This does sound like appeasement. If I buy a book, be it a copy of the Koran, 50 Shades of Gray, or anything else then it’s my property and I should be able to do with it as I wish. If someone else gets offended, that shouldn’t be my problem.
We shouldn’t tolerate the intolerant.
deleted by creator
But didn’t this recent influx of burnings start when an Iranian refugee burned the quaran in protest against the government he fled from? This doesn’t seem to have anything to do with skin color.
I somewhat agree, but there should probably be instances where it’s not allowed, similar to hate speech. I’m not sure how Danish law deals with hate speech, but I’d bet speech isn’t allowed all the time. If the goal is to induce violence or anger, that should maybe be prevented in some instances.
Who decides, what’s “similar to hate speech”? When I burn my property? That’s a slippery slope there. Respect is important, but when the intolerant demand respect with threats, that’s blackmail.
The court or the people writting the law of course. I’m not just saying anyone’s opinion is important.
deleted by creator
What do you think of “no burning any books” That way it’s not about catering to a religion, and if you burn a book in your home who’s really gonna stop you
Why dictate what someone can and can’t do with their own property?
Because they are using it to incite violence and hate. I’m big on the fuck all religions bandwagon but burning a religious text in front of said religious group is just being a dick.
We tell people they can’t do stuff with their property all the time, if it’s affecting their surroundings negatively as is clearly the case.
It’s also always the same book that gets burned, there’s clearly a heavy undercurrent of xenophobia. You wouldn’t be asking this question if it was a Torah instead.
You wouldn’t be asking this question if it was a Torah instead.
Can you expand on this assumption for me?
Yes, burning a Koran in front of Muslims is a dick move but it shouldn’t be against the law in a secular Western country.
There would be a justified outcry if a Torah was burned in front of a synagogue. The instigators would quickly be villefied and called Nazis. At the minimum, no one would be actively defending it.
It shouldn’t have to be against the law, but people are abusing to the point of starting riots. It’s disturbing the peace. I lump this in with following people and screaming racial slurs constantly at the top of your lungs. Freedom of speech only goes so far, I’m okay with banning clear hate speech and similar actions.
It makes no difference to me if someone is burning a Torah, Koran, Bible, or any other religious text, as long as it’s their property they can do whatever they want with it.
I think we’re placing too much emphasis on the person being provocative and acting like a dick and not nearly enough on the people who resort to violence over these provocations.
What about burning crosses on someone’s lawn, or flying Nazi flags? Lmao, they could just not burn the damn book. Usually, people being dicks don’t have a army of people coming to their defence.
Obviously you don’t care, you aren’t the one being personally attacked so you can just overlook it. But if this happened in a vaccum, you wouldn’t be defending the Nazi burning a Torah infront of a synagogue yet here we are.
Look, I hate the policies in the middle east as well, but I’m able to differentiate between individuals and governments. This is Muslim hate and nothing else.
I get this argument, I really do, but it’s very much the same thing as “free speech absolutism” that the right uses to justify doing whatever they want.
Yes free speech is important, but certain things should not be protected.
Yes doing what you want with your property is important, but some things should not be protected.
If you’re using either right to call for violence, escalate violence or intentionally goad people into violence, you should not be protected imo.
You declare “should not be protected” but don’t provide any justification, that’s not a persuasive argument to me.
Where does it end? If burning only certain books is now illegal, what’s next? Should we ban people from drawing the prophet? If a gay couple are holding hands and a muslim takes offense, should be ban those couples from public displays of affection?
This is appeasement and it won’t stop just by creating one law.
You declare “should not be protected” but don’t provide any justification
I would think the argument speaks for itself, but i forget what kind of people im arguing with so ill give you the full justification.
Violence is bad :. advocating for violence is bad and inciting violence is bad :. speech that intentionally does either should not be protected.
is that better?
Where does it end? If burning only certain books is now illegal, what’s next? Should we ban people from drawing the prophet? If a gay couple are holding hands and a muslim takes offense, should be ban those couples from public displays of affection?
This is just a slippery slope fallacy.
what’s next? Should we ban people from drawing the prophet?
Is there any reason to other than to offend muslims? Does that offence have any value to anyone? If an act has no positive value for anyone society or good reason for someone to do it and a large portion of society doesnt like it, then personally I would not care if it was banned.
If a gay couple are holding hands and a muslim takes offense, should be ban those couples from public displays of affection?
Obviously not, because a persons right to exist as they are supersedes someones right to not be offended and gay people dont exist and hold hands for the sole purpose of offending muslims.
Its actually really easy if you’re not being purposefully obtuse to try and prove a point.
Violence is bad
Burning a book you bought isn’t violence.
advocating for violence is bad
Same.
speech that intentionally does either should not be protected
No speech, just the act of burning a book. Try and stick to the topic at hand.
If an act has no positive value for anyone society or good reason for someone to do it and a large portion of society doesnt like it, then personally I would not care if it was banned.
