned the entire world in less than 100 years, liberating humanity from the tyranny of the few and liberating man from the servitude of the creation to the servitude of the Creator.
    God Almighty declared Muhammad (pbuh) a “Mercy to the Worlds” (Qur’an: Chapter 21 Verse 107). He was known as “The trustworthy” and “The one who always speaks the truth,” even among his enemies. He was the man who gave the honor of making the very first call to prayer to a former black Abyssinian slave while the rich and the aristocrats of Arabia stood watching by. His noble character is described in the Qur’an as one with “exalted standard of character” (Qur’an: Chapter 68, Verse 4).
    Muslims believe that the message of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was the same as the message brought by previous Prophets like Abraham, Moses and Jesus (peace be upon them). They also love and respect these Prophets of God, because the Qur’an says: “Insult to any of these religious icons is an insult to their belief system itself.” (Chapter 6 Verse 108)
    When someone insults a messenger of God, it hurts all Muslims. The Muslim community has always welcomed intellectual and scholarly discourse on Islam, and history is witness to the fact that Muslim scholars debated in a civil manner with scholars from other faiths. But there is a difference between an intellectual and scholarly criticism and distasteful, cheap and offensive talk.
    As Americans, we understand the importance of the right to free speech and freedom of expression. American Muslims value this right on behalf of every American citizen and would never shy away from ever defending this right. We also feel that this right to free speech should be seen as a great responsibility. Freedom of expression and willful provocation will have different outcomes, and such is the case of free speech and hate speech. The right to freedom of expression should not be an opportunity to spread hate and pass insults on sacred religious icons. American society is mature enough to recognize that hate speech is not acceptable.
    The Bible says: “There is one who speaks rashly like the thrusts of a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.” (Proverbs 12:18, New American Standard Bible 1995)
    Let us all as Americans unite in bringing about the healing that is desperately needed in our global village today.

  8. Af Axel Eriksen

    -

    Kære Balther!

    Jeg ville bare sige: Det er usandt – og ville blive frikendt ved enhver domstol i Danmark!

    Om 100 år er alting glemt, hedder det jo!

    Men ikke en “overtro” fra den Arabiske Ørken fra 1.400 år siden!

    Jeg respekterer, at du tror på Islam – men pådut mig ikke dine religiøse fantasier. Tak!

    Var du i øvrigt i den Arabiske Ørken for 1.400 år siden, og så du ved selvsyn noget, der kan afkræfte mit udsagn??

    Nej, vel var du ej – mine udsagn kan være lige så valide som dine!

  9. Af Erik Larsen

    -

    Der har vi det så igen! en muslim/islamist der kalder sig “Balther” får lov at skrive rablende , udansk, fanatisk vrøvl – hvorfor??? Hvad VIL I med det kære berlingske? Hvad ER det I ønsker, det er jo ingen, intet form for debat om andet emne end religion og “ud med danskere”! Sig mig forstår I det virkelig ikke ?? Det ER da ikke så svært at læse jeres egne bloggere og se hvad det egentlig præcis er de ønsker. Og det er IKKE noget godt for ganske almindelige danskere.

  10. Af Balther Jensen

    -

    @ Axel Eriksen, 13. februar 2013 kl. 19:19

    Axel Eriksen!

    I Danmark, saavel som i mange andre lande er der noget som man kalder ‘Injurie lovgivning’, og hvis man siger eller skriver usandheder om andre mennesker, saa skal man fore beviser for det man siger om andre mennesker, ellers kan man blive domt til at betale erstatning til de mennesker man har talt eller skrevet usandheder om.

    Sporg bare enhver Dansk Advokat hvis du ikke kender den Danske lovgivning, eller sporg Advokater i andre lande om deres lands Injurie lovgivning.

    Samt, naar man taler usandheder om andre mennesker, det kan meget let fore til Krig imellem mennesker.

  11. Af Balther Jensen

    -

    @ Axel Eriksen, 13. februar 2013 kl. 19:19

    Axel!

    Du skriver:

    ” Jeg respekterer, at du tror på Islam – men pådut mig ikke dine religiøse fantasier. Tak!”

    Min gode mand Axel:

    Jeg vil ikke “paadutte” dig nogen bestemt tro eller religion.

