No, Arbejderen Does Not Support Terrorism!

In recent years, an increasing number of Palestine activists and others who have criticized Israel s genocide have been charged in Denmark with condoning terrorism. Now, it appears that the turn has come to the daily newspaper Arbejderen.

Arbejderen s support for the Palestinians struggle for freedom could result in the newspaper being charged with supporting terrorism.


Marc B. Sanganee, editor-in-chief, and Lucas Carn, political editor, Arbejderen



On Tuesday, September 8, the editorial office of Arbejderen received a call from the Copenhagen Police informing us that charges for condoning terrorism would be brought against Arbejderen.

Allegedly, the case concerns an article that Arbejderen published in October 2023, which stated that, under international law, Palestinians have the right to wage armed resistance against the occupying power, Israel.

At the time of writing, Arbejderen has still not received any formal charges, so we do not know what will happen next. In this respect, we find ourselves in the same situation as many others who, over the past three years, have been contacted by the police´-or-charged with supporting terrorism because of statements concerning Palestine. The difference is simply that Arbejderen is a media outlet — and that is undeniably something new.

The many charges against Palestine sympathizers have not come out of nowhere. They have followed -dir-ect calls from both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice.

As early as November 2023, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen sent a letter to the Minister of Justice expressing concern about what she described as “disturbing behavior” that she had observed. “This clearly shows that there are people in Denmark who have not embraced our Danish values,” the Prime Minister wrote.

Against this background, she asked the Ministry of Justice to provide an account of “how the police and prosecution service apply criminal-law provisions concerning, among other things, incitement to and condoning of terrorism in connection with the recent demonstrations and public statements relating to the conflict in Israel and Gaza.”

What followed was a series of developments. The Ministry of Justice responded and instructed the -dir-ector of Public Prosecutions to pay particular attention to cases involving the condoning of terrorism.

This led to a large number of cases being brought, while even more were investigated. The -dir-ector of Public Prosecutions also requested that every single charge involving the condoning of terrorism be submitted for individual review — including cases that the police themselves considered unfounded.

It is difficult to determine the exact number of such cases. However, according to Politiken, there were 31 cases involving the condoning of terrorism between 2023 and 2025. Nine of those cases ended in acquittals, while four were still awaiting judgment when Politiken compiled its figures in April last year.

The number of acquittals is something that, among others, Professor Emerita Eva Smith has taken note of. In an article published in Altinget in April 2025, she wrote that in “ordinary” criminal cases in Denmark, 90 percent result in convictions — meaning that 90 percent of defendants are found guilty. In cases concerning the condoning of terrorism, however, defendants are convicted in only 50 percent of cases.

Normally, the police bring cases that they expect are likely to result in convictions — but that is not the case here. Eva Smith argues that this amounts to political interference in the work of the -dir-ector of Public Prosecutions, which is supposed to be independent under the Danish Administration of Justice Act:

“In the individual cases, the defendants have had to bear the burden of being charged with a serious and stigmatizing crime, not because the prosecution believed they were guilty, but because they followed a political instruction to bring as many cases as possible.”

The terrorism legislation has thus become a political instrument for the government to crack down on views that contradict the official policy of Denmark.

The “Oprø-;-r” Case

This is not the first time Arbejderen has found itself at odds with the terrorism legislation. The same thing happened in 2006, when the Copenhagen Police removed a document from Arbejderen s website, citing the terrorism legislation.

It is worth remembering that Denmark s terrorism legislation was first introduced in 2002 and has subsequently been strengthened. Many people warned at the time about the consequences of the new legislation. There was even unease within the conservative and right-wing parties. Political activists, lawyers, and other professionals also pointed to the dangerous path that had been set in motion.

One of them was former Member of Parliament Preben Wilhjelm, who held a law degree. In May 2002, Wilhjelm said:

“The anti-terror package represents a change in the relationship between the powers of the state and the legal protection of the individual citizen that is more far-reaching than the sum of all the changes introduced since the Danish rule-of-law state was established with the judicial reform of 1919.”

With the terrorism legislation, political activism was turned into terrorism. Solidarity with liberation movements was criminalized if the movements were listed as terrorist organizations by the EU. During the debate leading up to the adoption of the legislation, it was pointed out that if the law had been in force during the Vietnam War´-or-under the South African apartheid regime, large parts of the Danish solidarity movement would have been convicted.

