Should Denmark Ban Qur'an Burning?

[Left Coast]

Denmark is considering making it illegal to burn the Qur'an and other religious Scriptures.

Denmark Moves to Ban Quran Burnings After Muslim Outrage (Published 2023)

Danish and Swedish authorities have struggled to balance free speech with growing anger that security officials say has elevated the risk of terrorist attacks.

www.nytimes.com

Denmark may ban burning the Quran

In 2017, then–Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen proclaimed: "I'm proud and happy that we live in a country where we have abolished the blasphemy

reason.com

Danish Government set to criminalise improper treatment of objects of significant religious importance to religious communities | News from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark

The Danish Government has today presented a model for criminalising improper treatment of objects of significant religious importance to a religious community. For example, the bill intends to make it a criminal offense to publicly burn the Bible or the Quran.

via.ritzau.dk

This is being done in response to a far-right Danish and Swedish activist named Rasmus Paludan who has been going around burning copies of the Qur'an in recent months to criticize Islam and Muslim immigration. This has led to outrage from the Islamic world, including the storming of the Danish and Swedish embassies in Iraq and public condemnations from the leaders of Muslim countries for permitting the sacrilegious acts. This backlash also has implications for Sweden's application to join NATO, which can still be prevented by Turkey.

Denmark insists this is a limited restriction and only applies to destruction or degradation of, "objects of religious importance," such as, "burning, soiling, stomping on or kicking the object, or destroying the object by tearing it, cutting it or similar." It would not apply to, "verbal or written statements or drawings regarding religious objects and religious subjects. The same applies to other forms of expression that do not entail physically treating the object in an improper manner."

While I appreciate this is a tough spot for Denmark internationally, I will always lean in favor of more free speech, not less. I don't want to see anyone burn books, but I also don't want to give government any more power to limit freedom of expression, including expression that is deeply unpopular.

What do you think?

 

[Estro Felino]

My country is Catholiland...but since there is the separation of Church and State, if you have a Bible and set it on fire, the State couldn't care less.
If you film the scene...the State couldn't care less.

The State will only care if you set the National Flag on fire, which is the secular symbol of the Republic.


So...we are speaking of secular monarchies, here, as well.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Europe did not go through the trials and tribulations of secularization throughout more than two centuries only to end up introducing softened blasphemy laws to placate vocal demagogues and extremist religious leaders.

If Denmark passes this law, it will be a step back for freedom of expression as a result of pressure from many of the same extremists who don't hesitate to denigrate, insult, and smear many other religions or the followers thereof. I realize that there may be practical utility to such a law—especially in light of the increased security threats from extremists—but if this is mainly about the actions of a current instigator (Rasmus Paludan), I strongly believe the measures should be temporary at most, not a permanent law.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Religious people need to remember, as long as it is not their personal book it is still just a book. One has to go out and buy a Quran to burn it. That actually helps the publisher of those books.

One can easily "burn" a million copies of the Quran. Simple download the Quran a million times and then "shred" the files. Why should it make any difference if one burns an actual book or a digital copy? All that burning a Quran shows is the idiocy and prejudice of the person burning it. Those that react strongly are demonstrating that same trait in themselves.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The articles about the proposal state that verbal, written, and drawn material will not be criminalized. I wonder how Denmark would respond if extremists still made violent threats or violently expressed outrage over cartoons or written content in the same way they are now. After all, deliberately offensive cartoons published in Denmark in 2005 and in France in 2015 and 2020 all resulted in boycotts and some violence. What would Denmark do if a similar situation happened again? Would it ban cartoons too, or would it refuse to do so despite the pressure?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The articles about the proposal state that verbal, written, and drawn material will not be criminalized. I wonder how Denmark would respond if extremists still made violent threats or violently expressed outrage over cartoons or written content in the same way they are now. After all, deliberately offensive cartoons published in Denmark in 2005 and in France in 2015 and 2020 all resulted in boycotts and some violence. What would Denmark do if a similar situation happened again? Would it ban cartoons too, or would it refuse to do so despite the pressure?

