The Danish government will try to find legal means that will enable authorities to prevent the burning of copies of the Quran in front of other countries’ embassies in Denmark, Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen has said.
“The burnings are deeply offensive and reckless acts committed by few individuals. These few individuals do not represent the values the Danish society is built on,” Rasmussen said in a statement on Sunday.
“The Danish government will therefore explore the possibility of intervening in special situations where, for instance, other countries, cultures, and religions are being insulted, and where this could have significant negative consequences for Denmark, not least with regard to security,” he said.
Denmark and Sweden have found themselves in the international spotlight in recent weeks following protests where the Quran, the Islamic holy book, has been damaged or burned.
In a separate statement on Sunday, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said he had been in close contact with his Danish counterpart Mette Frederiksen, and that a similar process was already under way in Sweden.
“We have also started to analyse the legal situation already … in order to consider measures to strengthen our national security and the security of Swedes in Sweden and around the world,” Kristersson said in a post to Instagram.
Outrage in Muslim countries
This month, far-right activists have carried out a number of public burnings of Islam’s holy book in front of the Iraqi, Egyptian, and Turkish embassies in the Danish capital.
On Monday, two members of the ultra-nationalist Danish Patriots stomped on a copy of the Quran and set it alight in a tin foil tray next to an Iraqi flag.
Earlier this month in Sweden, an Iraqi citizen living in the country, Salwan Momika, 37, stomped on the holy book and set several pages alight.
The public burnings in the Scandinavian countries have sparked widespread outrage across Muslim countries, with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, Morocco, Qatar and Yemen lodging protests in response.
Sweden and Denmark have said they deplore the burning of the Koran but cannot prevent it under their rules protecting freedom of expression.
The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) earlier this month approved a resolution on religious hatred and bigotry following several burnings.
Pakistan and other Organisation of Islamic Cooperation countries backed the motion, along with a number of non-Muslim majority countries including India and Vietnam. The United States and the European Union opposed the resolution on the grounds it interfered with freedom of expression.
In his statement, Rasmussen added that whatever measure was taken “must of course be done within the framework of the constitutionally protected freedom of expression and in a manner that does not change the fact that freedom of expression in Denmark has very broad scope”.
You must log in or register to comment.
Maybe acknowledge that if you want to attack or even kill someone for burning a stupid book, the problem lies with the attacker, not the book burner.
Fuck religion.
I hoped it was clickbait, but it isn’t. What the fuck Denmark.
The Danish government will try to find legal means that will enable authorities to prevent the burning of copies of the Quran in front of other countries’ embassies in Denmark
Emphasis mine. This isn’t some major restriction of free speech or anything, it’s just a way to prevent idiots from trying to ruin diplomatic relations between Denmark and other countries.
So someone who escapes from a fundamentalist Muslim country can’t protest that regime in front of said country’s embassy anymore?
Nah, still fucking stupid.
We still don’t know the exact wording of the law. So there’s no way to know and no need to jump to outrage conclusions right now.
I’m going to jump to outrage because the entire premise of the proposed law is ridiculous, regardless of the wording.
This is a blasphemy law under the guise of international relations.
It could also be more akin to a hate speech law. We don’t know yet. Jumping to outrage before we know is counterproductive and unnecessary.
I’ll be right beside you with the outrage if it turns out to be actually outrageous when it lands - but let’s see.
We don’t really want religions to have the right to determine what is and is not hate speech against them. If given the chance, some of these people would define women not having their hair hidden or someone undergoing gender transition as offensive.
Trying not to take away your point. But is it really hate speech tho?
I suppose that’s a question for a lawyer.
Yes, because burning the Quran isn’t actually a big deal in Islam and is condoned as a disposal method. Every Muslim knows this.
So if you are an ex-mislim burning a Quran in front of an embassy, what else could be your message? The Quran isn’t tied to a country so it can’t be a protest against the country. It also can’t be a legitimate protest against Islam, since it’s condoned by the religion. You cannot protest by complying.
So that really only leaves one thing the Quran burning can mean: a threat to Muslims as a group. ‘I’m setting a thing you are associated with and like on fire.’.
It’s even more obvious when it’s a non-muslim doing it.
