Friday is a dramatic day in Danish politics.
Morten Messerschmidt, the leader of the Danish People’s Party (Dansk Folkeparti), has lost a much-discussed court case against Martin Lidegaard, the leader of the Social Liberals (Radikale Venstre).
Messerschmidt had taken Lidegaard to court over what he believed to be defamatory comments about his remigration policy.
The District Court in Frederiksberg has found that Lidegaard did not defame Messerschmidt and has ordered Messerschmidt to pay the costs of the case, totalling 93,750 Danish kroner.
“You would like to intern up to 100,000 Danes”
The case started in October 2025, when Messerschmidt gave an interview to Weekendavisen in which he called for the deportation of 50,000 to 100,000 immigrants who rely on welfare programmes, referring to the term “remigration”.
In a political debate the following month, Lidegaard said of Messerschmidt, “They want to intern and deport thousands of fellow citizens, just because they have a different faith or a different skin colour than most of us who are in this room.”
Later in the debate he added, “If I understood your interview in Weekendavisen correctly, then you would like to intern up to 100,000 Danes if they have a different ethnic background and do not want to leave voluntarily.”
Lidegaard also started an argument by saying, “If you want to intern one hundred thousand people with another ethnic background.”
These were the comments that Messerschmidt particularly objected to, which led him to sue the other party leader for defamation.
He was not asking for any financial compensation, but rather an acknowledgement from the courts that Lidegaard had indeed defamed him with the aforementioned comments.
The party leaders had their day in court on 18 August earlier this year, giving the three judges just under two months to reach a determination.
Lidegaard’s defence
In August, Lidegaard’s defence was multifaceted. He suggested that he had used reservations in his language, while also arguing that it was not misleading to accuse Messerschmidt of racism.
The first argument relied on the use of words such as “they” (or in Danish “man”, which is even more unspecific), which Lidegaard suggested also referred to the likes of US President Donald Trump and the German political party Alternative for Germany.
Lidegaard’s defence also noted the reservation “if I understood your interview in Weekendavisen correctly”, suggesting that this left room for interpretation.
Additionally, Lidegaard’s defence tried to portray Messerschmidt, his party, and their policy as racist, in order to suggest that it was fair to make value judgements about the remigration policies.
They suggested that remigration as a broad policy is inherently racist, citing academics on this claim. They also shared multiple social media posts from the Danish People’s Party that the defence claimed were racist.
Messerschmidt’s argument
Messerschmidt’s argument in court primarily revolved around the fact that the suggestions made by Lidegaard about Messerschmidt’s policies were incorrect.
Messerschmidt’s side also argued that the use of the word “remigration” in Weekendavisen was the choice of the journalist and not something Messerschmidt himself had used.
However, the defence rebutted this, noting that Messerschmidt had used the term previously across the media.
Messerschmidt also spoke in court about having been personally affected by the allegations of racism that Lidegaard had made against him in the much-discussed debate in November last year.
The court’s decision
The District Court in Frederiksberg, in a decision on which the three judges agreed, noted that they found the claims made by Lidegaard were indeed capable of causing defamation.
However, they decided to place greater weight on the public debate and discourse, concluding that members of parliament “have a particularly far-reaching freedom of speech”.
They suggested that due to these circumstances, Messerschmidt, “as a member of the Folketing and party leader in connection with a public political debate on immigration policy, where he himself has expressed political views that could give rise to debate and criticism, must show a higher degree of tolerance than when it concerns private individuals; [and] that the statements were made orally and spontaneously and with the aim of generating a debate”.
The judges also weighed some of Messerschmidt’s previous controversial comments, writing that, as a member of the Folketing and party leader, he “could be particularly stigmatising, which spoke in favour of the statements not being justified with regard to the protection of [Messerschmidt’s] reputation”.