Among those who set out to challenge the terrorism legislation was the Oprø-;-r association, founded in 2004. The association protested against the criminalization of support for liberation movements such as the Palestinian PFLP and Colombia s FARC because the United States and the EU had designated them as terrorist organizations.

In 2005, Oprø-;-r published an international appeal calling for support for liberation movements fighting for secular, democratic, and humanist goals, regardless of whether they appeared on the EU s terrorism list. In its appeal, Oprø-;-r wrote:

“The current terrorism legislation is being used by European governments to impose restrictions on citizens freedom of expression and political rights, including the right to communicate moral and material support to resistance and liberation movements around the world.”

Shortly afterward, Oprø-;-r s spokesperson, Patrick Mac Manus, was charged with encouraging support for terrorism.

Arbejderen followed Oprø-;-r s case closely, publishing the appeal in its -print- edition and subsequently posting it on its website. As a result, on February 24, 2006, the newspaper s internet service provider received a letter from the Copenhagen Police demanding that the appeal be immediately removed from Arbejderen s website — otherwise, the company could face criminal proceedings.

The daily newspaper Arbejderen itself heard nothing from the Copenhagen Police. We became aware of the case when our internet service provider contacted us. On our own initiative, we called police prosecutor Michael Jø-;-rgensen, who explained that the police action was entirely lawful. He said that their action was comparable to what they would have done if we had child pornography on our website. In such cases, he explained, one cannot wait for a court order...

Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Press

There was just one problem: Arbejderen was, and remains, a news media outlet registered with the Danish Press Council, and its website is therefore covered by the so-called Media Liability Act.

This means that neither the police nor other authorities have the right to interfere with what is published in the newspaper´-or-on its website. If the authorities have objections to the newspaper s content, they must first approach the editor-in-chief and subsequently bring the matter before the courts.

The Copenhagen Police did not do so in 2006. This naturally led Arbejderen to file complaints about the police action with the police prosecutor, the -dir-ector of Public Prosecutions, and the Prime Minister, who was also the minister responsible for the press. All parties in the Danish Parliament were informed, and the case was raised through several questions addressed to both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice.

It was not until an open consultation on June 23 that Justice Minister Lene Espersen responded. She declared that the terrorism legislation took precedence over the Media Liability Act because the terrorism legislation carried a maximum sentence of ten years in prison. Therefore, she argued, it had been lawful for the Copenhagen Police to censor Arbejderen s website. The interpretation was subsequently repeated by then Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

Not all experts agreed, however. Oluf Jø-;-rgensen, who at the time was a lecturer at the Danish School of Journalism and an expert in media law, called the case “absurd” in June 2006. In an interview with Arbejderen, he said:

“To claim that Arbejderen is responsible for an act that can carry a sentence of up to ten years in prison is a very serious accusation. And the newspaper s editor has not even been presented with such an accusation. It is completely absurd, and it simply does not hold up.”

He also pointed out that the media enjoy enhanced protection of freedom of expression:

“Arbejderen is a media outlet, and the media enjoy enhanced protection. The newspaper s ‘crime’ was supposedly that it reported on and documented Oprø-;-r s fundraising. But the media have every right to report on and document an illegal action.”

Now, 20 years have passed, and Arbejderen may once again find itself in the dock. But let us make one thing absolutely clear: Arbejderen does not support terrorism and never has — whether carried out by individuals, organizations,´-or-states. We condemn the killing of civilians and all other abuses against them.

We support every people s right to struggle against occupation and oppression. We support the Palestinian people and their right to resist, including through armed struggle, against the Israeli occupying power, as is also established under international law.

And we are deeply concerned about the consequences that the terrorism legislation has had in Denmark — not least for freedom of expression.

Any potential charge against Arbejderen for condoning terrorism cannot be viewed in isolation. It is part of a broader campaign against Palestinian activists and voices calling for an end to the genocide taking place in Palestine, demanding an end to the occupation and freedom for a people that has endured some of the most brutal forms of oppression for decades.

Noe Munck, chair of the Danish Association for Legal Policy, describes the Prime Minister s instruction to prosecutors to bring cases involving the condoning of terrorism as “one of the most serious restrictions on freedom of expression in recent times.”

Here at the editorial office, we completely agree.

https://arbejderen.dk/indland/nej-arbejderen-stoetter-ikke-terror/

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 1