Lektor Heini í Skorinis festtale
Tale i anledning af Rahbeks sommerhøjskole i 2025.
Diktatorer i uniformer og techgiganter i hættetrøjer – og nogle tanker om ytringsfrihedens oversete tvilling
Tusind tak for invitationen. Det er mig en stor ære at befinde mig her på Grundtvigs Højskole iblandt jer i aften. Jeg er lige ankommet fra mit hjemland, Færøerne, og jeg er glad for, at I er så rummelige, at I åbner dørene for lidt suspekt, nordatlantisk infiltration i den sydlige del af kongeriget. Men jeg siger som de gør i Science Fiction-filmene, når fremmede væsener lander på ukendte planeter: I Come in Peace!
I midten af nullerne, mens jeg var en ung og usikker færing, der studererede statskundskab på Københavns Universitet, blev Danmark kastet ud i den største udenrigspolitiske krise siden Anden Verdenskrig. 12 tegninger med profeten Muhammed som omdrejningspunkt udløste massedemonstrationer i Mellemøsten, brændende ambassader, boykot af danske produkter, nye terrortrusler samtidig med, at tegnere og redaktører måtte forsvinde under jord og leve med livvagter døgnet rundt.
Og ved Institut for Statskundskab medførte Muhammed-krisen stor splittelse. Jeg tilhørte det hold, som mente, at retten til religionskritik er fundamental i et liberalt demokrati, og at enhver verdensreligion må finde sig i den slags. Men der var mange kloge og velartikulerede mennesker omkring mig, som mente, at tegningerne var et udtryk for racisme, intolerance og fremmedhad. Og at tegnere som Kurt Westergaard eller redaktører som Flemming Rose selv var skyld i de dødstrusler, som nu havde lagt sig som en mørk skygge over deres liv.
Rushdies enøjede kritikere
Denne form for ”victimblaming” behandles af den store forfatter Salman Rushdie i hans seneste bog “Knife: Meditations After an Attempted Murder”. Bogen handler om at blive angrebet på en bogscene af en voldelig islamist og mirakuløst overleve 15 knivstik. I bogen husker Rushdie det kor af kritikere, intellektuelle, forfattere i den vestlige verden, som vendte sig imod ham, efter at han fik sin fatwa, sin dødsdom, udstedt af det iranske præstestyre tilbage i 1989 på grund af en roman, De Sataniske Vers. En fatwa, som til sidst – efter mere end 30 år – indhentede Rushdie. Forfatteren gengiver sine kritikere fra halvfemserne og skriver:
“He brought this on himself, he got himself into trouble with “his own people”, and now we have have to get him out of it, he criticized Mrs. Thatcher but now her government is paying to save his neck, and he’s fine with that, and is there really anybody trying to kill him, or does he just like the attention? And why are we paying all this money to protect him when he seems to be doing just fine?”
Vi hører forskellige varianter af denne samme reaktion igen og igen, hver gang det frie ord er under angreb, uanset om det er Rushdie, Jyllandsposten, fængslede dissidenter i den muslimske verden, Charlie Hebdo, Pussy Riot i Rusland, eller den franske skolelærer Samuel Paty, som blev myrdet på åben gade i en forstad til Paris, fordi han havde brugt satiretegninger i sin undervisning.
Disse begivenheder fungerer som et røntgenbillede, ikke kun af autoritære regimer eller voldelige islamister i vesten, men også af vores eget demokrati. Presset kommer ikke bare udefra – det kommer også indefra. Når vi begynder at tilpasse europæiske demokratier for at tilfredsstille voldelige og udemokratiske kræfter. Når et land som Danmark f.eks. vedtager nye love, som beskytter religiøse symboler eller tekster efter pres fra islamistiske regimer.
Og det er også ildevarslende, når europæiske lande som Tyskland eller Storbritannien i disse år intensiverer antallet af hate speech-relaterede retssager imod borgere, som har ytret sig kontroversielt på sociale medier. For ikke at tale om USA, hvor Trump-administrationen har indledt en krig mod frie medier, universiteter, domstole og individer, som ytrer sig kritisk imod de siddende magthavere.
