Governments should not be allowed to burn books.
Private citizens should be allowed to burn any books they own.
Neither governments nor private citizens should be allowed to harm or threaten people who burn their own damn books.
Example: you can purchase a dozen copies of “On The Origin of Species”, burn them, and I will very happily not threaten to behead you. Easy.
“The bill will make it punishable, for example, to burn the Quran or the Bible in public. It will only aim at actions in a public place or with the intention of spreading in a wider circle,” Hummelgaard said
Hummelgaard told a news conference that the recent protests were “senseless taunts that have no other purpose than to create discord and hatred.”
I agree with Hummelgaard. Those “protests” are used to create hatred. Even though it is also for me not comprehensible how people can be so sensitive about this, we all know the reaction it provokes. And even though we don’t agree and comprehend those feelings, we can still respect those feelings and just not senselessly create disruption. And hey… You can still burn as many Qurans in your private oven as you want.
The intent is secondary to the effect. If certain muslim people cannot put their religious sensibilities BELOW the secular human rights of their fellow country men, they LITERALLY need to leave. They are literally bad for us, and our social, secular order. EXACTLY like the hardcore christians are bad for human rights in the USA.
Are you asking the hardcore Christians to leave? Or is that reserved for those you deem as foreign?
“The bill will make it punishable, for example, for people of the same sex to kiss in public. It will only aim at actions in a public place or with the intention of spreading in a wider circle,” Hummelgaard said
I agree with Hummelgaard. Those “protests” are used to create hatred. Even though it is also for me not comprehensible how people can be so sensitive about this, we all know the reaction it provokes. And even though we don’t agree and comprehend those feelings, we can still respect those feelings and just not senselessly create disruption. And hey… You can still kiss as many people of the same sex in private as you want.
This isn’t an exaggeration: a few weeks ago in Ottawa we had anti-LGBT protests where rainbow flags were burned down – guess who was there? And while many of us were offended and appalled, nobody was threatened or beheaded in response, and we didn’t have politicians trying to pass a new law forbidding the burning of rainbow flags either.
The whole point of this is that in Europe we have fought for centuries in order to establish liberal democracies where freedom of speech and the separation of church and state are enshrined. We must not appease extremists who achieve change with threats of violence. There is a name for that.
In a democracy the act of burning a book, or a flag, is a canary in the coal mine: you know there is trouble when it dies.
The message is simple: we don’t threaten people who have different ideas.
you do realize that the people burning lgbt flags now, will burn lgbt people, or whoever they think to be lgbt, if they get the chance to?
Destroying symbols of a group is a step in the escalation to killing people of that group. Source: two millenia of antisemitism in europe. First you attack the symbols, then the places and finally the people.
you do realize that the people burning lgbt flags now, will burn lgbt people, or whoever they think to be lgbt, if they get the chance to?
Yes, that is part of the point I’m trying to make. I am queer and thus scared of our governments appeasing these dangerous idiots. It starts by banning burning their stupid books, and god knows where it ends.
People should be able to burn a stupid book without fearing for their lives. Just like they should be able to burn a flag or any other symbol.
People like me don’t harm Muslims. I wish I could say the opposite.
The common thread between both is religious extremism.
How is this blasphemy law different from the draconian anti-LGBT or anti-abortion laws in the USA? BOTH ARE JUSTIFIED with purely with religious feelings/opinions.
Burning books is not compareable with having the right to life your sexuality. You can life a happy and fullfilled life without ever burning a religious book. Having to closet your sexuality does not allow for that.
Also it is wrong to speak about blasphemy laws, implying the state would try to enforce its religion by forbidding criticism against it, you know like the actual blasphemy laws were about. This here is about preventing public hate speech, which serves nothing except to incite violence.
We can not have a modern society where people feel strongly about religion. And there is really no point in appeasement of fundamentalists - they don’t want a compromise they allays want it all.
