Of course, we cannot restrict the rights of a provocateur because others threaten violence

Apparently, there is reason to recall that the rights also apply to those we do not like. It can even be said that it is precisely in the face of deeply controversial statements that a society's support for freedom of expression must stand the test of time.

It is trivial to note that the right-wing extremist Rasmus Paludan is a paltry existence. His provocations are foolish, and it is obvious that his business is to create division.

It should be just as trivial that freedom of expression and assembly also applies to a man like Rasmus Paludan. And that the police must necessarily protect him if people threaten violence against him while he makes use of his constitutional rights.

Nevertheless, it may be recalled that the rights also apply to those we do not like. It can even be said that it is precisely in the face of deeply controversial statements that a society's support for freedom of expression must stand the test of time.

The Folketing member Karsten Hønge from the Socialist People's Party has previously argued that the police should no longer spend resources on protecting Rasmus Paludan. Similar views have been expressed after Sunday's unrest in Nørrebro in Copenhagen.

Several have drawn parallels with the Tibet case. In a popular tweet, Unity List's Per Clausen writes:

"What is the difference between waving a Tibet flag and burning the Koran? The answer is easy. In the first case, you're arrested by the police. In the second case, you are protected by the police.""

And journalist and opinion writer Paula Larrain asks in a tweet:

'Why do the police discriminate against protesters with Tibet flags and then this type of protester?'

It could almost sound as if they believe that the police should have acted as in the Tibet case.

But when the two differ from each other, it is because the police respect basic rights in one case and did not do so in the other. The Tibet case was a scandal because the police did not respect freedom of expression and assembly. This is certainly not an example to follow, but a deterrent.

It is disheartening to see how some fools in Nørrebro and elsewhere in the Copenhagen area are running Rasmus Paludan's errand by throwing paving stones and lighting cars on fire, thus exposing themselves as criminals without respect for the law.

However, it must be beyond discussion that we cannot restrict fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and assembly to a provocateur because others threaten him with violence.