    For saa vidt som det ikke rager mig en skaldet Kalkun, om du tror paa, og eller tilbeder Fanden eller din Svigermor.

  12. Af Balther Jensen

    -

    @ Axel Eriksen, 13. februar 2013 kl. 19:19

    Axel Eriksen!

    Islam spread by Love, and not by the sword.

    It is a common misconception with some non-Muslims that Islam would not have millions of followers all over the world, if it had not been spread by the use of force.

    The following points will make it clear, that far from being spread by the sword, it was the inherent force of truth, reason and logic that was responsible for the rapid spread of Islam.

    Islam has always given respect and freedom of religion to all faiths. Freedom of religion is ordained in the Qur’an itself:

    “There shall be no compulsion in (acceptance of) the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong.” (Qur’an 2:256)

    The noted historian De Lacy O’Leary wrote: “History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.”

    If Islam was spread by the sword, it was the sword of intellect and convincing arguments. It is this sword that conquers the hearts and minds of people.

    The Qur’an says in this connection:

    “Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best.” (Qur’an 16:125)

    The facts speak for themselves: Indonesia is the country that has the largest number of Muslims in the world, and the majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. But, no Muslim army ever went to Indonesia or Malaysia. It is an established historical fact that Indonesia entered Islam not due to war, but because of its moral message.

    Despite the disappearance of Islamic government from many regions once ruled by it, their original inhabitants have remained Muslims. Moreover, they carried the message of truth, inviting others to it as well, and in so doing endured harm, affliction and oppression. The same can be said for those in the regions of Syria and Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, North Africa, Asia, the Balkans and in Spain. This shows that the effect of Islam on the population was one of moral conviction, in contrast to occupation by western colonialists, finally compelled to leave lands whose peoples held only memories of affliction, sorrow, subjugation and oppression.

    Muslims ruled Spain (Andalusia) for about 800 years. During this period the Christians and Jews enjoyed freedom to practice their respective religions, and this is a documented historical fact.
    Christian and Jewish minorities have survived in the Muslim lands of the Middle East for centuries. Countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan all have significant Christian and Jewish populations.

    Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years, and therefore had the power to force each and every non-Muslim of India to convert to Islam, but they did not, and thus more than 80 percent of the Indian population remains non-Muslim.

    Similarly, Islam spread rapidly on the East Coast of Africa. And likewise no Muslim army was ever dispatched to the East Coast of Africa.

    An article in Reader’s Digest ‘Almanac,’ yearbook 1986, gives the statistics of the increase of the percentage of the major religions of the world in half a century from 1934 to 1984. This article also appeared in The Plain Truth magazine. At the top was Islam, which increased by 235 percent, while Christianity had increased by 47 percent. During this fifty-year period, there was no “Islamic conquest” yet Islam spread at an extraordinary rate.

    Today the fastest growing religion in America and Europe is Islam. The Muslims in these lands are a minority. The only sword they have in their possession is the sword of truth. It is this sword that is converting thousands to Islam.

    Islamic law protects the privileged status of minorities, and that is why non-Muslim places of worship have flourished all over the Islamic world.

    Islamic law also allows non-Muslim minorities to set up their own courts, which implement family laws drawn up by the minorities themselves. The life and property of all citizens in an Islamic state are considered sacred whether they are Muslims or not.

    It is clear, therefore, that Islam did not spread by the sword. The “sword of Islam” did not convert all the non-Muslim minorities in Muslim countries. In India, where Muslims ruled for 800 years, they are still a minority. In the US, Islam is the fastest growing religion and has over six million followers.

    In his book The World’s Religions, Huston Smith discusses how the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) granted freedom of religion to the Jews and Christians under Muslim rule:

    The Prophet had a document drawn up in which he stipulated that Jews and Christians “shall be protected from all insults and harm; they shall have an equal right with our own people to our assistance and good offices,” and further, “they shall practice their religion as freely as the Muslims.”

    Smith points out that Muslims regard that document as the first charter of freedom of conscience in human history and the authoritative model for those of every subsequent Muslim state.