A law that prevents someone from burning a book counts as a major restriction on free speech as far as I am concerned. It’s a book for gods sake. The fact that burning it causes offense is immaterial… simply causing offense to a group is not sufficient ground to place a restriction on an act that otherwise harms no one.
It is a restriction on free speech, though, however you want to frame it. A free society should not countenance it.
I think the distinction was that the recent burnings were not tied to a political decision or action made by the countries. It was just to be dicks toward Muslim countries.
Lets say the burning was infront of Saudi embassy after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. That might be allowed under the proposal.
The whole situation is weird, tbh
Freedom of speech isn’t lost just because the motivation’s of a person aren’t pure and the freedom means nothing if it doesn’t cover offensive speech. You don’t need to protect the right of people to say nice things.
I don’t disagree with you.
In fact, I fully agree.
Denmark doesn’t have free speech anyway, this is just one more crippling of what free speech is allowed.
The good news is that the burnings are still legal in front of danish embassies in Denmark. Which of course is nonsense, but why stress that it’s in front of foreign embassies, that doesn’t even make any kind of sense, it’s the only kind of embassies there is. But that’s how the government chose to put it!?
Instead og this diplomacy nonsense, giving in to fanatic muslims and undermining our democracy. We should rather invite them to a danish hygge meeting, with danish beer and traditional danish roast pork, and say they can bring their dogs if they want.
We shouldn’t let religious fanatics dictate what we do in Denmark, that has zero impact and does zero harm to them. While they still have a death sentence on Salman Rushdie, and perform terrorist acts in Europe!!
This is a slippery slope that will never end, until we say enough is enough.
Oh no, some people are burning paper outside my building. I guess it’s time to declare war.
Yeah sure sensible. Give up a little freedom for a little security. That will definitely give us both and make us deserve both.
Hey new rule. No more LGBT flags near those embassies. Also no more temples/shrines/churchs/whathaveyou for other religions except Islam near those embassies. Also women have to wear face coverings. No alcohol or pork to be served.
Slippery slope fallacy.
Isnt a slippery slope when you are walking on it, it is just a slope at that point.
It’s fine, we are doomed to repeat history since every time someone suggests learning from it someone else chimes out “slippery slope fallacy”. Appeasement doesn’t bring us peace in our time, forfeiting freedoms for temporary security give us neither, selling out rights to religious authorities always always results in demand for yet more.
Denmark doesn’t have unrestricted free speech. Censorship is against the constitution but hate speech, inciting violence or defamation is illegal and until 2017 blasphemy was illegal. There is some legal basis for punishing speech that is bringing the country into danger or is severely insulting another nation. I am not a lawyer so I don’t know if it’s applicable or if it will hold up in court.
Note that the government does not want to ban burning books. Just prevent/punish doing it as a provocation against another country.
I also want to stress that I am not defending the Danish government or the book burners. I just want to bring some needed nuance to the discussion
Also there’s presedence in a lot of countries that restrict protesting in front of embassies.
For instance in Switzerland in front of US and UK embassies. Not that I’m for that. I hope the police in Bern gets reigned in soon for their conduct.
Oil money my friend, oil money can buy everything.
I’m an Ex-christian. Religion has provoked plenty of suffering against me and my family through my life. I want to have the right to burn a Bible. The same way, I want Ex-muslims to have the right to burn the Quran.
I’m an exmuslim and dont see the point of desecration. It isnt going to change anyones mind or bring me acceptance (in fact I’d argue it will do the opposite). I want my worldview to be seen as rational and respectable, not angry and represented by empty acts.
I will however defend the right to criticize and say controversial things about Islam that have actual substance to them.
Desecration shows that there’s no god reacting to the offense. It is a rational attack on faith.
This logic doesn’t hold up to any level of critical analysis. Burning a physics textbook doesn’t prove there’s no gravity reacting to the offense. Does Islam maintain as a tenet that God will strike down someone burning a copy of the Quran?
I’m not even sure, and most believers probably can’t answer that. If it’s not written down, it’s probably an unspoken rule. This type of rule exists as a common fallacy and a bias called the “Just World” fallacy. There’s an entire site dedicated to it, since it’s so important:
So what you’re really saying is, you don’t know. You’re assuming.