Who gets to decide that? You? You’re advocating for going down a very dangerous path here. Any wannabe authoritarian starts by silencing dissent because protests “have no value”, “there’s no good reason”, or “the majority are against it”.
This is just a slippery slope fallacy.
It’s absolutely not. You’re being incredibly naive if you think passing this law will be a solution to this problem. There will always be further demands.
Obviously not, because a persons right to exist as they are supersedes someones right to not be offended
But a person’s right to do what they wish with their own property does not?
Its actually really easy if you’re not being purposefully obtuse to try and prove a point.
No, you’re just not thinking of the implications of this law, you’re pro-appeasement.
No speech, just the act of burning a book. Try and stick to the topic at hand.
This would be protected under free speech. Speech doesn’t only include things spoken when we use these terms. I don’t know if you’re being purposefully obtuse or actually ignorant of this information, but I’m providing it either way so there isn’t an excuse.
Most of the time speech is protected, which includes many things like protests and things like that, not just speech. Sometimes it is not. For example, it’s questionable that the speech Trump gave before the January 6th riots are considered protected speech or are not protected because they were calls to violent action.
Who gets to decide that? You?
What don’t you get about this. The court gets to decide, and their decision is based on how the law is written. We’re not just saying random people getting offended get to decide. None of this is a weird process that hasn’t been done before.
It’s absolutely not. You’re being incredibly naive if you think passing this law will be a solution to this problem. There will always be further demands.
The slippery slope falicy is when you start at one point and then it moves to an extreme without any reasonable way to reach that extreme from that first step. Having a law that limits burning certain books in a fashion designed to encourage violence without having a purpose has no relation to banning public displays of affection.
But a person’s right to do what they wish with their own property does not?
Not totally, no. There are plenty of things you can’t do with your property. For the US: If you live near other people’s property, you can burn your house down. If there’s a residence you can’t legally fire a firearm within a certain distance of it (though this often isn’t obeyed, especially in rural areas where literally no one else is around). You can put up a cross and burn it because it’d be hate speach (most likely at least, but it’d be up to the court to decide. If you’re not from the US, this is what the KKK did.) There are tons of rules you have to follow that restrict what you can do with your property.
What if thwy burn a tablet with the quran in it?
Laws shouldn’t be written to appease any religion.
They absolutely shouldn’t but laws occasionally have to be written to prevent racism.
But religion is not a race…
…apart from when it is.
And when is a religion a race?
I respect every persons right to their own believes or lack thereof. I don’t care what color any persons skin is or where you come from in this world.
I respect every person’s right to not be persecuted for characteristics that are outside their control.
People absolutely should be persectued, at least socially, for holding certain beliefs and advocating for certain ideas.
One upside to the crazy rednecks in the US is that a bill like this would likely see a large uptick in Quran burnings.
Are the Danish generally supportive of something like this? I would be pretty upset about a harmless form of protest being banned because some people in another country were mad about it.
I mean the Danish are the ones burning the books in front of foreign embassies. I think their opinions are mixed.
I imagine the burning is mostly done by immigrants. I really doubt the Danish have reason to pick any one embassy, and most of them won’t have a reason to think about the Koran.
Afaik this was all started by an Iraqi immigrant
I read he was a refugee. Small distinction, but it means he was escaping some sort of persecution which is why he was giving that status instead of immigrant. I would imagine he has strong feelings regarding based on his experience.
Danish chiming in, and while I can’t speak for all my countrymen we discussed the topic at work yesterday.
Everyone I talked to had the same mixed feelings.
No, we shouldn’t cater to the religious groups who wants to limit free speech because they get offended over someone burning their copy of a religious book.
No, anyone shouldn’t burn religious books in public to incite hate and publicly display their (stupid ass) racism.
A quote from a Danish rapper, made some years ago, is currently trending
If we want to show people of the Middle East how great “freedom of expression” is, maybe we shouldn’t use it to mock people who don’t have it.
So, conclusion is we are torn…
Common conclusion was that everyone should be allowed to burn anything that is legal to burn on their own property. When you take that action into the public, it’s okay that it’s regulated…If it’s okay that that regulation only applies to religious books… don’t know.
If this law passes, it will only galvanize more and more restriction. Never seen an extremist who took a finger and then didn’t ask for the whole arm.
I hear what you are saying, but I’m from Denmark… these types of law suggestions usually come when there’s a focus on something, not when there’s a fear of something.
The government proved during the Mohammad-drawings that they will not bend over when they are outnumbered, so I’m not too concerned that these new laws are based on fear, rather than common sense… if suddenly the Middle East should focus on circumcision of girls is not allowed in Denmark, I don’t think that would be something we suddenly would allow (and here’s to me hoping that we’ll soon save all the boy penises out there!)