I agree with that statement. However - the world is not a modern society in most places yet and we can´t expect the rest of the world to simply adopt our values because we would like them to. They have to get there by themselves, in a long painful process of social evolution - just as we did. We need to make sure to not allow any of our hard earned freedoms to be taken away, which are under constant attack from multiple sides, not just religious forces but also authoritarians of different political directions, capitalists and so on. At the same time we have to respect other cultures and their individual development. It´s a challenge and sometimes there might have to be compromise but I think not burning books in public is really acceptable and nobody will suffer from not doing it. Full expression of thought is perfectly possible just by speaking, no book burning required for that.
Imo it also should be considered that western colonialism often had a devastating effect on the social evolution of eastern countries. Just think of the history of Iran for example. Iran was on the way to become a lighthouse of democracy in the region by it´s own development and would now probably have been a democracy for decades if the west would not have intervened and prevented that (Operation Ajax). This caused Iran to become one of the worst theocratic dictatorships instead. That does not make the fundamentalists any better of course but it can also not be ignored in the context of this discussion.
Again there is no point in appeasing fundamentalist. They don’t want the finger or the hand, they want the whole state to run by their rules - they are not searching for a compromise. Sure, nobody sane is really in favor for burning books - but what is the point, they won’t be any happier with that and will work on the next thing that is offending their archaic views of the world.
Full expression of thought is perfectly possible just by speaking, no book burning required for that.
Where do you draw the line of what is considered acceptable form of expression?
It’s not that I like, I would say - I even despise people burning books. But in my opinion, everyone has the right to do so - since in the end no direct harm is caused to anyone.
One important point is imo that publicly burning the Quran as a provocation does not just offend the few fundamentalists but all believing Muslims in the world, also the moderate ones. That they don´t get angry and violent like the fundamentalists does not mean it´s not offensive to them. Because of this I consider not burning the Quran publicly simply as normal and polite behavior towards all Muslims -especially the moderate ones- and not at all as a form of appeasement to fundamentalists.
but all believing Muslims in the world,
Than all believing Muslims are fundamentalists. But we both know that that’s not the case. Moderate Muslims per definition don’t give shit. Like moderate Christians don’t care if you burn a bible. Or I don’t care if you burn a biography of Darwin. Sure I will think you are a dumb person to avoid. But ultimately it’s up to you, not my business.
Also where do you draw the line? Homosexuality and modern view of women rights is offensive to conservative Muslims. Therefore, I prefer to draw a line at actual direkt harm to other people. Burning books, dumb and provocative - but so is a good portion of art.
It´s not that simple. There is a wide spectrum between feeling offended and reacting with terrorism, don´t you agree?
yeah, clearly the compromise needs to be burning symbols of a group in public to stir hatred and violence against that group. That is totally the reasonable compromise. Clearly the people wanting the right to burn things in public are not fundamentalist, after all basically everyone burns a Quran, or Torah or Bible for breakfast amirite?
Look at the real-world consequences of mocking Islam, of drawing prophet Muhamed, or burning the Qur’an.
Compare them with the real-world consequences of mocking any other religion (or atheism), or burning their “sacred” books.
Are they comparable? Who is then the oppressor, and who is the oppressed?
The US conservatives and Hillary Clinton were calling for war against Iran because the people there burnt US flags. Trump then bombed a person invited on a diplomatic talk with the US, which is one of the worst crimes against diplomacy imaginable.
Or look at footbal fans hostile to each other, where symbols of the enemy team are burnt vice versa until it escalates to violence.
Attacking symbols of groups in hate causes escalations all the time.
Or look at footbal fans hostile to each other, where symbols of the enemy team are burnt vice versa until it escalates to violence.
Indeed, football fans are famously known for their acts of violence, such as flying airliners into skyscrapers, countless suicide bombings, etc. All in the name of football.
I have no interest in Muslims being harmed in any way. They are literally my neighbors. At the same time, one must recognize that among them there are people with a a willingness to support and commit atrocities that is unparalleled today.
People who deny this are blind to reality. All sides are not equal.
and among us civilised western europeans there are many fascists murdering muslims or people assumed to be such or deemed as supporters of them. Anders Breivik murdered over 70 teenagers because of his ideology of fearing a muslim takeover of europe. When you measure muslims by their worst, then you need to measure yourself by people like Breivik too.
