Should Denmark Ban Qur'an Burning?

[Left Coast]

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.

You really ought to fact check things before you post them.

 

[Estro Felino]

You really ought to fact check things before you post them.

Give me a concrete example of hate speech in France.

 

[ChristineM]

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.




View attachment 81590

Hate speech laws in France - Wikipedia.

 

[Left Coast]

Give me a concrete example of hate speech in France.

Hate speech laws in France - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I could also more broadly mention French bans on head coverings.

 

[Windwalker]

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.

I would agree with not allowing blasphemy laws as that is using the state to enforce religious ideals, such as arresting people who don't go to church on Sunday, or swear using God's name in vain when they yell at someone. That's a theocracy, not a secular state.

However, here in the U.S. we do curtail what is seen as hate speech. Take for instance, putting a burning cross in the lawn of a black person, or making a mockup of them and publicly displaying it hanging by the neck from the limb of a tree. Those cross over from freedom of expression, to expressions of violence and hatred to entire groups of peoples, like targeting Jews, for instance.

So burning of a religion's sacred text is clearly crossing over that line of "free speech", to creating fear and threats of violence, "We hate Muslims, and we show that by burning their most sacred book." Now is that really about blasphemy laws, or is that about not allowing groups of people to be made targets of brewing social unrest? Is it okay to drive around baring horns in Jewish neighborhoods with swastikas and signs of "Jews go home" on it? Is Quran burning all that different?

 

[syo]

What do you think?

But I admit I'm a vandal.

 

[ChristineM]

I could also more broadly mention French bans on head coverings.

France is also set to ban wearing the abayas in schools

 

[Estro Felino]

Hate speech laws in France - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I could also more broadly mention French bans on head coverings.

There is the law 546/1972 of France which says that hate speech is when you mean to harm a group through violence.

But if you say: I don't like this religion, you can say that.

 

[Left Coast]

However, here in the U.S. we do curtail what is seen as hate speech. Take for instance, putting a burning cross in the lawn of a black person,

That would be trespassing, vandalism of someone else's property, or a threat since it's on the lawn of one particular person. If you want to burn a cross on your own property, that's perfectly legal.

or making a mockup of them and publicly displaying it hanging by the neck from the limb of a tree.

Again, that would be legally problematic because it's a threat. Ripping pages out of a Bible is not.

So burning of a religion's sacred text is clearly crossing over that line of "free speech", to creating fear and threats of violence, "We hate Muslims, and we show that by burning their most sacred book."

You're allowed to hate groups of people, and you're allowed to say that publicly. You're just not allowed to threaten them or advocate illegal violence against them.

Now is that really about blasphemy laws, or is that about not allowing groups of people to be made targets of brewing social unrest? Is it okay to drive around baring horns in Jewish neighborhoods with swastikas and signs of "Jews go home" on it?

It would depend how disruptive the horn blowing was. It could be legally problematic for the same reason as any other noise that would generate a noise complaint.

People are absolutely allowed to display swastikas or hateful messages on their own property (like on their own car).

Is Quran burning all that different?

No it isn't, and that's why it should be legal.

 

[Left Coast]

There is the law 546/1972 of France which says that hate speech is when you mean to harm a group through violence.

But if you say: I don't like this religion, you can say that.

That's nice. As I said, things tend to be less restrictive here in the States. That's what I prefer.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I would agree with not allowing blasphemy laws as that is using the state to enforce religious ideals, such as arresting people who don't go to church on Sunday, or swear using God's name in vain when they yell at someone. That's a theocracy, not a secular state.

However, here in the U.S. we do curtail what is seen as hate speech. Take for instance, putting a burning cross in the lawn of a black person, or making a mockup of them and publicly displaying it hanging by the neck from the limb of a tree. Those cross over from freedom of expression, to expressions of violence and hatred to entire groups of peoples, like targeting Jews, for instance.

So burning of a religion's sacred text is clearly crossing over that line of "free speech", to creating fear and threats of violence, "We hate Muslims, and we show that by burning their most sacred book." Now is that really about blasphemy laws, or is that about not allowing groups of people to be made targets of brewing social unrest? Is it okay to drive around baring horns in Jewish neighborhoods with swastikas and signs of "Jews go home" on it? Is Quran burning all that different?

Generally, I see burning of scripture as different from the hypothetical you proposed (about swastikas), mainly because the situation you described would involve much more specific symbols of incitement and because it would be targeted more at people than ideas or texts.

If the burning is banned as hate speech, what about this content in the book itself? Does it warrant a ban too?

