Åsne Seierstad ordered to pay compensation to the bookseller's wife

02.08.2010

Åsne Seierstad’s international bestseller, The Bookseller of Kabul, portrays an Afghan bookseller and his family, and tells the story of a patriarch society were men are considered superior to women. In 2002 Seierstad was invited to live with the bookseller and his family. During a family dinner Seierstad said to herself “This is Afghanistan. How interesting it would be to write a book about this family”. This dinner and the emerging idea are described in the book’s opening. From a legal point of view it is of course relevant that Seierstad claimed to be portraying an actual family. The book was based on Seierstad’s many conversations and discussions with the bookseller and his family during her stay.

Even though the book was a portrait of an actual family, and even though no one asked her to, Seierstad chose to anonymize the family by use of names that were partly fictitious. However, when the book was translated into English and became an international bestseller, the family was soon identified in the media.

The wife of the bookseller, Suraia Rais, has grievances. First, Rais claims that the book contains descriptions of her that are simply untrue and also detrimental. Second, Rais is of the opinion that some of the statements that are true and correct are too intimate for publication, and that the publication of the book therefore violated her privacy. Rais therefore initiated legal proceedings against Seierstad and her publisher, Cappelen Damm AS, before Oslo City Court, and the court’s decision was published ultimo July 2010.

It is undisputed between the parties that neither the bookseller nor Rais herself had read the book before it was published and that they had therefore not consented to the publication of that particular text. However, it was also undisputed that Rais had been aware that Seierstad lived with their family in order to gather information to write a book. However, Rais claims that she thought Seierstad would write a book about Afghan culture in general and that the book would not describe her in any detail.

The Norwegian Penal Code section 390 states that “Any person who violates another person’s privacy by giving public information about personal or domestic relations shall be liable to fines or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months” (English wording from the unofficial translation of the Penal Code edited by the Norwegian Ministry of Justice, 2006). The Norwegian Act on Tort uses many of the same terms, and also refers to the above mentioned section of the Penal Code, and states that the victim of such violation may be granted compensation for economic and non-economic losses. Even though both the Act on Tort and the decision by Oslo City Court refers to the Penal Code, Seierstad is not in any way risking fines or imprisonment.

The right of every individual to object to the publishing of information of a private nature must of course be interpreted and limited in the light of the right to freedom of expression. The balance between right to privacy and right to freedom of expression is thoroughly discussed by Oslo City Court in its decision.  The right to freedom of expression is protected both in the Norwegian Constitution and the Norwegian Act on Human rights, and both of these are lex superior to the Penal Code and to the Act on Tort.

Oslo City Court found that if all statements about Rais had been based on statements made to Seierstad by either Rais or her family, then the scale of Lady Justitia should tip in favor of Seierstad and she should be acquitted. It was therefore important for Oslo City Court to consider whether or not Seierstad had factual basis for her way of describing Rais and circumstances related to her. In this context the primary evidence was Seierstad’s own extensive handwritten notes made during her many conversations and discussions with the bookseller’s family. In many of the disputed descriptions Oslo City Court found that Seierstad did indeed have sufficient factual basis, but that was not the case with all her statements about Rais.

Most of the statements about Rais where Oslo City Court found that Seierstad lacked sufficient factual basis, were related to Seierstad’s description of the bookseller’s proposal to Rais and Rais’ thoughts regarding the proposal and the wedding.  The following sentences were in focus:

She was petrified, paralyzed by fear. She did not want the man but she knew she had to obey her parents. As Sultan's wife, her standing in Afghan society would go up considerably. The bride money would solve many of her family’s  problems. The money would help her parents buy good wives for their sons.

Oslo  City Court found that Seiersted lacked sufficient factual basis to state that Rais did not want to marry the bookseller, and that she felt obligated to obey her parents’ wish. Oslo City Court also found that Seierstad did not have sufficient factual basis to state that Rais put any emphasis on the bride money, and that the marriage would improve her standing in Afghan society. Oslo City Court therefore concluded that Rais was attributed with thoughts and ideas that were not her own.

Seierstad and the publisher, Cappelen Damm AS, were each ordered to pay Rais a sum of NOK 125 000,- (approximately EUR 15 500,-). Seierstad and Cappelen Damm AS have stated that they intend to file an appeal against the decision.