Should Denmark Ban Qur'an Burning?

[Estro Felino]

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.

It was to underline the different notions of freedom of speech in Europe, and overseas.
In Denmark it's still based upon civil law system, as all Nordic countries.

 

[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.

I like debate.
I would like to know what you don't like about European notion of freedom of speech. Given that you brought that up.

So we can improve and better it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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…

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?

Banning free expression is a step towards totalitarianism. It's definitely not a solution.

 

[Estro Felino]

For example, this article make you all see that Russia isn't compatible with our European, secular values.
Of course we respect Russians and the Russian Federation, but they are very far from our juridical principles.

Quran desecration is crime in Russia: Putin

Russian president gifted copy of Quran in Dagestan's Derbent by Muslims celebrating Eid-al-Adha holiday - Anadolu Ajansı

www.aa.com.tr

 

[Secret Chief]

@Left Coast

And then?

- Welcome to the University of Warwick

 

[Heyo]

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.

Yep. But that tradition is also under attack in the US, especially in Florida where you can't say "gay".

 

[RestlessSoul]

In some European countries - certainly the U.K. - conspiracy to incite violence is a crime in itself. That’s what the book burners are doing; they’re looking for a violent response from Denmark’s Moslem community. No need to change any laws if this happened in the U.K.

 

[ChristineM]

What do you think?

No
Although burning any book is reprehensible, Denmark is not a muslim country. If they want to make burning a specific book illegal they need to make burning all books illegal.

 

[ChristineM]

In some European countries - certainly the U.K. - conspiracy to incite violence is a crime in itself. That’s what the book burners are doing; they’re looking for a violent response from Denmark’s Moslem community. No need to change any laws if this happened in the U.K.

And this ^^^

 

[Estro Felino]

In some European countries - certainly the U.K. - conspiracy to incite violence is a crime in itself. That’s what the book burners are doing; they’re looking for a violent response from Denmark’s Moslem community. No need to change any laws if this happened in the U.K.

From a moral standpoint, it's something I would not recommend. I would dissuade people from doing it.
As a jurist I cannot prevent anyone from expressing their stance through an act of demonstration.

Also because...what would be the result? Doublestandardism.
That is, in UK you are allowed to set a Gospel on fire, because Christians don't care.

 

[SalixIncendium]

What do you think?

Well, since I'm not Muslim, I've never been to Denmark, I have no intention of going to Denmark, and what happens in Denmark has no impact on my life, I think they should do exactly what I want them to do.

 

[Stevicus]

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?

It appears to be a step backward in terms of civil liberties and freedom of expression. It also sets a bad precedent in that the government is essentially giving in to a "heckler's veto." It gives validation to terror and violence as viable political tools.

 

[Left Coast]

I like debate.
I would like to know what you don't like about European notion of freedom of speech. Given that you brought that up.

So we can improve and better it.

As others have already mentioned, Europe tends to have stricter freedom of speech laws, especially as it pertains to "hate speech." I prefer a society with more freedom of expression, not less.

 

[Left Coast]

@Left Coast

And then?

- Welcome to the University of Warwick

That instruction wasn't for you.

 

[Secret Chief]

That instruction wasn't for you.

Cryptic.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

^ excellent!

 

[Left Coast]

Cryptic.

Not really lol. Something that happened at UoW was brought up as an example of a point about America. But UoW is in the UK. That was all.

 

[Estro Felino]

As others have already mentioned, Europe tends to have stricter freedom of speech laws, especially as it pertains to "hate speech." I prefer a society with more freedom of expression, not less.

It also depends on the specific country.
I assure you that in France there is no such a thing as hate speech.
It deals with very, very specific cases, so it's very difficult that it is applied.

 

[Stevicus]

In some European countries - certainly the U.K. - conspiracy to incite violence is a crime in itself. That’s what the book burners are doing; they’re looking for a violent response from Denmark’s Moslem community. No need to change any laws if this happened in the U.K.

Legal or not, book burnings just seem kind of dumb - and they rarely turn out well. I know they're meant to rile people up, not just Muslims who might respond with violence, but also those would support the views of the book burners.

But it's still not a good idea. Even when they're burning something that should be burned, as was the case on Disco Demolition Night at Comiskey Park in 1979. Total disaster. Even if it was for a good and noble cause, it still ended in chaos. It's never a good idea.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

The Koran itself contributes to hatred, division, intolerance,
violence, & misunderstanding. Yet we allow it to be published,
read, taught, & even believed.
Foes & fans alike must tolerate the behavior & speech of others,
so long as there's no physical harm to others' person or property.
Believers should become inured to criticism of their scripture.
To cater to their feelings & demands for authority over others
is unreasonable.