Surely those who reject Our signs, We will cast them into the Fire. Whenever their skin is burnt completely, We will replace it so they will ˹constantly˺ taste the punishment. Indeed, Allah is Almighty, All-Wise.

Surah An-Nisa - 1-176 - Quran.com

Read and listen to Surah An-Nisa. The Surah was revealed in Medina, ordered 4 in the Quran. The Surah title means "The Women" in English and consists ...

quran.com

I do agree with the post below that there could be reasonable grounds to stop a planned book burning if it is specifically and explicitly meant to stir violence or unrest, though. That would be a different situation as well.

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.

 

[Estro Felino]

That's nice. As I said, things tend to be less restrictive here in the States. That's what I prefer.

Honestly I prefer the freedom of speech in my country.
Because in my country I can say whatever I like at my workplace and nobody can dismiss me for my political opinion.
Otherwise my employer will need to compensate me...or in alternative, re-hire me.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The Koran itself contributes to hatred, division, intolerance,
violence, & misunderstanding.

That's highly dependent on the interpretations thereof. There are many Muslims who believe in the Qur'an and also support democracy, LGBT rights, pluralism, the rule of law, and other values that you and I consider essential for a society.

Like every other large group, Muslims are a diverse bunch, but they share belief in the Qur'an. I see little point in an act that insults all of them, including the moderate and secular ones, just to spite the extremists.

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.

I don't see where I said anything that disagrees with this. My opposition to a "blasphemy day" is based on what I see as concerns about utility, tolerance, and ethics. I've already said that I'm against blasphemy laws and violence that targets perceived blasphemers.

To cater to their feelings & demands for authority over others
is unreasonable.

Legally? Sure, it is harmful and unreasonable. On a personal level? No, I will respect my moderate friends' sensibilities and avoid disrespecting their religion on purpose. Even my more conservative friends avoid insulting LGBT rights movements and atheism around me, although their beliefs are highly prejudiced against both. I know they avoid the insults because I reciprocate and don't insult their religion. That makes them more likely to listen to me and my concerns, too.

 

[Debater Slayer]

You're allowed to hate groups of people, and you're allowed to say that publicly. You're just not allowed to threaten them or advocate illegal violence against them.

If a neo-Nazi publicly says that all races besides white people should be purged or sent to concentration camps, are they inciting against them or advocating illegal violence or not? I'm not sure how that would not count as such, and if it doesn't per US law, I believe that's another problem with the law that Europe doesn't have.

Conversely, the US doesn't have the problem of possibly banning book burning like Denmark is currently proposing, so I realize both countries' approaches to public speech have pros and cons that need to be weighed against each other.

 

[Left Coast]

If a neo-Nazi publicly says that all races besides white people should be purged or sent to concentration camps, are they inciting against them or advocating illegal violence or not?

I'd say they are. That would apply to anyone explicitly advocating violence, not just neo-Nazis.

I'm not sure how that would not count as such, and if it doesn't per US law, I believe that's another problem with the law that Europe doesn't have.

In the US we'd agree.

 

[Left Coast]

Honestly I prefer the freedom of speech in my country.
Because in my country I can say whatever I like at my workplace and nobody can dismiss me for my political opinion.
Otherwise my employer will need to compensate me...or in alternative, re-hire me.

Mkay.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'd say they are. That would apply to anyone explicitly advocating violence, not just neo-Nazis.

I think that's good, if the law treats it as such. Like you said, it would be consistent with other forms of advocacy for violence.

In the US we'd agree.

We've found more common ground, then!

 

[Left Coast]

I think that's good, if the law treats it as such. Like you said, it would be consistent with other forms of advocacy for violence.

This is an interview that was specifically done in reference to January 6th, but has good information on limits to American free speech generally.

The First Amendment: freedoms and limitations

In the wake of last week’s deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol, William & Mary News spoke with Timothy Zick, nationally recognized free speech expert and John Marshall Professor of Government and Citizenship at William & Mary Law School.

www.wm.edu

We've found more common ground, then!

I'll turn you to the dark side sooner or later. You'll be wearing US flag underwear and everything!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What do you think?

Give bullies an inch and they'll take a mile.
This was a bad move on Denmark because next will be pressure for the written amd spoken statements and the drawings (as these bullies already demand).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Honestly I prefer the freedom of speech in my country.
Because in my country I can say whatever I like at my workplace and nobody can dismiss me for my political opinion.
Otherwise my employer will need to compensate me...or in alternative, re-hire me.

Italy doesn't have unlimited freedom of speech. You won't be able to just say anything with impunity, and definitely I'm finding where Italian journalists are wanting more protections and that there are even hate speechaws on the record.