I hope you see why that doesnt make sense in either case and is certainly no justification for allowing hate speech in the form of burning symbols of a group subject to discrimination.
I personally really do not like religion. And if you buy a quran and burn it at home, nothing will happen. Nobody will care.
But what is your desired outcome, if you take the book that is holy to some, and burn it infront of their eyes? There is only one answer to this and that answer is the reason for these laws. You cannot go to a pride parade and burn rainbow flags in front of their eyes either. It is rather obvious why.
You cannot go to a pride parade and burn rainbow flags in front of their eyes either. It is rather obvious why.
What are you talking about? This is pretty much what happened in Ottawa a few weeks ago, so there is no need to hypothesize. What happened to them? Nothing at all.
Queer folks don’t behead Muslims. Queer folks do not stone Muslims.
deleted by creator
Blasphemy laws being expanded in 2023. Not what I think people would have predicted in, say, 1990.
deleted by creator
While I’m sure most people doing this are just irl trolls looking for outrage rather than making any deeper political point, the return of blasphemy laws to Europe after we spent so long removing them and lowering religions influcance seems like a backwards step.
He added that there must “be room for religious criticism” and that there were no plans to reintroducing a blasphemy clause that was repealed in 2017.
But you knew that, because you read the article you commented on, right?
They can say what they want, but when they’re adding special protections for one piece of literature as it’s a religious one, that’s what they’re already doing.
They want to add it for holy scriptures in general. So your book of the flying spaghettimonster should be protected, too.
How does that make it better?
It’s a law that protects religious books in a way non-religious books aren’t, just because it offends religious people. I don’t understand how that’s not a blasphemy law, Book Edition.
It’s not a question of blasphemy. It’s a question of incitement against ethnic/religious groups.
You can get a permit, grab a speaker. And talk about how the islam is doing this bad thing, that bad thing, and those bad things.
What you can’t do, is grab the microphone and say muslims are subhuman worthless rats that does nothing but chug camel-piss and beat their wives.
It’s not blasphemous, it’s incitement against an ethnic group.
This would probably fall under the same category if they pass it. As of now, It’s just a proposition to be voted on
What you can’t do, is grab the microphone and say muslims are subhuman worthless rats that does nothing but chug camel-piss and beat their wives.
But that has nothing to do with book burnings, no? Either that was already illegal hate speech or it won’t even be affected by this new law.
Book burnings should stay legal exactly because they aren’t degrading anyone. Just an object. They are only inciting violence from the very religious POV that the books themselves hold the rights a person has. But they don’t - and they shouldn’t. Comparing violence towards things with violence towards people is simply being dishonest, or in the worst case it means adopting the perspective of religious extremists.
Book burnings should stay legal exactly because they aren’t degrading anyone.
So, you’re going to decide that no one can feel degraded by having their religious scripture burned, just because you can’t comprehend the feelings others.
That’s a very strange take, given that we’ve all seen what the reactions of Muslims around the world has been. A fair amount of them clearly feel very strongly about this. It is after all, their, scripture.
It’s not just extremists that are upset. We should not give in to extremeists demands under threat of violence, But just because they want something doesn’t mean there isn’t other good reasons to do it.
But that has nothing to do with book burnings, no? Either that was already illegal hate speech or it won’t even be affected by this new law.
It has everything to do with incitement against ethnic groups. Which is exactly what they’re trying to expand
They are only inciting violence from the very religious POV that the books themselves
Yes! That is. Incitement against ethnic groups. You’re targeting a specific ethnic group with your action, and you provoke and insult them for belonging to that group.
Just like if you burn an Italian flag outside of the embassy of Italy. Italians would rightfully be upset. So you’re not allowed to do that. Or will you use the same logic there “they are only inciting violence from the very Italian POV that the flag themselves”?
You still don’t seem to understand, you will be able to burn any good damn book you want. Just not in public. Not in the town square. Not outside of an embassy.