Det går den forkerte vej, hvis man mener, at retten til religionskritik og politisk kritik skal forsvares og promoveres. Visse rapporter om ytringsfrihed og censur taler om en decideret demokratisk recession. Og presset kommer både fra venstrefløjen og højrefløjen, fra islamister, fra autokratiske regimer i Moskva, Beijing og Mellemøsten, og i stigende grad også fra Washington.
Ytringsfrihedens oversete tvilling
Men presset mod åndsfrihed og dannelse kommer ikke kun fra diktatorer i uniformer eller wannabe diktatorer i kasketter. Det kommer også fra techgiganter i hættetrøjer i Silicon Valley.
Når vi med stor patos taler om ytringsfrihed, taler vi næsten altid om retten til at sige noget. At skrive, tale, tegne, demonstrere – uden censur, frygt eller sanktioner.
Men vi glemmer ofte ytringsfrihedens lidt oversete og mere introverte tvilling – og det er informationsfriheden. Retten til at modtage og opsøge viden og sandhed. Muligheden for at blive klogere og få adgang til oplysninger, som man behøver for at være et oplyst menneske og en kritisk borger.
Og her, 20 år efter Muhammed-krisen, står vi i dag i en ny slags krise. Ikke med boykot, bombetrusler og brændende ambassader, men med algoritmer, informationsbobler og manipulerede virkeligheder. Informationsfriheden er ikke bare truet af statslig censur – men også af kaos og støj.
Paradokset er, at vi oversvømmes af information, uden nødvendigvis at blive klogere. Vi drukner i posts, clicks, virale videoer og halve sandheder, mens de vigtige og troværdige oplysninger forsvinder. Alle råber, men ingen bliver klogere.
Hvorfor? Måske fordi pengestyrede algoritmer i vores digitale økosystem ikke er interesserede i sandhed, men i opmærksomhed. Og hvad skaber mest opmærksomhed? Det gør vrede, ekstreme ytringer, chok og sensation.
Og hvis alt bliver til støj – og sandheden bliver reduceret til ét synspunkt blandt mange – så kan enhver løgn sejre, bare den får nok opmærksomhed. Og så forvandles åndsfrihed til åndstomhed.
Derfor er det ikke nok at forsvare retten til at sige noget. Vi må også skabe rammerne for at vide noget. Derfor skal informationsfriheden ikke kun beskyttes juridisk, den skal også dyrkes kulturelt. Det kræver oplysningsinstitutioner, uafhængig journalistik, biblioteker, frie universiteter – og højskoler. Steder, hvor man også lærer at lytte, læse, tænke og tvivle.
Dengang Jesus var farlig og Muhammed ufarlig
Men selv om vi lever i en vanvittig digital tidsalder, så betyder det ikke, at løsningen er et autoritært cyberspace politi i Bruxelles eller et digitalt sandheds-ministerium styret af Silicon Valley, der skal bestemme, hvad er sandt, hvad er falsk, hvad er rigtigt, og hvad er forkert. Fordi grænsen mellem sandhed og løgn skifter fra generation til generation. Grænsen mellem det acceptable og det uacceptable er altid afhængig af den herskende tidsånd.
Et lille eksempel er en Muhammed-krise for 100 år siden, i 1925, da en satiretegning blev publiceret i den britiske avis, The Daily Star. Det engelske cricketlandshold havde lige vundet en vigtig landskamp, og den store engelske satiretegner Sir David Low tegnede en stor statue af den store profil på det engelske landshold, Jack Hobbs. Under teksten ”Gallery of the most important historical celebrities” ser vi en kæmpestor statue af Jack Hobbs i midten, og ved hans side står nogle små skikkelser og beundrer den store stjerne, bl.a. den romerske kejser Julius Cæsar, profeten Muhammed, Charlie Chaplin, Christopher Columbus og Adam i Edens Have. Avisen udkom også i Indien, som dengang var en britisk koloni, og tegningen udløste voldsomme protester og demonstrationer blandt muslimske grupper i Indien og en diplomatisk krise mellem den britiske regering og den indiske koloni.