That is why I think "Draw Muhammad Day" should be changed to an international holiday of "Draw a "blasphemous" picture day." That would apply to any and all religions so that Islam would not be singled out. Drawing images of Muhammad was valid, but it is also a bit prejudicial. It tells people of all religions that they are free to have their religious beliefs, but they cannot tell other people what to think of their religion. In the long run it should help religions, not hinder them.

 

[Glaurung]

What if you were to burn a page of the Qur'an which you had copied by hand?

 

[Debater Slayer]

That is why I think "Draw Muhammad Day" should be changed to an international holiday of "Draw a "blasphemous" picture day." That would apply to any and all religions so that Islam would not be singled out. Drawing images of Muhammad was valid, but it is also a bit prejudicial. It tells people of all religions that they are free to have their religious beliefs, but they cannot tell other people what to think of their religion. In the long run it should help religions, not hinder them.

I strongly dislike deliberate, outrage-seeking acts of provocation and disrespect, like drawing cartoons of Muhammad knowing that doing so is seen as an insult by Muslims. I'm against a day dedicated to such drawings because I believe that said day would contribute to hatred, division, and misunderstanding.

That said, I'm also against blasphemy laws because they always result in heavy restrictions on freedom of belief and also because they rely on extremely subjective, preferential, and malleable criteria for determining what is or isn't "blasphemous." We can see what kind of abuse they can result in when looking at, say, Iran or Pakistan, where mere irreligiosity can lead to a death sentence because of being "blasphemous." Realistically, a blasphemy law could never apply consistently to all of the thousands of religions in the world, but applying it only to some religions but not others would be a starkly inappropriate double standard for a state law to have.

I don't think this issue will go away by having a "blasphemy day" or any other special occasion. Most of the Western world has had no laws against "blasphemy" for decades, yet this level of violent outrage still occurs in response to such. In my opinion, the issue will only properly be dealt with at its root when most Islamic countries become more secularized and move away from fundamentalist, hardline interpretations of religion. I don't know whether that will happen in my lifetime, though, and I doubt it will.

 

[Left Coast]

Europe did not go through the trials and tribulations of secularization throughout more than two centuries only to end up introducing softened blasphemy laws to placate vocal demagogues and extremist religious leaders.

If Denmark passes this law, it will be a step back for freedom of expression as a result of pressure from many of the same extremists who don't hesitate to denigrate, insult, and smear many other religions or the followers thereof. I realize that there may be practical utility to such a law—especially in light of the increased security threats from extremists—but if this is mainly about the actions of a current instigator (Rasmus Paludan), I strongly believe the measures should be temporary at most, not a permanent law.

Despite our many shortcomings, I have always appreciated the more liberal free speech tradition here in the US and preferred it to the European one. Many people want us to model the way Europeans do things. In this case, I think Europe ought to try the reverse.

 

[Estro Felino]

Despite our many shortcomings, I have always appreciated the more liberal free speech tradition here in the US and preferred it to the European one. Many people want us to model the way Europeans do things. In this case, I think Europe ought to try the reverse.

There is freedom of speech in the United States?
I don't think there is.
There is a flawed freedom of speech based on double standards....but it's not the liberté de penser of the countries of Napoleonic tradition.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/index.html

 

[Debater Slayer]

Despite our many shortcomings, I have always appreciated the more liberal free speech tradition here in the US and preferred it to the European one. Many people want us to model the way Europeans do things. In this case, I think Europe ought to try the reverse.

I'm staunchly in favor of Europe's stricter treatment of public expression or public advocacy of Nazism, and I think the US could probably benefit from criminalizing that as incitement. There are also other areas where I think the US' concept of "free speech" is highly flawed and unrealistic (which makes me thankful that said concept is a global anomaly). That said, I'm also against all forms of blasphemy laws and think Denmark is heading in the wrong direction in this case.

I also don't see Denmark's situation as representative of Europe. France refused to compromise or introduce any blasphemy laws following the terror attacks of 2015 and 2020, and Sweden and the Netherlands also haven't introduced any proposals similar to Denmark's despite pressure to do so.

 

[Left Coast]

There is freedom of speech in the United States?
I don't think there is.
There is a flawed freedom of speech based on double standards....but it's not the liberté de penser of the countries of Napoleonic tradition.