I’m saying that I can’t be bothered by your comment to look it up, even if I know I’ll find the evidence.
If this was an “evidence-based” thread, I’d make an effort, but it isn’t.
Well any of his servants reacting to it would prove that claim wrong. That is like saying that the president don’t exist because there is no reaction when you try to burn down the white house. You can get away with it of course, but it isnt good reasoning.
Heresy has always been a victimless crime. Even if there were a god, which there isn’t, it would way too powerful for a human to hurt it. You can’t damage a being that fashioned galaxies. Especially by burning a book or saying some naughty.
Is the president all powerful and all seeing?
I’m out of the loop, but is this the idea of burning Qurans, or is this an afterthought? I have been divided on the subject, as I support free speech, but I don’t enjoy the support of provoking aggression by undermining someones faith.
If the idea behind burning Qurans is to prove that there is no religious force that stops us, that’s something different. Like showing the people that there is no reason to enforce the ancient rules and laws of whipping people for having extramarital sex, cutting of hands of thieves, claiming the right to bear arms or stoning people for cheating in marriage.
If the idea behind burning Qurans is to prove that there is no religious force that stops us, that’s something different. Like showing the people that there is no reason to enforce the ancient rules and laws of whipping people for having extramarital sex, cutting of hands of thieves, claiming the right to bear arms or stoning people for cheating in marriage.
Yes.
It’s mostly for the doubters riding the fence.
Of course, then comes the other problem with how “apostates” are treated.
I don’t enjoy the support of provoking aggression by undermining someones faith.
Right that is kinda the thing. Having a religion is the default position. I am an atheist, do you support my “faith”? I am allowed to say that there is no Allah and be treated with the same tolerance you would award to someone telling you that Allah be praised?
There is a line somewhere. Saying that there is or isn’t a god is fine. I don’t think that’s an action which attempts to provoke aggression. But bringing out their most cherrished symbol and burning it is more of a declaration of hate. If the hate was narrowly directed at a specific leadership of state or a system, that would make sense, but burning the Quran targets so extremely widely. While I don’t think the act should be illegal, I don’t like the idea of declaring a wide range of hate.
There is a line somewhere
Yes, the embassy property line. This isn’t confusing at all to me. I attended a Catholic funeral a few months back. I sat in the back. I didn’t pray. I didn’t tell the priest that his life was a lie and he works for pedophiles. I was respectful the whole time but apart. When you are in their building you follow their rules. Their rules end at the property line.
Saying that there is or isn’t a god is fine. I don’t think that’s an action which attempts to provoke aggression.
And that is your opinion but we are talking about the law right now. What you are not seeing is that religion is the default position and needs no help from the government. My atheism to you might not be offensive but it is to others. Large parts of the world would execute me for it. Once we establish that religious sensibilities matter more than natural rights- well people like me are fucked. As are homosexuals, women who don’t want to wear a veil, and many others.
I don’t like the idea of declaring a wide range of hate.
The problem with defending rights is you find yourself defending terrible people. Regular people don’t generally need their rights defended. It is the worst of us that do. You seem of a Christian background. What does Jesus say when asked why he is hanging out with the criminals? I donate to the ACLU and I know they have defended people that I would be happy never meeting. No one is asking you to like religious desecration, what you are being asked to do is tolerate it.
Just to establish my background: I am by no means religious. I gave up my family’s christian background almost 20 years ago, and I don’t have any personal interest in religion. Like you, I attend whatever ceremonies that occur in religious ground with respect and without religious participation. My point of view is only based on personal respect.
I agree that there shouldn’t be laws against these acts. State interruptions of peaceful/non-violent protests should not be a thing.
My point is that I get the sense that people are actively hosting protests which hit a much larger target than intended. Burning Qurans used to be an act of racist groups in my country, but somehow it has moved to something that people celebrate as a symbol of freedom of speech. I just find it unfortunate that the society celebrates an act which also targets peaceful integrated sunni muslims who has no intentions of forcing sharia or ancient rules upon the rest of the society.
Islam went through persecution during its formative period, by the religious and political status quo that existed (only to later go to war, subjugate other religions, enslave). The Quran already has explanations and consolations for persecution so they will rationalize the burnings using these.