Det interessante er, at tegneren oprindelig ville tegne Jesus og ikke Muhammed. Men chefredaktøren på avisen nægtede. Hvis vi publicerer en satiretegning med Jesus, får vi ballade med både kirken, de politiske myndigheder, og ikke mindst vores læsere. Satiretegneren valgte altså i sidste øjeblik at tegne profeten Muhammed i stedet for Jesus, fordi det var mere sikkert og ufarligt. Fordi man ikke ønskede ballade og retssager.
For 100 år siden var det altså farligere at tegne Jesus end Muhammed i et vesteuropæisk demokrati. Men i dag forholder det sig omvendt. Kirken er banket på plads, kristendommen har indordnet sig en ny sekulær tidsalder, og de fleste betragter det som et fremskridt, troende såvel som ikke-troende. Men samtidig er islam blevet en del af den europæiske offentlighed, og satire om islams hellige symboler kan udløse voldelige reaktioner og internationalt pres, ikke mindst i FN-systemet, som er mit forskningsfelt, hvor en bred og stærk værdipolitisk alliance ønsker at indføre et globalt blasfemi-forbud.
Blasfemiske sandheder
Men i stedet for at indføre særlige regler for visse religioner skal vi holde fast i princippet om ikke bare frihed, men også lighed: alle religioner og politiske ideologier skal kunne udsættes for kritik og satire, for retten til at tænke og kommunikere frit om livets store spørgsmål er en afgørende forudsætning for fremskridt. Som den irske nobelprisvinder i 1925, George Bernard Shaw, engang skrev i protest mod den katolske kirkes censur: “All great truths begin as blasphemies.” Alle store sandheder begynder som blasfemi. Det betyder ikke, at alle blasfemikere nødvendigvis har en stor sandhed at formidle til menneskeheden. Men historien er fyldt med eksempler på nye og vigtige erkendelser, som blev mødt med stor modstand, fordi nogen udfordrede de herskende religiøse og politiske dogmer, f.eks. Kopernikus, Galileo eller Charles Darwin, som alle revolutionerede den moderne videnskab.
Og vi kunne afslutningsvis fortsætte listen med kristendommens hovedperson, Jesus, som også blev anklaget for gudsbespottelse flere gange i sit liv. Eller en anden central skikkelse i vestlig idéhistorie, Sokrates, som 400 år før Jesus også blev dømt for blasfemi i det antikke Grækenland, fordi han stillede spørgsmålstegn ved guderne i græsk mytologi og korrumperede ungdommens sind. Det bliver tit sagt (måske lidt forsimplet), at den vestlige civilisation hviler på to idéhistoriske grundpiller: arven fra kristendommen og arven fra det antikke Grækenland. Men måske har vi glemt, at hovedpersonerne i disse traditioner var nogle magtkritiske provokatører, der vidste alt om ”deplatforming” og ”cancel culture” og anklager om ”fake news”.
Så, kære højskole-elever. Måske kan vi sige, at ytringsfriheden er retten til at tænke højt og larme. Informationsfriheden er retten til at modtage viden, blive klogere og lytte til noget, der ikke er komplet vås. Og et robust demokrati fungerer kun, når vi gør begge dele – og stadig kan spise frokost sammen bagefter.
Tusind tak.
Heini í Skorini
Lektor i international politik
Ambassadør Parisots ytringsfrihedstale
Tale i anledning af Rahbeks Højskoles ytringsfrihedssalon i 2024.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Dear colleagues, friends of liberty and freedom, and distinguished guests,
It is an honour to speak in front of you today on a topic that holds great significance, not only for France, for Denmark but for all of us who cherish democratic values. Four years ago, on October 16th, 2020, France experienced a tragic and horrific event, one more: the murder of Samuel Paty, a history and geography teacher whose only “crime” was teaching about freedom of expression, one of the pillars of our Republic and the foundation of any democratic society.
His brutal death shook France to its core. It reignited a debate about the limits, if any, of free speech, the importance of education, and the threats posed by obscurantism and extremism, especially when stemming from religious belief or misbelief – in that case, calling a spade a spade, Islam. Today, I stand here to reflect on what this event has taught us and how we, as a society, have responded and is still responding to the challenges it raised.