  13. Af John Laursen

    -

    @ muhammed sahdi d.9/2 kl. 22.05

    Du skriver at vi altid ytrer os under ansvar for det samfund vier en del af; Nej, vi ytrer os under ansvar for LOVEN og ikke samfundet som sådan.
    Du mener at Kristendommen er en grusom religion med et primitivt syn på tro og det har du naturligvis ret til at mene, da der er ytringsfrihed i Danmark selvom disse nedladende ytringer om den Kristne religion og dens tro, kan opfattes som misbrug af ytringsfriheden og dyrkelse af respektløsheden.
    Jeg vil anbefale dig at sætte dig ind i Kristendommen så du ved noget om den før du ytrer dig om den. Jeg kan oplyse dig om at Kristendommen handler om KÆRLIGHED – GUD`S kærlighed til menneskene og KÆRLIGHED mellem mennesker, ved næstekærlighedsbudet.
    Kender du overhovedet ordet KÆRLIGHED ?
    Du hævder at truslen mod ytringsfriheden er en mangel på ” kritisk sans ” og at alle meninger ikke er ligemeget værd for nogle er rigtige og nogle er forkerte. Du har slet ikke forstået meningen med ytringsfriheden fordi meningen med ytringsfriheden er ikke at sondre mellem forkerte og rigtige meninger men at alle meninger frit kan ytres uden at blive bortcensureret. Ytringerne står alene til ansvar for LOVEN.

  14. Af georg christensen

    -

    “Yttringsfrihed”, en tilstædeværende “problemstilling”, som kun kan løses, hvis forskellige “kulture”, tør sætte sig sammen, og i “forståelse og respekt” overfor hinanden kan “enes”, om (et eller andet), det første “skridt”, er for begge sider nået, hvis al form for (diktaturlignende tilstande) i forvejen udelukkes.

  15. Af georg christensen

    -

    “ytringsfriheden”, virker kun, når “demokratiet” er tilstædeværende.

    Demokratiet betyder kun: At det enkelte “individs” medbestemmelses ret, er tilstede, og “viljen” til forståelen af, at bare en “stemme”, kan virke som “flertalsafgørelse”, også virker, selv om den “ENE” stemme kan betyde forskellen mellem “diktatur og demokrati,bør afgørelsen i “fællesskabet´s” navn accepteres. Det vidunderlige ved “DEMOKRATIET”, er muligheden for igen at kunne vækge, hvis ikke andet, så efter en 4 årig valg perriode.

  16. Af Birte Frandsen

    -

    Helt ærlig J.Machangama, mener De at ytringsfriheden
    udnyttes, sådan helt til bunds ?
    Er det fx nogenlunde sket at en politiker har citeret kontroversielle texter fra den hellige Qu-
    ran, for der at kunne finde passager i diverse Sura,
    der opfordrer til vold mod ikke muslimer ?
    Det er næppe sket hverken i Folketinget eller andre
    steder.

    At islam har behov for debat om nødvendig reforma-
    tion berøres ikke meget, men er det ikke vigtigt
    for at kunne forstå unge, utilpassede udlændinges
    opførsel, dersom det kan hævdes–at de ligefrem
    finder opfordringer og inspiration til at isolere
    sig og bruge vold i deres skrifter ?

Skriv kommentar

Kun fornavn og efternavn bliver vist i forbindelse med kommentaren. Dog skal alle felter med * (stjerne) udfyldes

Læs vilkår for kommentarer og debat på Berlingske Tidendes websites

RETNINGSLINJER

Berlingske ønsker at sikre, at debatten på b.dk føres i en ordentlig tone, som gør det inspirerende og udfordrende for alle at bidrage og deltage. Vi efterlyser gerne klare, skarpe, holdningsmæssige stærke indlæg med stor bredde og mangfoldighed og kritisk blik på sagen. Men vi accepterer ikke indlæg, som er åbenlyst injurierende, racistiske, personligt nedgørende. Sådanne indlæg vil fremover blive slettet. Det samme gælder indlæg, der ikke er forsynet med fuldt og korrekt navn på afsenderen, men som indeholder forkortede navne, opdigtede eller falske navne.

Vi opfordrer samtidig alle debattører til at gøre redaktionen opmærksom på indlæg, som ikke overholder disse retningslinjer.

Redaktionen

Yderligere info