They’re not telling you can’t do it. They’re telling you where, you can’t do it.
You will still have the freedom as an individual, to go into your back yard, and burn as many books as your heart desires. Hell, you can even invite all of your friend so they can come and watch you burn books.
The public act is exactly what should stay legal. This is not a debate about fire hazards and matters of insurance after all, it is about the right of expression, and that is a debate about behavior in public.
So, you’re going to decide that no one can feel degraded by having their religious scripture burned, just because you can’t comprehend the feelings others.
They have the right to feel like however they like. You for example are free to feel sad, angry, happy, horny, offended, relieved, or anxious about this comment of mine. But none of those are what I intent to incite. So you feeling one way about my comment shouldn’t be the only consideration when it comes to questioning if my comment should be legal. It shouldn’t be disregarded altogether either - but the right of expression is an incredibly important legal asset, and such a trade off shouldn’t be made lightly.
A book burning with calls to violence against humans - that, definitely, should be (and is) illegal. A book burning as an expression of “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” - that is not a call to violence, that is a valid expression of your democratic rights. Intent matters.
We should not give in to extremeists demands under threat of violence
But in effect, if this law gets ratified, we are.
What you’re debating and arguing for does not exist. You do NOT have the right to express yourself in any way you see fit. You are constrained by the laws governing your country. And believe me. There are laws against certain types of expression.
Burning forgein flags is a form of expression. You are not allowed to do that in public. But I don’t see you going on about how it’s infringing on your freedom.
You quote half of what I said to then reply that “but in effect we are”.
Had you quoted the entire thing, the answer and retort is already there. If you don’t sleep at least 5 hours in the next 5 days I will spit at your house and piss on your cat.
Are you giving in on my demand by sleeping at night? Or is it because of other, unrelated reasons?
Your whole argument of, I should be allowed to express myself in any way shape or form that I see fit. Is not a good one. Because you do not have that right.
How many times have you gone out and burned books in public? Do you typically attend book burnings? Is that some holiday you have that you need to preserve. You go out and burn a Bible every other week?
Or is this a thing that no one does. Except those who wish to provoke and insult? Can you mention any book burnings in recent times in Denmark that was not about provoking and insulting?
O superior one, we thank thee for thy presence
Yeah, reading the article you want to comment on is difficult. Requires actually putting in 10 minutes of effort instead of just being outraged at a headline
Ah yes wise one. If only we could be like thee, we would know th danish government promises to not do worse!
Soooooo, did Danish government just announce that they will fold and accept any demand if enough people, not necessarily even living in Denmark, make threats of terrorism and murder? Because it kinda sounds like they did…
Woder if it would also work for, I don’t know, universal basic income, 3-day weekends or lower taxes?
3-day weekends? What are the 3 days left after the one-day workweek?
Apologizing and/or being afraid
Did you even read the article?
They did it to curb carbon emissions… So many sacred books burned recently by people who can’t/won’t even read them. They could at least burn the thing AND plant a tree
Kinda unsettles me a bit. To be clear, I don’t want violence. But I also don’t think that burning an object should be punishable. And that goes for stuff like my country flag, my pride flag, my bible. People should have the freedom of expression, even if their expression is a bad take or a waste of paper and nylon.
I just wish everyone could be more chill. Half the people need to quit being assholes, and the other half need to take 12 seconds to calm down and not freak out over something small. We have much bigger things to freak out about that we should be (constructively) freaking out about, like the collapse of entire food chains due to overfishing.
Fuck religion. Time and time again eroding our rights. Shame on the Danish government who is bending down to violence and superstition.
I don’t think that applies here. Why would you ever burn a Quran IN PUBLIC? If you are not religious, or subscribe to other religions, why would you even own a quran? Quran burning in public has only one purpose, to provoke hate. Same as burning flags in public. Or hating certain groups of people in public. None of it is allowed or ok to do.
If you burn that thing at home or throw it in the trash, nobody will care. Otherwise it just falls into the “incite violence” category of things, because that is exactly the thing you are doing.