Samuel Paty was more than just a victim of senseless violence; he became a symbol of the values we hold dear. As a teacher, he believed in the power of education to enlighten minds and foster critical thinking, “libre-arbitre, esprit critique” in French. He embodied the principles of the French Republic: “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity”. In his classroom, he taught students to question, to debate, and to understand the importance of freedom of expression.
The attack on him was not just an attack on an individual but on these very principles. It was a horrific reminder that the freedoms we often take for granted can come under direct assault, even in the most democratic and liberal societies. But it also reminded us of something else: that our commitment to these freedoms must remain unwavering.
Freedom of expression is not just a French or European value; it is universal. It is enshrined in international declarations, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which affirms that “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.” This freedom allows us to speak our minds, challenge authority and religion, criticize what we find unjust, and, importantly, to live in a society where diverse views can coexist.
However, with this freedom comes responsibility; the never-ending balance between rights and duties. It is an absolute right. We must always balance it with respect for others and the need to avoid incitement to violence or hate. The challenge we face today, in a world where information and disinformation spread rapidly and often without context nor explanation, is to protect free speech while also fostering tolerance and understanding.
In the aftermath of Samuel Paty’s murder, one of the most disturbing realizations was how extremism and disinformation fuelled this tragedy. A campaign of lies was waged against him on social media, distorting the truth of what had happened in his classroom and stoking the flames of hatred.
In the years since, we have seen an increasing polarization of societies around the world. Extremist ideologies, whether religious or political, thrive on fear and misinformation. Social media platforms, while giving voice to millions, have also become breeding grounds for falsehoods and radicalism. This environment presents a profound challenge to our democratic values and systems.
It is essential, therefore, that we tackle disinformation with the same vigour that we defend free speech. We must ensure that education, like the one Samuel Paty dedicated his life to, equips young people with the tools they need to critically evaluate information, question sources, and resist the lure of extremism.
Education remains our most powerful defence against intolerance, ignorance, and hate. Samuel Paty understood this better than anyone. As a society, we owe it to him — and to ourselves — to ensure that his legacy lives on in our classrooms.
This means more than just teaching the principles of free speech. It requires fostering a culture of open dialogue where students feel safe to express differing opinions, where they can learn to disagree without hostility, and where they understand that freedom of expression must coexist with mutual respect.
In France, and across the world, we must continue to invest in education systems that not only impart knowledge but also promote civic values. We must support our teachers, like Samuel Paty, who are on the front lines of this effort, often in the face of increasing challenges.
As decision-makers, we have a responsibility to create environments where freedom of expression can flourish, while also protecting our citizens. In France, we have taken steps to strengthen laws against hate speech, to better regulate online platforms, and to ensure that those who threaten or incite violence are held accountable.
But this is not a challenge that any one nation can tackle alone. We must work together across borders, across cultures, and across political divides to safeguard these values. The fight against extremism, against disinformation, and against those who seek to undermine democratic freedoms is a global one.
France and Denmark, as partners and as members of the international community, have a shared interest in promoting and defending freedom of expression and have a very special relation in that domain. Our collaboration, whether through international forums, joint initiatives, or educational exchanges, is critical to ensuring that these values endure.
As we reflect on the events of four years ago, let us not be discouraged by the threats we face. Instead, let us reaffirm our commitment to the principles that Samuel Paty stood for. Let us honour his memory by continuing to champion freedom of expression, by fostering dialogue and understanding, and by standing united against intolerance and extremism.
Each of us whether in government, in education, or as individuals has a role to play. We must be vigilant in defending our freedoms, but we must also be proactive in promoting a society where those freedoms are respected, understood, and upheld with responsibility.
In closing, I leave you with the words of Voltaire, whose defence of freedom of speech remains timeless: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” These words encapsulate the very heart of what we stand for, and it is our duty to ensure that this spirit endures for generations to come.
Thank you.
