On Tuesday, it became known that social debater Sumaya Jirde Ali has reported the comedian Atle Antonsen for gross racism and the use of physical force against her. The police have investigated the incident at Bar Boca in Oslo on 23 October. The case is coded as “hate speech” and “reckless behaviour”. Three weeks later, the case is still pending assessment by the prosecution. Criminal law experts that news has spoken to believe that the case has several similarities with the Hulsker case. The former VGTV profile and footballer Bernt Hulsker was sentenced in October to 18 days in prison for hateful speech. Alf Petter Høgberg is a professor at the Department of Public Law at the Faculty of Law at the University of Oslo. – The question is whether this is hateful speech that is affected by section 185 of the Criminal Code. It is the same section that may come into play. So in a sense he risks the same as Hulsker. But we don’t know enough to say anything more about this, says Høgberg. Bar Boca on Grünerløkka in Oslo. Photo: Stig Jaarvik / news – I see that it has been mentioned that there was some physical contact and that the victim may have perceived the situation as threatening. But I am not aware of any conditions that activate other penalties. So basically it is possibly a case of hateful speech according to section 185 of the Criminal Code. The comedian himself apologized on Tuesday evening in a post on Facebook: This is what Atle Antonsen writes on Facebook Sorry. On the night of 23 October this year, I was at a bar in Oslo with good friends. What was supposed to be a pleasant evening of beer and conversation ended in disaster. I can thank one person for that: myself. The victim of the disaster is Sumaya Jirde Ali. This evening she met a drunken comedian who played incredibly stupid things. There is no excuse that the idiotic comments were some sort of attempted joke. Because what I said was just idiotic. Dot. I have always respected Sumaya. She is a role model and a strong and important voice. That was my starting point when I went over to talk to her. As everyone understands, it went really wrong. Sorry, Sumaya Jirde Ali. Sorry, the rest of you who were present that night. And apologies to all the rest of you who get upset or pissed off by my extremely clumsy attempt at being funny. This was not funny. This is not funny. It never will be either. I realize that I have to reevaluate my relationship with alcohol and how I communicate with people under the influence of alcohol. It is obvious that this contrasts with how I perceive myself. I know what values I have and what I stand for. I never thought that it could be possible for me to be racist. But after this evening and these idiotic comments, I realize that I have to go a few rounds with myself. Source: Facebook A joke? Høgberg says that if there is some type of humor or irony at the bottom, i.e. a type of resentment over racism and murky attitudes, then it can be argued that the statement in context cannot be understood as a hate speech. – I see that Antonsen says that it was an attempt at a joke. But it is not decisive when judging in relation to the Criminal Code’s provision on hateful speech. The decisive factor will be how the statement was reasonably to be understood in the relevant context. – How should one judge what is humour, how can one know? – If it is the case that the context is obviously a humor context, and you speak in a character, for example, to ridicule racist statements, then you can caricature racists’ statements without being affected by the provisions of the Criminal Code. Alf Petter Høgberg is a professor at the Department of Public Law at the Faculty of Law at the University of Oslo. Among other things, he has criminal law as his research area. Photo: UiO Høgberg refers to the comedian Otto Jespersen, who in character has spoken several times as if the character was racist. – But then it has been to ridicule racism and racist attitudes as a phenomenon. Then he cannot be judged for it. He also refers to the radio reception in news P3. – The radio reception had something they called the embarrassment contest. Then it was one of the Sagen brothers who apparently spoke disparagingly of Africans. But it was obvious to everyone that the purpose was to ridicule murky attitudes. And if it is obvious in the relevant context that the purpose is not to present hateful speech as such, but to ridicule it, then you cannot be convicted of anything, says Høgberg. – Witness statements become important Professor of criminal law at the University of Bergen, Jørn Jacobsen, says that the witness statements the police rely on will be decisive – What comes out of the evidence is decisive for whether charges are brought in the case. The central evidence in the case will be the explanations of those involved in the case, including those who witnessed the incident, according to Jacobsen. He also believes that this case can be compared to the Hulsker case. – Both cases raise questions about the use of both section 185 on hate speech and section 266 on reckless behaviour. A closer comparison naturally depends on what is proven in this case, so we only have a basis for doing that later. – Does the racism clause work as intended, as you consider it? – The main problem in the context, regardless of what has actually happened in this case, is primarily how widespread racist expressions seem to be in society. It is not something that a penal provision or adjustments to it will be able to resolve without further ado. This summer, Sumaya Jirde Ali was a guest in Summer in P2.
ttn-69
Atle Antonsen reported for racism – risks the same as Bernt Hulsker – news Nordland