If moslems then go into a rage and be violent themselves, that isn’t ok either, that should be clear.
You should be allowed to display your beliefs in public, regardless of how enraged they might make others. You shouldn’t be allowed to make direct threats, but anything else should be fair game.
Ehh, we saw how well that worked with the rise of fascism in the U.S.
This is provided those beliefs are not offensive. If someone finds those practises offensive then do them out of the view of the public.
Religious violence should have a law encompassing this. People should never be allowed to use religion as an excuse to use violence: this is why we have a legal system. I do not understand why most countries in Europe are tolerant on this when it comes to the Muslim and Jewish communities.
The government isn’t your friend and should have no business deciding what’s “offensive” or not enough to be banned.
O aye so who should make that call?
Nobody should be the “offended police”
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
The average man. Discourage offensive behavior with social consequences, not government oppression.
That worked well with Hitler didn’t it?
People are idiots who follow a crowd. Give me one justification for the Kardashians. Look at how long it took for gay rights laws. And then look at how long it is taking for those laws to be accepted. We still see homophobic and racial acts today. Relying on the good of people is simply crass.
I completely agree with you and @pizzazz@lemmy.world. Keep in mind though that in most European countries some harmless displays of belief are already banned, for example burning the national flag.
Then in Germany and Austria you can be arrested just for looking at a swastika on your phone.
Then in Germany and Austria you can be arrested just for looking at a swastika on your phone.
You absolutely cannot.
This is simply false. In Germany, the swastika may be used in the context of education, art and some other places.
You are simply not allowed to march up and down the street with a swastika flag, which seems very reasonable.
Democracy means letting people with other world views exist in peace.
Please consider how you want to be treated by this world and how you can make your own positive impact on humans around you.
I am an atheist myself and will vehemently defend secularism but your comment boils down to hate and demanding others have the exact same beliefs as you do.
You cannot honestly say you support both secularism and this law at the same time. Either you do, or you dont.
And this law does exactly what you said: impose a belief upon others
No, it stops you from burning a religious symbol in public. Secularity means that state and church are separate, which is a different matter. A lack of secularity would mean you can go on trial for not following the word of some god e.g. for loving someone from the same sex.
These are terrible and should be fought.
Bu this particular law is stopping assholes from being assholes.
Book-burnings also had a severely terrible history in the 3rd reich and are nothing but demonstrations of power, hate and close-mindedness.
Don´t bother my dude, the Islamophobes are triggered and unable to question themselves …
I view all religions as a threat to humanity. I question the people reading books that were written thousands of years ago and believe the bullshit stories contained within them…
I´m an atheist myself but let´s be reasonable here. While things like not properly separating church and state, religious extremism and fundamentalism are obviously threats to a “free” society, it is an overstatement and a generalization to say religions in general would be.
How about banning public book burning in general? Not a lot of good memories related to that.
Want to keep burning books? Have waste collection services provide a pickup point. Then they can do it in some industrial incinerator so you’ll have your book burned but without providing media with an easy outrage (unless you wanted outrage?).
Book burning seems to be a tool of right wing extremism, even when it’s used against right wing extremists of some other kind, there’s very little benefit to the society.
Also obligatory, fuck organized religion.
I’ve seen left wing people burn books too. Most notably Harry Potter books in the last few years.
Obviously there’s a philosophical question about whether the Quaran should have more protections as a “holy book”, but it’s something that runs the gamut these days.
I don’t believe critique of JK Rowling is left wing extremism although book burning as a form of consumer boycott seems to be rather counterproductive.
are Potterheads a persecuted minority that face violence up to systematic murder in Europe? I dont think so. Meanwhile muslim people or people being deemed as muslims or “brown” are subject to extensive discrimination, hatred and violence.
deleted by creator
I would just ban burning things in general. Seems like a fire hazard.
Sending clear message that violence is an acceptable and working political tool. Climate protesters need to up their game.
They should, violence absolutely works. It’s just that no one knows what it’ll cost until it’s all over, and there’s no way to know until it’s done. Using violence is going all in, and only a fool thinks they can never lose.