Kindly, “where is your god now” will have no effect, assuming they look at it that way to begin with. That will be at the cost of ruining our (exmuslims) reputation, which imo isnt worth it.
A persecution complex is built-in as a default feature for the Abrahamic ones. I’m sure it’s not unique to them, but it’s a default feature, part of the marketing.
The cult dynamic of creating a cult identity works very nicely with converting criticism into a positive feedback loop for belief fervor. Instead of criticism being received honestly and evaluated accordingly, it’s seen as conspiracy and mysterious/sinister/occult oppression. It’s most obvious with the martyr fallacy, the notion that: “someone died for some idea/story/prophecy, therefore the story is true!”. The past few years of pandemic have demonstrated repeatedly that it is a fallacy. And the backfire effect has its limits.
Kindly, “where is your god now” will have no effect, assuming they look at it that way to begin with. That will be at the cost of ruining our (exmuslims) reputation, which imo isnt worth it.
It’s precisely for the doubters. The believers who are comfortable do not care.
Deeming some story “sacred” is an appeal to authority, some ancient authority usually (so, to tradition), and it’s used as a defense against criticism… against even trying to think about criticism. It marks some idea, some premise, as unquestionable. So ruining the illusion of sacredness is an important step in allowing inspection and criticism. Go ahead and ask exbelievers when they started to doubt and if they had fear of doubting in the first place.
Free speech covers reprehensible speech.
Im not sure how thats relevant, I didnt say it didnt. Im only saying that people who can desecrate shouldnt, because it achieves nothing useful.
As stupid provoking those medieval idiots is, it definitely shouldn’t be illegal. If I decide to start my grill with Quran in order to make me a dinner of pork chops, or draw Mohamed on piece of paper in order to pick up my dog’s shit with it, it definitely shouldn’t be illegal. Same way as saying Jesus is technically a zombie isn’t illegal.
As stupid provoking those medieval idiots is, it definitely shouldn’t be legal.
I think you mean illegal.
removed by mod
They never actually burned the Torah. Both of the protestors that filed for permits for that backed out - one burned a blank sheet of paper instead.
They were just being performative and expected the Swedish police to be hypocrites, and were surprised when stuck to their values and didn’t deny permission.
That is a valid concern. Maybe they should deal with that instead of appeasement? These powerful governments can’t run a counter-intelligence program inside their own nation?
deleted by creator
Technically hes a lich
This guy technicallies
Based on the rest of your comment, I think you missed an “il” at the beginning there.
They’re only seeking to make it illegal in front of embassies, not in general. For now at least.
Nods in Neville Chamberlain
I’m opposed to burning the Quran, but I am even more opposed to making it illegal to do so.
The wording quoted from the Danish politician by OP, assuming it is correctly quoted and translated sounds horrible and dystopian. Imaging making a law to make it illegal to do something that offends other people, or even offends other people from other countries. Now you have other people deciding on tummy feeling what is legal in your country. Absolutely disgusting.
Burning the Quran should continue to be legal, I just don’t see why you would do that, or other books for that matter. There are way more price efficient ways to produce heat than book burning
Yes, this is a case where the carrot is better than the stick. I’m not danish (maybe a blueberry one though), but if I was prone to burning books and the government suddenly cracked down on that, maybe I’m also prone to burning constitutions?
I agree on principles, but they only want to prevent it outside of Muslim countries’ embassies though.
Realpolitik. They probably just want to have good relations with these nations.
That really doesn’t make it better. They are basically extending the border of another country within their own country and doing it not due to very valid concerns like security or traffic flows, they are doing it to appease a sect of sky-daddyism. I wonder how much more of their citizens they plan to give away to a foreign power to buy themselves “peace in our time”.
Honestly the main problem I see here is people setting fire to items in a public space without proper combustion containment.
Like, sure, burn a book if you feel like it. But you should coordinate with the local fire department and use an approved and setting-appropriate container like a burn barrel, chiminea, etc.
