cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/1898872
Archived version: https://archive.ph/7EVMt
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230825172835/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66602814
Does this apply to all works of fiction, or only those believed by extremist groups?
I can understand not being allowed to burn historically significant documents and books, but mass-produced books are just cheap fire tinder.
If this goes through, my wife might get her wish when I disparage the Harry Potter books.
I’m too pretty for prison.
Just get an ass infection.
How about no burning anything in public? It’s a stupid thing to do and proves nothing, risks starting unintended fires, or people injuring themselves, etc.
LOL. Of course, I don’t advocate for burning things just to burn things.
I just don’t think that burning your own books should be considered a crime.
Burning stuff is a classic protest move though, and that shouldn’t be restricted either - within safety limits of course; i.e. Don’t leave your burning flag, book, bra, whatever where it might destroy unrelated stuff.
If a book is important to one or more ethnic groups, burning it is a hate crime, period. Being mass produced has nothing to go with it.
Everything is important to someone, why do particular groups get privilege just because they’re a religion. Should we ban the burning of Star Wars DVDs as that’s a huge franchise with lots of hardcore fans who may get upset? Should it be illegal for me to burn a copy of Action Comics #1 because it’s important to comic fans?
The uncomfortable truth is that it matters whether the group in question contains enough people willing to kill indiscriminately if you upset them too much.
To answer your rhetoric question: Because people believe in it for some reason. If millions of people were crazy enough to think Star Wars happened and molded their lives after it, and you started burning Star Wars DVDs because you despise Star Warite refugees, yes, people would be very upset at you for doing that.
People are clearly burning religious text to demonstrate their contempt to a group of people, it’s the definition of a hate crime.
Islam isn’t an ethnic group, and your logic is insane.
Can’t burn a dictionary cause one or more ethnic groups consider it important. Or the Bible.
Hate crime? Jesus get a grip.
I guess anti-senitism isn’t a thing in your book then?
Oh wait you burned all of yours away.
Jews are an odd outlier as it’s both an ethnicity and a religion and one doesn’t automatically indicate the other. You can have people with no ethnic link who are Jewish by dint of conversation to the religon, and ethnicly Jewish people who are entirely athiest. anti-Semitism is about racism against ethnicly Jewish people, not criticism of the religion.
You also missed the entire point of my comment, but keep going. Very enlightening.
If you don’t understand why this refutes your comment, then you just need to keep re-reading it.
Or maybe you (and others here) need to re-read my response to understand what the point of it was. I understand what the person was saying, just don’t think bickering over how the Jewish people are a “multinational ethnic group” is relevant to the discussion.
Nobody is coming for your copy of Mein Kampf
Nazis aren’t an ethnic group. Burn the books, and the nazis.
Islam isn’t an ethnic group.
When did I say it was? It is the primary religion of a lot of ethnic groups that are being persecuted.
Not really true, but I guess it depends on the country.
In the United States at least, burning your own book, flag, or whatever is legally protected free speech. Just as long as you aren’t destroying someone else’s property.
Context also matters. Burning bibles during a religious service is probably a thin line.
Islam is an ethnic group?
No, it’s a religion. But multiple ethnic groups are Muslim.
Hate speech, not a hate crime. In this case, the hate speech is criminal.
The centre-right government said it wanted to send a signal to the world.
That Denmark negotiates with terrorists?
Depends on how they plan to handle it. If a new law was formed specifically around the Quran, there might be a case.
But if it’s outlawing book burning in general, that’s quite another story.
Personally, I don’t understand why a law like that isn’t already in place after WW2.
But if it’s outlawing book burning in general, that’s quite another story.
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” The intended target of this law is crystal clear.
Absolutely. Which is why we’ll look at the wording of such a law very carefully.
Then I envy you, that your legislators are competent and honest enough to do so.
The Jury’s still out on that one. We’ll have to see, if the Bill should come to pass.
You misunderstood the article. They plan on jailing them now.
Jailing the protesters, not the terrorists, no?
Burn whatever you want, hate whoever you please. It is unpleasant however better than the thought police sending you to the ice prisons for ungood ideas. This idea that censorship stops anything but innovation and creativity is ludicrous.
deleted by creator
Better for racists lol
Historically the walk is far too short for the state to position itself as the victim of your hate. And then what?
Yfw when you can’t say slurs without consequences
I agree…civil society should be intolerant of hate and its idols. The state, however, as a control structure, is a terrible judge of whom to hate and whom to love; Danes should be proud their government has done better than most…and strive to keep it that way.