There seems to be deep misunderstanding why this is troublesome.
The Government burning any book is bad.
A private citizen should be allowed to burn any book he/she wants.
You can still burn the Quran at home according to the law.
Thats a very thin defence. The point is that private citizens should be allowed to burn their own belongings as a form of protest/expression. That’s effectively been banned now.
You’re not allowed to be naked in public. Doesn’t matter if you want to protest jeans. You can’t be naked.
You’re not allowed to take a shit on the curb outside of whatever you want to protest either.
You’re not allowed to burn flags of forgein nations.
plenty of expressions that can be used to protest are banned. What’s so different here? You can still burn as many books as you want in your own backyard. You just can’t do it at the town square.
And as a final note. It’s a proposition. It hasn’t been voted on. How about you save your outrage until they’ve actually decided on what to do?
Noone is talking about indecent exposure or defecating in public, we’re taking about burning your own possession.
I’d also argue a private citizen should be allowed to burn any flag they want. It’s the same thing as with books.
Point is. There are plenty of things we can’t do.
What purpose does a public book burning serve beyond provoking and insulting?
That’s why it’s not allowed to burn forgein flags. It’s just a means to insult a group of people in public.
Now, I’m not for a ban on book burning, religious or otherwise. If you have the permit go nuts. But the arguments people present are just really really bad.
The point is, you brining up things we can’t do outside of the burning symbols discussion is irrelevant. We’re not allowed to slap people, therefore we should not be allowed to criticize the government simply does not follow.
We’re talking about having the right to burn your OWN possessions. The government should not be in the business of deciding what is offensive or isn’t. It’s a slippery slope that can’t end well.
You can burn your own things in private, just as much as you can be naked in private, jack off to furry porn, do drugs or worship a Hitler statue in private. But you cannot and shouldn’t do so in public.
They are not taking away your right to burn your own possession.
They’re just telling you, you can’t do it in public. You’re free to burn whatever book you want in your own backyard. What’s so difficult to understand?
you know in most places it is illegal to start any fire in public? You are not allowed to start a campfire on a public plaza or barbeque in most parks already. Why should there be a specific exception for burning things to incite hatred and violence against people?
All of that is fine. Limit where you can burn something, limit the toxicity of the item burned, but do not limit burning things based on “offense”.
You need to see the difference between limiting something because it’s dangerous vs causing offense. That is a dangerous road no democratic government should go down.
Inciting violence in public by burning symbols of a minority group is a threat to democracy and should be prohibited. Take it from a German, we have experience with escalating hatred and because of that we also have proper laws against hate speech now.
Burning a religious book is a form of hate speech and serves only to incite hate.
The significant difference is that public nakedness (which isn’t specifically illegal in most European countries) and shitting on the curb have concrete consequences for others. The laws are there to protect others from unwanted sexual attention (exhibitionism) and literal disease (shit on the street).
The limit for the freedoms of one person should be the safety and freedom of others. Burning books does not infringe on other’s safety or freedom.
Finally: it’s stupidly easy to circumvent this. The same provocative assholes that are burning Qurans now, will just shift to other forms of desecration or other ways of offending Muslims. If the goal is to prevent protests that provoke authoritarian or extremistic regimes, you’re just going to have to make that the law, because laws like this will just make people protest in another, equally provoking way.
There is a thing called “incitement against ethic group”
Grabing a microphone and preaching in public that Muslims are subhuman camel-piss drinkers. Would not be legal, despite it not infringing on someones immediate safety or freedom. It’s incitement against ethnic groups.
As opposed to preaching that “Islam is a bad religion that promotes gender inequality”, which is fair criticism.
One is incitement, the other criticism.
The framework is already there. The proposition would probably put that the burning of religious scripture in public falls under that category. (I don’t actually know if that is the case, but it’s a fair assumption)
Obviously you can desecrate and provoke in other ways. And I’m sure people will find other ways. And there will be new debates and court cases to decide if it’s incitement against ethnic groups or not.