Safety first, folks :]
removed by mod
I think that the actual burning is just a symbol - that says, “fuck your book!”. If burning is prohibited, people will just turn to whatever other method is available to them. It becomes a game of whack a mole, with people moving to new and creative ways until in the end just holding it up or something gets to mean the exact same thing. Or something like that.
removed by mod
No, I mean in the opposite direction - the examples you said are all blatant anti religious sentiment (and also a bit anti cultural too when I think about it), and sort of obvious displays of Islamophobia.
What I’m talking about is xenophobes ramping it DOWN instead of up - since as long as the sentiment is passed on, anything can be used as an insult, like honking at people jogging.
P.S don’t do any of the things in the comment I’m replying to, they’re horribly unnecessary intolerance towards muslims, and may or may not also get you killed.
removed by mod
dangerous their religion is.
Edit: not sure how to do strikethrough, but you get the gist
removed by mod
There it is, the racism. Please present some facts with sources on this statement.
Ex-muslim here. The Quran should not get special treatment in the eyes of the law from any other book.
I oppose hatred towards Muslims, but the religion itself isn’t exempt from criticism, and yes, that does include idiots who want to set the book on fire to make some kind of stupid point.
I don’t like it, but I don’t like the world having to tiptoe around overly sensitive Muslims who think everybody should show the same respect to the book that they do. The outrage would be at nowhere near the same magnitude if it were the Bible. Grow the hell up and stop validating these dumbass book burners.
The proposed law would also prohibit burnings of other specified religious texts.
I heavy declare my religious texts to be only books currently on fire. Your move.
And that’s also why their proposal is specifying what. Torahs, etc. Not sure dianetics would make it.
Oh so now the government of Denmark gets to define what is and what is not a religious text? Wow that is ambitious. A freaken random collection of government officials are going to define what texts are holy to humanity and which are not. Because if there is one thing that definitely should be mixed together is government and religion. That never ever ever goes wrong.
Will Sikh holy works be equal to the Quran or will the Quran be more equal than others?
They do it to get attention so giving them attention when they do it is actually the worst possible response.
However they are probably going to ban the practice because allowing it to continue will just invite potential retaliation it’s not worth it.
This is signaling exactly the wrong message to the violent protesters. They see “if we throw a tantrum they do what we want” it will lead to more violent protest.
The opposite reaction would be appropriate. Tell tgem “If you continue to be violent we will mock your prophet and your book even more”. If those people really listen to the Quran this should stop the violence.
During Mohammeds time the Muslims would mock the gods of the polytheists. When the polytheists finally had enough and threatened to mock Islam if they don’t stop, “Allah” revealed
Surah 6:108
˹O believers!˺ Do not insult what they invoke besides Allah or they will insult Allah spitefully out of ignorance. This is how We have made each people’s deeds appealing to them. Then to their Lord is their return, and He will inform them of what they used to do.
Honestly I am all for freedom of speech and am atheist, but I don’t think burning books is a form of free speech that should be recognized.
I feel no matter the book, burning it is just low class and only done to fuel anger. It’s more akin to hate speech than free speech.
There are plenty of other ways to get your point across, only ‘bad guys’ resort to burning books.
I like your argument but I think I prefer the guy who says it should be a legal fire. Its more a property rights issue really. If you own the book and your burning it in a way that is legal then it should be as legal as burning a newspaper or whatever. I do think it should not be socially acceptable and especially as protest. People should look down on those who burn knowledge even if its a work of fiction like that.
Burning the Quran is an acceptable way to dispose of a copy in Islam. The protests really are about the intentions of the individual who are burning it.
I’m missing how it being an appropriate way to dispose of the Quran is relevant. I dont think it matter at all to them what is or isnt suitable?
The freedom of speech isn’t primarily concerned with the protection of uncontroversial or popular speech.
If you delete a file containing the Quaran from your computer, is that bad too?
I do think that the larger point is more so that they did it publicly. It was done with the deliberate intention of course in offence.
They will really just been awkward and belligerent there was no reason to do the thing they did other than to be a pain.
Obviously I don’t care if they’ve burn the Quran, except as they say it leads to potential security risks. It’s just reckless to do things you know are going to lead to political difficulties and disproportionate retaliations.
deleted by creator
Leaving aside for the moment the free speech issues inherent here… if you want to control what someone does with a book after you sell it? You can’t sell it. Lend it, rent it, whatever; but if it’s sold, you’ve given up all right to determine what happens with it.