The state must protect all its inhabitants from physical harm, educate on tolerance and empathy, and from there, abdicate who to love and hate to its citizens.
Fuck the Quran
Denmark… do you believe in fairies?
No.
Then quit acting like it.
What about burning “The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” or “Dianetics” books? Or Harry Potter, or LOTR books?
Loads of people burnt Harry Potter books online over the last few years since Rowling went mental over LGBT issues.
Lots of people burned them when they were released because they are morons. Now I bet they defend her because she expresses hate towards the same people they hate.
The law includes all religious texts. If an organization achieves religious status it will have the same protections.
To the people defending this proposed law - hypothetically, if I were to set up a white board outside a mosque and draw the prophet, would you also be in favor of the police arresting me for … drawing?
If so, why?
I think this may already be illegal. You would be inciting and degrading members of a legal religion in Denmark, which has been against the law there since 1939. Blasphemy Laws were taken off the books in 2017, but this is a step back in that same direction. But then there is amendments to the constitution, I don’t fully understand.
Hinduism often has a belief in, “sanctity of the cow, … the belief that the cow is representative of divine and natural beneficence and should therefore be protected and venerated” (Brittanica).
One could argue that eating beef is inciting and degrading to [probably a select few] members of Hinduism.
I like this talking point
Removed by mod
Well plated beef is divine.
I think there’s a difference between eating beef in a place where that’s the norm and eating beef at a group of people to make them angry or mock them.
But for the Quran, “in public” is sufficient to meet the standard of “at” them?
What are your intentions behind doing this in your hypothetical scenario?
To find out where people are willing to draw the line. I’ve noticed that the people defending this proposed law are giving this question a wide berth.
I’m asking what your intentions are behind drawing on a whiteboard outside a mosque in the scenario not what your intentions were behind posing this hypothetical scenario. That part is obvious.
The intention isn’t relevant.
Sure it is. Intent is what separates murder from manslaughter for instance. Intent definitely matters here. Why are you having trouble elaborating on that aspect of your hypothetical scenario.
Fine, two scenarios: first, I’m doing it because I’m Islamophobic. Second, I’m doing it to test the limits of free speech. Can you tell the difference? No. That’s why it’s not relevant.
You don’t see the difference between these two scenarios? It may benefit you to learn about nuance.
That’s messed up, whatever happened to separation of church and state
lol, Denmark has an official state religion!
That’s a US law.
OK I sort of get it, not that I agree with it, but 2 years in jail? That’s absurd.
I’m from a conservative area and have heard countless stories of people who were traumatized in the name of Christianity. If one of those people feels like desecrating the Bible then it’s just a form of personal expression. If that upsets you well then start a conversation with them and learn from each other. Putting someone in jail is not the solution.
I’m just saying Christianity has a broad spectrum and has changed a lot over time. Even from a Christian point of view you must value criticism in order to find the way forward. That counts for all religions. And if you don’t think so, you’re just arrogant.
If one of those people feels like desecrating the Bible then it’s just a form of personal expression.
If the planned Danish law is anything like the German ones (age-old, introduced after the 30years war) then that’s absolutely fine. You can even do it publicly on SatanCon. Ritual blasphemy is just as much a protected religious expression as religious reverence, meaning that Christians aren’t even allowed to revile you for it in a manner suitable to disturb the public peace.
Where things get iffy is doing it in front of a Church just to piss them off. Rule of thumb: If you’re protesting a religious institution, keep religion out of it. E.g. back in the 60s people were protesting against the Churches’ backwards sexual morals by kissing in front of churches. Much more effective than burning the Malleus Maleficarum. That’s more suitable for an inquisitor to do in private to cleanse themselves.
Hate speech isn’t free speech!
I hate religion…
Whoah whoah whoah, you’re hating on a belief I can simply change, that has led to death and oppression for millennia.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Hate speech has no objective definition.
Language is a social phenomenon, yes.
“Blacks and whites should be equal.” Would have been considered hate speech in 1890.
Thankfully your style of rebuttal would be just as tiresome in 1890 as it is in the modern day.
Except I’m 1890 I would have had the weight of academia and public policy behind me.
Tell that the muslims who keep burning pride flags
Okay, sure! Hate speech isn’t free speech!
Hate Speech laws get an L from me. Hate crime laws where a crime motivated by prejudice awards extra jail time is just a better solution. Think about what this is really saying - if you burn the Quran, muslims will riot… in Iraq. And the Iraqi government will condemn you. Really?