I’m personally not 100% sure where I stand if it should be legally OK to burn books in public or not. There are many things we are allowed to do in private, that we are not allowed to do in public. Maybe book burnings outside of embassies is one of those things. Just like we don’t burn flags outside of embassies.
Incitement is illegal, yes, because it indirectly infringes on others safety and freedom. By encouraging violence against a group of people, that group is put in danger.
Luckily, there is a justice system that can apply nuance to each case, so that people can be convicted of inciting violence even though the do not explicitly threaten anyone. A “thinly veiled threat” or implications can be enough.
My opinion is that we have robust laws in place to prevent threats, incitement of violence, etc. adding blasphemy laws restricts freedom of expression without adding any protection of value.
They’re not adding blasphemy laws. How are you not keeping up?
You just can’t do it as a form of protest, which should be protected under free speech
Hate speech is not protected speech and people advocating for hate speech as “freeze peaches” usually want to abolish the actual freedom of speech
Is it “hate speech” when people are protesting against an oppressive, evil ideology? Would it still be hate speech if someone burned a Bible?
it depends on the form of protest and yes burning the bible in public is hate speech and not a constructive criticism of christianity or the churches, were i’d be happy to join in as there is a lot to criticise. But that criticism can and should be voiced without burning bibles.
Should criticism be able to be voiced without burning literature? Yes. Do I think climate activists should be able to be heard without disrupting people’s commutes by blocking traffic? Yes.
Unfortunately, sometimes activists are ignored without an unusual act of protest, and protests should not be considered hate speech unless they’re directly calling for violence towards a group. I don’t think burning a book falls under that category.
With all that being said, the government should not be responsible for deciding what a person can or cannot do unless they’re actively hurting another person.
Climate protests have a specific goal in changing policies and economic practicises.
Burning a Quran has no specific target. It targets muslims as a group entirely. And there is also no goal, no transformation, nothing better to strife for, in it. It is just hate of islam and muslim people. The only target could be to abolish the religion as a whole and ban people from practicising it. that is nothing but persecution. And you cannot argue that the people behind it would want anything less, as they are attacking the key symbol of that religion. Or as a methaphor, you don’t slap someone on the wrist by stabbing their heart.
So, a citizen should be allowed to set the books on fire inside a public library?
A private citizen will still be allowed and protected to burn any book he or she wishes, in private.
Like you can be gay in muslim country, just in private.
Love how you’re trying to compare starting a fire in a public space, with being a homosexual.
You are allowed to shit on the floor in your own house. You are not allowed to shit on a public road.
Are you going to cry about the government taking away your right to defecate too?
Do you really not understand the difference?
It’s an exceptionally bad idea to get the state involved in picking which interpretations of a religion are going to be defended.
Cyprus pretty much has this kind of law, and the Chruch loves tormenting even dissenting Christian theologians or prominent people of faith who disagree with the Church with it, let alone critics who aren’t part of the religion at all.
Fucking Assholes, Apologists and Democracy Enemies.
Fuck that and them.
- it has to be passed in a democratically elected parlament. It may not get passed.
- it is an extension of an existing law that forbid burning of flags (except the Danish flag Dannebrog)
- book burnings are for morons
- fuck you
(except the Danish flag Dannebrog)
So burning the national flag is allowed?
Yes, I am proud to say that it is. Burning the danish flag is barely a provocation. The law is intended to stop individuals from provoking or threatening foreign nations, who may feel differently.
Interesting, thanks for sharing!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration
It looks like most countries in mainland Europe either restrict flag desecration in general or desecration of their national flag.
Of the mainland Europe countries for which data exists, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, and Romania permit it, and Denmark prohibits desecration of international flags but permits desecration of the national flag.
It looks like the British tradition is to permit it – the UK, Ireland, Australia, the US, and Canada permit it (though New Zealand does not).
It looks like most countries around the world prohibit desecration of their own flag but permit desecration of those of others.
The only other countries that take the Danish approach (permit desecration of own but not of others) are Uruguay and Japan.