Yeah this is basically my thought and the thoughts of people I talk to as well. Both sides of the argument have merit and both are kinda shit, but ultimately, if you want your freedom of expression to be left alone don’t purposely push the boundaries of it and use it to be a dickhead.
I assume they will also ban burning of all religious books to be fair?
Yeah the proposal is for all religious texts
I’m still not really sure if it’s a good idea to ban the burnings, since it’s apparently how you are supposed to dispose of Qurans in the first place
https://www.npr.org/2012/02/24/147321213/how-to-properly-dispose-of-sacred-texts
Context very much matters I think. People respectfully disposing of a religious text don’t tend to do it in front of foreign embassies while frothing at the mouth; they aren’t simultaneously taking a ritual shit on said text. Exception being Buddhists as destroying Buddhist stuff is part of the whole acceptance of impermanence thing but even then there’s ways to do it wrong. Frothing at the mouth being one of them.
Blasphemy laws for the modern day.
I read that as “Korean burning” and I was like wow that really got out of hands
Korean barbecue is delicious, I don’t understand why anyone would want to stop it
Are you Hannibal Lecter?
Let’s step back and see what this teaches people:
If you threaten violence, and are known to actually commit violence over something stupid, governments will bend to your will.
Is this REALLY the message we want to send? Instead of pandering to these religious clowns, come down hard on anyone who threatens violence - zero tolerance for this shit. Either enter the 21st century and turn your back on ass-backwards caveman thinking, or go back to the the shithole countries that you came from where murdering people over a stupid book is allowed.
It isn’t a slippery slope when you are on it, it is just a slope at that point.
Sweden and Denmark love the Saudi money.
Sweden I can get, they need Turkeys approval for NATO membership. Denmark I don’t get.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
COPENHAGEN, Aug 25 (Reuters) - The Danish government said on Friday it was proposing legislation that would make it illegal to burn copies of the Koran in public places, part of the Nordic country’s effort to de-escalate tensions with Muslim countries.
Denmark and Sweden have seen a string of protests in public in recent weeks where copies of the Koran have been burned or otherwise damaged, prompting outrage in Muslim nations which have demanded the Nordic governments put a stop to the burnings.
The government rejected protests by some Danish opposition parties that said banning Koran burnings would infringe on free speech.
“I fundamentally believe there are more civilised ways to express one’s views than burning things,” Hummelgaard said.
Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen had in July said the government would seek to “find a legal tool” that would enable authorities to prevent the burning of copies of the Koran in front of other countries’ embassies in Denmark.
Neighbouring Sweden has also said it is examining ways to legally limit Koran desecrations to reduce tensions after recent threats that led the country’s security officials to raise the terrorist threat level.
The original article contains 270 words, the summary contains 191 words. Saved 29%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Fucking assholes and idiots.
In this case everyone involved, the ‘victims’ included.
There aren’t any “victims” here.
Maybe the trees, but those are already dead.
The USA protects burning and stomping our own flag, as it should in my opinion. Free expression of dissent against a symbol and what it represents to that person.
Same should hold true for other things. Same with art too, “Piss Christ” made a lot of Christians very angry, but it was protected as artistic expression.
If you feel that the only way your message can be received and understood with its full intended impact is to disrespect a sacred/beloved symbol, you should be allowed to do it.
Stomp a flag, piss on a cross, burn a Koran, spit on a relic. If you own the property, and you aren’t tresspassing or directly intimidating somebody, go for it 100%
So they really fell for the boycott
If I don’t like a student’s work, would I be allowed to burn a copy of it in front of their peers? Nope, it would probably get me fired as it would be seen as personal animosity towards a student.
How about the work of another academic? Sketchy ground - I’d have to genuinely hate them to consider their work as worth nothing more than smoke. Then again, I should probably burn a copy of the original anti-vax “paper” to make a point to students about bad studies and how scholars feel about such authors. I suspect my inbox would be filled with anti-vax hate by the end of the day if it reached social media.
Overall, I’d argue that book burning shouldn’t be banned, but also that it isn’t effective. All it does is hand corrupt theocracies the cry of “see, those heathen book burners hate you all - you should purge them in holy fire”. It doesn’t drive change towards a more progressive government, and merely ensures that the rule of dictatorship finds its way to our shores.
It is a protest that defeats itself.
Burning someone’s work would most often just make you seem deranged. But don’t muddy the waters here, the key point is it must be legal. And if someone wants to make it illegal, that’s the rare good reason to actually do it.
On that we agree!
Private sector backlash != state backlash
Kamelåså!
I suspect that you could burn Korans all winter and suffer no ill effects as long as you didn’t go out of your way to tell people you are doing it.
So what we’re really talking about is being deliberately provocative to a particular immigrant population.
I don’t like religion, any religion but I think that you can’t police what goes on between people’s ears.
Also, I don’t like racists pretending it’s about the religion when it’s about the skin colour.
deleted by creator
Come again, boss?