When you really think about it burning a book is, in fact, censorship
deleted by creator
Why not just make a law against inciting acts of aggression? Filming yourself burning religious texts is purposely trying to piss people off. That way it would cover anything that has the same goal without being just about religion. Freedom of expression, unless it’s just trying to make others angry.
Lets the law handle each case individually.
How about we strive for a society where people can burn their own property without having to worry about violence?
The islamists that react violently are only proving the point of the people burning the books. Tbh if you try to hurt someone for just burning SOMETHING THEY OWN, maybe you don’t deserve to live in a first world country.
And if you purposely antagonize people who are known for killing people who disagree with them, you don’t either. It’s like yelling fire in a crowded room, for any reason other than there being a fire.
Yeah it’s ridiculous, but they aren’t just burning their own property. They are filming it with the purpose of causing problems. And it did. They can’t do whatever they want if it endangers others. In an ideal world no one would react with physical violence to words. But we don’t live in that world.
I’m not a fan of that law existing, but I can see why they would want it.
The burners are not causing problems. They’re exposing a sickness that these individual people have in their minds. A healthy person doesn’t try to hurt someone just because they’re offended.
These sick people who would hurt someone for burning a book are the same sort that would throw acid on a woman for some bullshit medieval family honor, for example.
Better to incite them and get them arrested and perhaps even deported before they’re allowed to hurt anyone. It shows you won’t tolerate it in your society.
Hell, it may even encourage more moderate Muslims to move to that country if they know that the society doesn’t tolerate the actions of the small, insane minority. The Muslims that believe in liberal ideals like freedom of expression are exactly the type of immigrants that make a society stronger and we should encourage them.
All this law will do is allow that unhinged mental illness to rest, in secret, before coming out in some other toxic way.
I’m not saying that the book burners are being entirely altruistic here. I wouldn’t be surprised if they honestly hated all Muslims. But it is their right to express it without hurting anyone. This feels more like a “broken clock is right twice a day” sort of situation.
I get that. But I think the danger is from outside the country, so they aren’t going to be arrested.
They can be arrested or just refused entry if they are known to be connected to extremist groups. They should be screened as any other person traveling to Denmark.
If we let them, especially external actors, influence our domestic policy, then they win. Look at what happened to the USA after 9/11. The terrorists won and it’s proof that terrorism works. Not only do the people capitulate to the terrorists, but bad domestic actors use it as a means to push some other (anti freedom) agenda.
The alternative is just laying down and letting medeival assholes decide domestic policies of the secular world. Don’t let terrorism win.
Personally this feels like a contradiction.
They can be arrested or just refused entry if they are known to be connected to extremist groups. They should be screened as any other person traveling to Denmark… bad domestic actors use it as a means to push some other (anti freedom) agenda.
State surveillance measures taken after 9/11 is part of the anti-freedom agenda to me. To effectively screen or establish connection to an extremist groups requires enhanced surveillance for effectiveness and arresting anyone with even a distant connection seems dubious (what type of connection, family, friends, being tricked into going to one meeting, etc). The people defining what an “extremist group” is can also be nefarious if bad actors are in play (think of the anti-communism/socialism scare that is portrayed in the recent Oppenheimer flick).
They’re exposing a sickness that these individual people have in their minds. A healthy person doesn’t try to hurt someone just because they’re offended.
Exposing and healing are not the same thing. They are fanning the flames, reducing neither the behaviour nor its causes. They’re handing out meth to junkies.
I argue that law should be used against those who react to these burnings in an aggressive manner. Violence is already covered.
If they stop taking unnecessary offense, I assume the burnings will stop too.
Not necessarily, if I were to burn a Bible and no one cares but they still continue revoking abortion access (and further bigotry) then I will probably keep burning bibles ib protest of the christofascists.
Yeah, but it’s making other people aggressive outside of the country. So its not very helpful, you can’t police people in other countries. This whole thing is like pedestrians walking in a crosswalk without looking for cars. Yes, the pedestrian has the right way, and the car should stop. But being right doesn’t really matter if you’re dead.
Plenty of good or interesting points being made by both sides so I appreciate the conversations. I’m not too sure of what the problem is though when the discussion and article mostly revolves around public spaces. Usually there are gathering/event requirements around anything that constitutes pyrotechnics or the use of fire in a performance as that can be a hazard and special precautions need to be followed (fire extinguishers, etc). I’m not too sure about the laws currently on the books of most countries but I doubt many places allow you to just walk up to a street corner and start a fire whether the item you’re burning is your property or not.