It looks like Europe is actually one of the most-restrictive places in the world in terms of flag desecration. Few countries around the world restrict both desecration of one’s own flag and the flag of other countries; almost all are in Europe, with only Israel and South Korea doing the same outside of Europe.
I am curious about the actual prosecution.
There’s a difference between burning books because you want to eliminate what they contain, and burning the holy text of the religion you suffered under. I think it’s bad for people who weren’t raised under oppression justified by Islam to burn the Quran, but the person who started all this was an immigrant from Iraq. To some people the Quran is a symbol of peace love and their deeply held beliefs. I’ve known wonderful and liberated women who wore hijab. But to others it’s a symbol of brutal oppression, like the Iranian atheist lesbian I once met. The fact is that this situation is far more morally complicated than many equivalents would be.
I don’t think that the interesting question is really whether Islam is a good idea or a bad idea. I think that the interesting question is whether a form of condemnation of anything – Islam, another religion, or anything else – should be prohibited because some people don’t like it being condemned.
Replace Islam with Judaism and it becomes less clear. Hatred towards a religious minority can get really fucking bad and should be stamped out. But also hatred towards your own oppressors is always justified.
Burning a religious text as a public demonstration isn’t a mild condemnation. It doesn’t fall within the realm of civil discourse.
So yeah I think it should be allowed unless Dutch people start actively targeting Muslims. At which point the right to such demonstrations may need reconsideration.
You dont need to burn a Quran to condem Islam.Also it is not a form of constructive criticism. What would you say if people flock to burn Torahs instead? Would you also tell the jewish organizations that would protest it to be less sensitive?
You dont need to burn a Quran to condem Islam
No, but you certainly can choose that as your form of expression.
What would you say if people flock to burn Torahs instead?
That’s fine too.
Removed by mod
- fuck you
- fuck you
- fuck you
- fuck you
- burning the fucking Quoran is the right way to dispose of it according to itself
- a democratically elected government can do undemocratic things (and they often do)
- the existing law is idiotic
burning the fucking Quoran is the right way to dispose of it according to itself
Please link to the verse of the Quran you refer to. I don’t believe you.
Why is the existing law idiotic? What problems do you have with it?
https://www.learnreligions.com/disposal-of-quran-2004546
Not a link to a Quran quote, but it mentions the 3 main ways Islamic teachings state to dispose of old/broken Qurans.
1.burying 2.placing in flowing water 3.burning
Also a fun fact, these only pertain to The Quran in Arabic. Any other language is not considered to be literally Allah’s words and does not have to be discarded in those ways.
old/broken
that is a very important differentiator here.
Well said and agreed
How about no?
Anybody who publicly mocks or insults the religious doctrine or worship of any religious community lawfully existing in this country will be punished by fine or imprisonment for up to 4 months
So Denmark got this Blashemy Law off of the books in 2017, and they’re ready to bring it back.
Full title: "Danish government to put forward law making burning Quran and other religious texts illegal "
Denmark over here negotiating with terrorists.
Negotiating? I’m thinking more of a word that rhymes with “urrender”.
Or defending a religious minority depending which way you look at it.
Religious minority? Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, is currently neck and neck with Christianity, and is predicted to account for 70% of all religious people in the world - by far - in the next couple of decades. Minority? Pssh!
In Denmark?
Edit: it’s around 5%
Yes, bending down to the unreasonable demands of a particularly problematic religious minority.
I don’t know about unreasonable. It’s their holy text after all.
It’s always unreasonable when religious people make demands towards others outside their religion.
Yet people get pissed off when Christians do book burnings in America right?
You bet I am, but if burning books was the only or worst thing they did I couldn’t care less. Which is why it has to be legal for individuals to keep doing this. Doing it in the name of a government or powerful organisation - this is where it really starts to leave a bad aftertaste.
And just to be perfectly clear, people like me being pissed about something obviously won’t and shouldn’t be enough reason to ban anything. What definitely should be illegal is political meddling, something that connects religious groups in the US more with the religious extremists abroad this proposed law seeks to appease than some Dane with a Quran and a matchbook.