Christophe Parisot
Ambassadeur de France au Danemark
Ambassadør Parisots ytringsfrihedstale
Tale i anledning af Rahbeks Højskoles ytringsfrihedssalon i 2023.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Three years ago, Samuel Paty, a history and geography teacher in Conflans-Sainte-Honorine, was murdered by Islamist terrorists in a most brutal way. The emotion aroused by this barbaric act was profound. The pain was intense because, once again, a life had been taken away, away from its family, from its loved ones and causing a national trauma. But this cowardly assassination went far beyond that. This barbaric act targeted the person, but also the function. It was not the first time, unfortunately, that Islamist terrorism had struck my country. But it was the first time it targeted a teacher, who was working every day to raise our children’s awareness and understanding of the world, so that every day they become more than adults, they become citizens. This is why Samuel Paty’s death has made him, in spite of himself, a symbol. A symbol of the struggle for knowledge against ignorance, for tolerance and respect against hatred, for freedom against oppression.
In France and Denmark, we are fortunate to live in societies where freedom of expression is guaranteed by the constitution. This freedom has been hard-won. In France, it stems from the philosophy of the Enlightenment, and enshrines the rising of humanism, a notion that places human development at the heart of the political project. It is featured in the articles 10 and 11 of the Declaration of the Rights of the Man and the Citizen of 1789. It allows to express free will, the freedom to believe or not to believe, and freedom of conscience. It means making a fundamental distinction between what is linked to mankind, which must be protected, and what is linked to ideas, which can be criticized. It is freedom of conscience that allows debate to take place, allows arguments to be expressed, and allows the choice of convincing or being convinced through dialogue. It allows beliefs, religious or not, to be criticized. It also enshrines respect for others and rejects violence.
Yet this freedom is attacked by those who prefer ignorance and hatred and want to destroy what we are. Those whose political project can only flourish through terror and lies. Those who do not accept that we can fight against their ideas, whether through debate or humor. In 2015, you all remember the attacks on the newspaper Charlie Hebdo. The impact of this murder was all the greater in Denmark, which had exposed itself in the same way by publishing cartoons a few years earlier. Freedom of expression was shaking, targeted by barbarity. But this attack made us collectively aware of the need to fight for it, to better understand it, and better defend it. And we decided that we would carry on with our right to express opinions, and to caricature.
In France, the notion of laïcité (which is partially translatable in secularism) is often a debated subject. This notion is sometimes wrongly seen as an attack on religion, but it’s in fact quite the opposite. In France, and I’m mentioning this as we’re precisely in the Nobel week, it was championed by teacher and pedagogue Ferdinand Buisson, winner of the 1927 Nobel Peace Prize. Laïcité is the right to believe or not to believe, and not to be discriminated against by the state based on one’s beliefs. This notion is inseparable from the notion of neutrality of the State with regard to religious matters, which stems from the separation from the Church in 1905. This is why France guarantees the right to wear religious symbols to everyone. There are only a few limitations: 1/ firstly, in the interests of public order, which makes it compulsory to have a visible face in the public space for safety reasons; 2/ secondly, in order to respect the principle of neutrality that I just mentioned, which applies to public officials in the course of their duties; and 3/ lastly, in schools, where we believe that minds are not yet sufficiently formed to resist external pressures, hence the need to create neutral spaces that favors learning.
Each country has its own organization, and the application of freedom of expression necessarily takes into account local particularities. The only thing that doesn’t change is the universality of these values, which are the foundation of our democracies and enable the elevation of mankind. Denmark is the country of Grundtvig, who also defended them. It’s a fine heritage that contributed to the cohesion and prosperity of this country. These values are also those that France and Denmark defend abroad and in international forums, and we must continue to teach and promote them to protect our democracies.
For the past years, we have been receiving anonymous tributes outside our embassy on various anniversaries of terrorist attacks. I’d like to say thank you to those who keep the Enlightenment alive with their flowers and candles and show that we can rally behind our shared values despite our differences of opinion. It’s a message of hope for the future. And I’d also like to thank the teachers in every country who pass on these values to the younger generations. They are demanding, but they deserve it, because they bring out the best in all of us. As French philosopher Honoré Mirabeau said in 1776, education and freedom are at the core of human prosperity.
I’d like to end this speech with an optimistic message: a quotation from Amin Maalouf, the Franco-Lebanese writer who has just been elected Secretary General of the Académie Française, and who, in his essay “Les identités meurtrières” (Deadly Identities), said that it’s the way we look at others that often locks them into their narrowest allegiances, and it’s also the way we look at them that can set them free.
Thank you.
Christophe Parisot
Ambassadeur de France au Danemark