Danish law banning public burning of Quran sparks outcry : europe

[-] frostbiker@lemmy.ca 132 points 2 years ago

Burning a symbol to upset people is a shitty thing to do, but it should not be illegal.

Assaulting people, whether they burned a symbol you like or not, is a shitty thing to do that should remain illegal.

And yes, some people in my country have burned symbols that represent people like me recently. Nobody from my community assaulted the people who did it in response. Just the way it should be.

[-] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 28 points 2 years ago

The burning of qurans is clearly meant to incite hate and violence though, and frankly people shouldn't be burning anything in public anyways.

They're still perfectly free to invite anyone to their backyard book burnings, don't act like this is some authoritarian limit on freedom, this is an active intervention to PRESERVE freedom from the nazis who want to take it from us.

[-] frostbiker@lemmy.ca 59 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I do not approve of burning holy books, but I think it should be legal.

What people shouldn't do and what should be banned are different things. I don't want to live in a place where what is not mandatory is banned. There has to be some room for freedom of expression, even for people expressing ideas we dislike.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 23 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I do not approve of burning books, full stop. I couldn’t care less whose imaginary friend the book is or isn’t about.

But I completely agree that the government should categorically not be legislating which books you can and cannot burn. Burning a book is a form of free speech. It’s often offensive to many people, but it’s still important - if for no other reason than it lets the people doing the burning show their true colors.

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] Syndic@feddit.de 11 points 2 years ago

There has to be some room for freedom of expression, even for people expressing ideas we dislike.

And there still is plenty of room of public expression of opinions without burning a book representing a religious group. Seriously there are thousands of ways to do so.

But European countries did learn some lessons and that's why some actions such as calling for religious or other minority groups to be killed or to intimindate such groups with displays of violence isn't allowed in many of them. And burning a religious book in public is such an act of intimidation which serves absolutely no constructive purpose. That's why many European countries don't allow such behaviour.

[-] CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz 25 points 2 years ago

You act like there would be less of a reaction if people ripped up, walked on, or in other ways desecrated the Quran. This isn't about book burning, this is about a group of people not tolerating that on of their symbols is desecrated.

Imagine if we prosecuted people for burning flags or signs with slogans... but maybe you think that should be illegal as well?

[-] Fifteen_Two@lemmy.ca 15 points 2 years ago

Doyou care if I burn a stack of paper? Then you shouldn't care if I burn a fucking book.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] taladar@feddit.de 11 points 2 years ago

that’s why some actions such as calling for religious or other minority groups to be killed or to intimindate such groups with displays of violence isn’t allowed in many of them

Then why are you giving groups who threaten violence an incentive to do that more often by giving in to their demands?

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] SwedishFool@lemmy.world 94 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Yeah, no, sorry. The Arabic world with the monstrous societal issues they're suffering, has no right to dictate how our western world laws should look like. We have no obligation to bow to them, especially concidering there is nothing more anti Muslim than neighboring muslim countries. We had our borders open while the rich Arabic world shut theirs. This is just those rich countries grasping for more power. Fuck off or no more assistance programs, we'll spend our tax payers money on our own country instead of giving it to some ungrateful Arabic leaders new Ferrari.

[-] Why9@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

I agree with your views on the Arab world but that's irrelevant to the discussion here?

Should it be illegal to burn religious books for ~~the sole purpose of inciting hated~~ freedom of speech? Probably not, but there needs to be some measure against people who are doing stuff like that purely for that reaction.

It turned the relatively peaceful streets of Finland into one with anger and violence, because one guy wanted to make a point. People were happy to let it happen until people from the opposite camp started burning Torahs. Suddenly it became an actionable issue.

Regardless of your views on the Arab world (of which I again, agree), a law that protects some and condemns others is the fastest path to instability and chaos and must be avoided at all costs. That's what's being discussed here.

I don't have an answer. I don't think it should be illegal, but I do think freedom of speech needs to have limits.

[-] HerrBeter@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The problem is still feeling entitled to rioting, death threatening, and all that for simply being circumstancly offended. The protest is justified imo, and should always be so. How are we supposed to protest any fascistic and dogmatic entities if we're not allowed to protest using symbols?

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

In the interests of informed debate: Europe does not make no-strings welfare payments to Arab despots. What money they have they usually get from resource extraction, oil and so on. To the extent Europe pays anyone off, it is very much conditional - stopping migrants, for example.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] TWeaK@lemm.ee 32 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

[removed by mod]

[-] drolex@sopuli.xyz 37 points 2 years ago

But then you could always pretend to be offended by something to get it banned. I understand that by your definition it would only include things done to spite other people but the line is thin. And it would create a dangerous precedent for the freedom of expression.

I might become offended by people wearing a tie. If it becomes well-known, should we ban ties?

I agree that in an ideal world, people shouldn't be assholes and burn Qur'ans just to antagonise people. But it should also be clear to the offended people, that this actually harms no one. It's like burning a dictionary. It's idiotic but harmless. If you expect to live in an open society, you have to realise that the book of your religion is just an object.

[-] McJonalds@lemmy.world 29 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

If i went into the street and condemned people for whatever choices they make, without harassing them, that would be legal. You're not harming anyone by burning a book and you wouldn't hurt anyone either by just pissing them off. The problem is a very vocal part of the world have been brainwashed to incite violence when this specific area of their feelings get hurt.