Anger as speaker at Warwick University banned over Islam offence fears

Richard Dawkins and Prof Brian Cox speak out after secular activist Maryam Namazie has invitation to speak blocked by students' union

www.coventrytelegraph.net

You should Google where the University of Warwick is, for starters.

Freedom of speech is not perfect and never has been. I said I prefer our version, considered broadly, over Europe's.

 

[Debater Slayer]

There is freedom of speech in the United States?
I don't think there is.
There is a flawed freedom of speech based on double standards....but it's not the liberté de penser of the countries of Napoleonic tradition.

Anger as speaker at Warwick University banned over Islam offence fears

Richard Dawkins and Prof Brian Cox speak out after secular activist Maryam Namazie has invitation to speak blocked by students' union

www.coventrytelegraph.net

The First Amendment indeed guarantees a high degree of freedom from governmental consequences for expressing one's views in the US. It doesn't, however, compel a private entity to allow unrestricted speech within its premises or platforms, so the link you posted is irrelevant to the subject in addition to being about a British university anyway.

 

[Left Coast]

I'm staunchly in favor of Europe's stricter treatment of public expression or public advocacy of Nazism, and I think the US could probably benefit from criminalizing that as incitement. There are also other areas where I think the US' concept of "free speech" is highly flawed and unrealistic (which makes me thankful that said concept is a global anomaly). That said, I'm also against all forms of blasphemy laws and think Denmark is heading in the wrong direction in this case.

The logic of both types of bans seems very similar to me.

I also don't see Denmark's situation as representative of Europe. France refused to compromise or introduce any blasphemy laws following the terror attacks of 2015 and 2020, and Sweden and the Netherlands also haven't introduced any proposals similar to Denmark's despite pressure to do so.

Let us hope it remains an outlier (and that the law doesn't even pass).

 

[Debater Slayer]

The logic of both types of bans seems very similar to me.

I see the two bans as fundamentally different due to (among other things) the inherently inciteful nature of Nazism, but that's another discussion, so I won't be able to elaborate on it further in this thread (as much as I'd like to ).

Let us hope it remains an outlier (and that the law doesn't even pass).

Agreed!

 

[Estro Felino]

You should Google where the University of Warwick is, for starters.

Freedom of speech is not perfect and never has been. I said I prefer our version, considered broadly, over Europe's.

Yes...I corrected the link.
But in Britain there is not the same liberté de penser as France either...so it's okay.


The Napoleonic tradition states that the Government doesn't care what you think.
They don't care about individualistic thoughts and how they express them.
They only care if someone tries to prevent them from expressing them. That's what's bad.

I could also mention what happened to Roseanne Barr...just for a tweet.

 

[Left Coast]

I see the two bans as fundamentally different due to (among other things) the inherently inciteful nature of Nazism, but that's another discussion, so I won't be able to elaborate on it further in this thread (as much as I'd like to ).



Agreed!

I'd be fascinated to delve into your distinction between Nazism and other forms of political extremism. But agreed, for another thread and another time. I'm going to get some sleep.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'd be fascinated to delve into your distinction between Nazism and other forms of political extremism. But agreed, for another thread and another time. I'm going to get some sleep.

I've been too busy to start involved threads lately, but do tag me if you end up making one about that subject! I will also tag you if I start it.

Have a good night.

 

[Estro Felino]

The First Amendment indeed guarantees a high degree of freedom from governmental consequences for expressing one's views in the US. It doesn't, however, compel a private entity to allow unrestricted speech within its premises or platforms, so the link you posted is irrelevant to the subject in addition to being about a British university anyway.

It's a flawed form of freedom of speech.
Because in countries with the Napoleonic tradition, the State does expect privates offering a service to comply with the constitution.
Service is public, not private.

The US twists the notions of private and public.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It's a flawed form of freedom of speech.
Because in countries with the Napoleonic tradition, the State does expect privates offering a service to comply with the constitution.
Service is public, not private.

The US twists the notions of private and public.

Well, since the thread is about a law proposal in Denmark and not about the US, I won't be able to address the above tangent here.