STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION
SEE THE DANISH VERSION
WHAT LIES BEHIND FLORENCE BERGEAUD BLACKLER’S CLAIMS OF “FATWA FEAR”?
Is it truly “fear,” or is it a carefully crafted strategy to avoid criticism? Florence Bergeaud Blackler, with support from Nina Palesa Bonde and the PATY group, finds herself at the heart of a controversy surrounding freedom of speech. Are they defending democratic values, or are they the ones fearing the truth?
Florence, a French scholar known for her critical views on Islamism, now claims to be the target of a modern-day “fatwa.” But the question remains: Who is really trying to stifle free debate—and why?
NINA PALESA BONDE: IS FREE SPEECH ONLY FOR HER?
How can someone who claims to champion free speech block critical voices? Nina Palesa Bonde, chair of the Danish Judicial Association and a prominent figure in PATY, asserts her commitment to open dialogue. Yet, why did she block me when I asked a simple question about fatwas and fear?
My criticism wasn’t an attack—it was an attempt to understand. I directly asked Florence Bergeaud Blackler whether a fatwa could be compared to Hitler’s manifesto on Jewish persecution and if both were built on fear. Her response? Silence. And Nina’s? She blocked me. If they genuinely want an open dialogue, why silence those with differing views?
PATY: PROTECTOR OF FREEDOM OR TOOL FOR CONTROL?
What is PATY’s real purpose? The group, named after the murdered French teacher Samuel Paty, claims to fight for free speech and against Islamist self-censorship. But behind the facade lies a critical question: Is it about securing freedom—or controlling what can be said?
PATY has repeatedly backed controversial positions promoting criticism of Islam and highlighting perceived threats from Islamism. But where is the line between defending free speech and pushing a political agenda? Nina Palesa Bonde’s close ties to these networks make it hard to ignore the possibility of a conflict of interest.
BERLINGSKE AND BJARKE LARSEN’S DEFENSE: WHO IS REALLY MANIPULATING?
Is it the journalists or the scholars who lack credibility? Florence Bergeaud Blackler’s Danish publisher, Bjarke Larsen, has entered the debate, accusing Berlingske of a “manipulated” article. He claims the journalist had decided on an angle before speaking to Florence. But is this the full story?
Why does Larsen assert that Florence’s 92 pages of counterarguments do not alter her book’s conclusions? And why is the journalist’s credibility questioned, while Florence dismisses all criticism as part of an “Islamist agenda”?
WHAT IS FLORENCE BERGEAUD BLACKLER AFRAID OF?
Why does Florence react so strongly to criticism? When she claims to be targeted by researchers who “dislike her documentation,” we must ask: Is this about fear—or an inability to face legitimate critique?
Instead of fostering dialogue, Florence has aligned herself with Nina Palesa Bonde and PATY. Together, with pro-Zionist lawyers and an anti-Islamist agenda, it appears their goal is not to defend freedom but to shape it to their own image.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH?
Can we trust that figures like Florence and Nina are fighting for all voices—or only their own? In an era where free speech faces pressure from many directions, it’s crucial to ask: Who decides what can be said? And who protects us from those trying to define the boundaries of freedom?
When Nina Palesa Bonde stated on DR that “it’s an axe strike into Danish free speech,” we must also ask: Who is wielding the axe? Is it Florence and Nina, using their organizations and connections to control the narrative, or is it the critics simply striving to be heard?