I’m also confused on the double standard of what constitutes public or private when it comes to online media. I think this is something that needs to be fleshed out more in this day and age. For instance the article references a current law Denmark has on the books,
The ban is expected to be added to a section of the criminal code that bans public insult of a foreign state, its flag or other symbol.
Is social media/the internet a public space? If so, does posting a video recorded on private property and then uploading it to said online public space nullify the private property? I’ve seen a lot of people use this double standard only when it benefits them. For instance, if you typed out something online that’s considered “free speech” but violates civil law because of it’s context then they are in the wrong. On the flip side, if you record a video of someone having a conversation at a private backyard bbq and upload it, has the person broken a law when they weren’t in “public” during the recording?
The ban above is a great example to use. I, myself, feel like the criminal code goes a little too far with no public insults of a foreign state. How does that work out with the scenario I presented when the video gets released. I’m not sure if the criminal code even touches on the digital aspect of it, or who is at fault (the uploader, the person making the statements, or the hosting site).
Another ironic stance I’m seeing is the freedom/protection of expression being used to allow the public burning of books and condemning those who are against it. There are specific and recognized groups which receive protections under the law from discrimination and targeting of hate speech (the Denmark suggested law also covers bibles so it’s not just a Quran issue). Are we picking and choosing who these protections are allowed for based on our opinion on whether we agree with them or not?
For example if religious text burning is allowed for a public display, are all forms of expression then allowed? Burning a cross in front of an historically African American church, burning a pride flag at a pride march, burning baby dolls in front of an abortion clinic, political rivals, medical clinics that perform care for transitioning, hell even nazis burning disney shit outside of disney world?
If you’re of the belief that all of this should be allowed under the umbrella of freedom of speech/expression, what do you feel should be the governments stance on protection of it’s citizens from harassment in public spaces? Should the government even address these problems, or is it the same as no one should expect privacy in a public space so therefor expect persecution and harassment as well? How does this not effect businesses and organizations from being targeted with hostile forces? I’m reminded of the civil rights era, groups of white nationalists armed and congregating outside of a business to intimidate anyone of color from using the premises or social services. Groups will maintain these tactics and multiply if there is no resistance from a governmental stance, this will only heighten confrontations when opposing groups are formed to combat these scenarios leading to civil unrest, physical harm/altercations, and potentially death of innocent bystanders if something were to escalate.
I am not of any of those targeted groups, not a policy maker, and have an indifferent stance so I’m open to honest debate on everyone’s side. I also feel like the remarks made by OIC needs to be investigated,
The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) called on its members to take appropriate action against countries where the Quran was being desecrated.
Any group that can be seen as calling for harm to members of that countries population should have legal ramifications in that country, but I’m unsure of what they mean when they say “appropriate action” which is why I said it should be investigated further.
Setting shit on fire is a time honored tradition.
Embassies are especially fair game (outside the grounds and in a safe fashion) . A protest in private is no protest at all.
So when the taliban make it illegal for women to go to school, citing the Quran….While I don’t think fire is the right thing to do, I absolutely agree it is a right to burn shit somewhere in front of the afghan embassy. If that includes a flag or religious text owned by the protestor, so be it.
However, people have the right to physically gain access to the buildings of use (service, home, food, etc) and safety first. Blah blah blah.
In general, the state should read public protest as a sign that local democratically elected officials are not aligning with the values of their constituents.
A public protest ought not be the first step.
I don’t know about upholding time honored traditions, seems contradictory and subjective to me when your later stance includes an example of the Quran (another time honored tradition you don’t agree with). I don’t agree with making it illegal for anyone to attend school so it seems like a double edge sword that’s based solely on a personal morality which is hard to codify for an entire population.
I also agree a private protest is no protest at all, but it becomes complicated when you’re targeting a religious group’s texts just because bad faith actors are using it for control. Even burning their flag seems weird when it’s not the people of that country making the decisions but by the administration in charge (I’m not sure on what the target for the protest should be then in that case though).
Constitutionally you have to make a decision, I believe this has been debated and somewhat agreed upon though that access to a happy life (access to healthcare and freedom of religion) is more important than the right to “burn shit” as one has been documented and burning is not mentioned in most or any constitutions. Though freedom of expression is, which again becomes complicated when that expression is wished to be expressed through destruction of property (public/private). Again, I don’t have a particular stance on this subject but just pointing out contradictions in the arguments to better understand the ideology behind everyone’s thoughts.
Well tbh the word you are looking for is situational. Symbolic speech must be protected but when and where is a worthwhile convo.
Burning shit is as important as worshipping shit.
The key however is the Danish state: are they listening to their constituents? That is missing from this article.