It's only made a gray area because you can't tell them that they can in fact just learn to ignore it and practice their religion in peace and expect it to work. Their beliefs are not built upon letting others express their views freely if they react with violence when someone burns their printed holy word. Their actions would be justified if there was only one copy or a building was burnt down, but it's a worthless material thing, and the disrespect it signifies will not go away just because you disallow people to express it.

Sorry, long rant to say I actually agree that this law goes too far.

load more comments (14 replies)

load more comments (10 replies)

[-] blue_zephyr@lemmy.world 29 points 2 years ago

Blasphemy laws in 2023...

[-] Armen12@lemm.ee 28 points 2 years ago

This is a clear violation of peoples right to free expression. religious nutjobs have no place determining what we can and can't do in society

[-] tryptaminev@feddit.de 21 points 2 years ago

No it is not. Hate speech should not be mislabeled as free expression and many countries exempt hate speech from protected speec and criminalize it.

[-] Armen12@lemm.ee 11 points 2 years ago

Religion has no place in the law

load more comments (6 replies)

[-] charonn0@startrek.website 9 points 2 years ago

On the contrary, it's free expression that should not be mislabeled as hate speech.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (5 replies)

[+] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 27 points 2 years ago

[deleted]

[-] Tvkan@feddit.de 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Simplistic reductionism does indeed lead to stupid questions.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (9 replies)

[-] Mr_Blott@feddit.uk 24 points 2 years ago

If you came for the comments, turn back now 😂

Europeans believe in freedom, as in freedom from harassment and hate speech, for everyone, for the good of everyone

Americans believe they personally should have freedom to do or say anything, even if it's hateful and incites violence, as long as they personally are "free", even if it is bad for society as a whole

These are incompatible views and no good can come of this thread

[-] Gamey@feddit.de 17 points 2 years ago

I am a European and I do believe in the real freedom (the one that ends where someone elses starts) but I don't see how this applies whatsoever here, plasphemy laws in 2023 is nuts and shouldn't be a thing!

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] madcaesar@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago

Don't you dare incite the religion of peace into violence!! We all know burning ink and paper are grounds for terror!! 🤡...

[-] belathus@bookwormstory.social 22 points 2 years ago

To me, this falls under the Paradox of Tolerance. Acts of hate should be strongly discouraged.

[-] taladar@feddit.de 19 points 2 years ago

That doesn't work in this case since it applies to both sides. The rioting religious people and the Quran burners are both filled with hate.

[-] theKalash@feddit.ch 24 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

both filled with hate.

That doesn't make them equal.

For example, if you look at two people, one that is a Nazi and one that hates Nazis, they are both hating. But it's quite clearly due to said paradox of tolerance. Only one of them is the asshole.

edit: apperently the analogy wasn't quite clear.

One is an ideological organisation which is has been causing oppression of minorities for a thousand years up to this day with countless atrocities commited in it's name, without going into details ... the other one is a person with a book, matches and a message.

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (7 replies)

[-] MrMobius@sh.itjust.works 21 points 2 years ago

They shouldn't have put religion into this bill. In France, filming Quran burnings would be illegal in regards so the "incite hate law". I hope so at least! It's better to word it this way, so you can condemn provocation like holy book burnings, but keep caricature out of it.

[-] what_is_a_name@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

Yes. Everyone told them to use the “disturbance of public peace” angle. They chose this idiocy. No f— clue why.

[-] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 17 points 2 years ago

Tricky subject with no easy answer. What I will say, is that I think the governments should not grant allowance to burn religious scripture, or destruction of important symbols outside of embassies. That I think is 100% taking it too far. You are now purposefully, intending to incite a group of people. And there is no doubt that, that is your intent.

Personally I've been back and forth on my stance as I've reflected on the proposal, various arguments for and against, and my thoughts. I'm leaning towards it shouldnt be banned in public in general. But it should not be allowed directly outside of embassies as the only intention to wanting to do that is to incite others.

[-] Malek061@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago

Nope. Freedom is Freedom. Can't compromise with extremists. Burn any book whenever, wherever. If you're offended, tough cookies.

load more comments (11 replies)

[-] Nacktmull@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago

Good to see they finally made a law to prevent the systematic abuse of free speech by racists, neo-nazis and other Islamophobic hate mongers.

[-] Armen12@lemm.ee 18 points 2 years ago

So now we're defending religious bigots? Now try it with Christians if you want me to believe for a second this has anything to do with nazis

load more comments (5 replies)

[-] zilouge@feddit.nu 15 points 2 years ago

And now religious people will come up with something new that upsets them and demand it to be declared illeagal.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Spzi@lemm.ee 15 points 2 years ago

This Saturday is international blasphemy day (30 Sept):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_Day

educates individuals and groups about blasphemy laws and defends freedom of expression, especially the open criticism of religion which is criminalized in many countries.

"We're not seeking to offend, but if in the course of dialogue and debate, people become offended, that's not an issue for us. There is no human right not to be offended."

[-] MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

Good.

[-] Murvel@lemm.ee 17 points 2 years ago

I beg to differ, and I certainly don't want any blasphemy laws in Sweden!

load more comments (7 replies)

Europe

Rules