Don’t want to invest in the infrastructure to do that? Then is it really that important to you?
deleted by creator
I’ll go ahead and say “just copy the German laws”. §166 StGB:
Revilement of religious faiths and religious and ideological communities
- Whoever publicly or by disseminating content (section 11 (3)) reviles the religion or ideology1 of others in a manner suited to causing a disturbance of the public peace incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or a fine.
- Whoever publicly or by disseminating content (section 11 (3)) reviles a church or other religious or ideological1 community in Germany or its institutions or customs in a manner suited to causing a disturbance of the public peace incurs the same penalty.
Historically speaking that section has been introduced after the 30 year war, when Lutherans and Catholics had it out for each other. It’s why you don’t see Lutherans calling Catholics Idolaters any more even though they still pray to Mary.
Apostasy, blasphemy, also religious critique etc. are all perfectly fine but if you’re using religion as a vector of insult to disturb the public peace that’s crossing the line. Burn all the Qurans you want just don’t make a show out of it. Or print “The Quran, the holy Quran” on rolls of toilet paper and send them to public TV stations and mosques (actually happened).
1 “ideology” there is an iffy translation, what is meant is Weltanschauung. Say, Daoism is not a religion in the usual (German/western) sense but definitely a philosophy with deep epistemology and thus qualifies. So is Humanism.
One problem with this sort of law is that it only ever targets minority religious opinions. You’d never see a priest get prosecuted for telling atheists they deserve to burn in hell, for example.
The atheists could file a complaint and force the issue.
If not then there’s a larger problem with society.
Ideally it would work that way. The problem is that it never has worked that way.
That’s exactly what conservatism is: the effort to conserve privilege and impunity.
Rights for me, but not for thee.
A German saying applies there: Where there’s no complainant, there’s no judge.
My friend sadly this won’t involve the burning of religious books. You can even do it live or on tv. If you insult the religion or their believers or provoke them with something else, you could use § 166 StGB. For example something like “all muslims should burn like this book” or “the islam is straight from hell, so we burn it…”. § 130 StGB or § 185 StGB won’t help you either. And as long as he owns the book you can’t use § 303 StGB.
So just the burning could happen in Germany, too.
Sure, mere burning, even public, won’t qualify especially as it could be a Muslim properly disposing of a damaged Quran (the general rule of thumb is “give it a proper burial”, that includes burning).
But I don’t think any of those troublesome burnings happen without whoever is doing it providing context as to why they’re doing it which then enables §166 as evidenced by, well, the public peace being disturbed by their actions.
It could be that those people then switch to burning Qurans silently – yes that’s allowed in Germany, even in public, even if you’re a known opponent of Islam. But silent protests are also way less likely to incite public ire, more easy to overlook, and kinda hard to rally people with, even as a third person (unless you yourself want to be found guilty of §166). Sure Muslims might be miffed but the law is there to protect the public peace, not religious sentiment, and also silent burnings are sooo easy to counter: “Thank you, brother, for disposing of the Quran according to proper tradition”. The perpetrator might want to object but then, well, §166.
Or, differently put: You don’t see Quran burnings in Germany.
Lastly, state and municipal ordinances regarding open fires and the environment still apply. While state-level stuff should be easy to comply with (largely fire safety, nature reserves, forests etc), my municipality has a “smoke must not disturb the public” kind of ordinance and if you’re burning something in a busy shopping area they might just interpret that one a bit more strictly than when making a campfire on the beach. Be ready for engaged bureaucrats (heh) asking questions about the chemical makeup of the ink and glue used in the book so they can tell whether you created a risk to public health.
Damn, up to 3 years for that is way too harsh.
It’s practically impossible to get sentenced to the maximum unless you really are trying to. The toilet paper Quran guy got one year probation, and the guy had previous offences, was unregenerate, and, quote the judge, “considerably infatuated”. You have to leave room in the sentencing structure for recalcitrant repeat offenders, people who behead cows in Hindu temples, suchlike. The vast, vast majority of cases are dealt with by fines (standard German rate of one day of prison equals one day of disposable income for judgements under a year).
Up to 3 years is a bit extreme for that
