265
Danish law banning public burning of Quran sparks outcry
(www.lemonde.fr)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
265 points (98.2% liked)
Europe
8332 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Tbh, I kind of think it should be. Not de facto illegal, like if you accidentally burn it somehow, but if you intentionally do it to piss people off then that intention isn't exactly right itself. If you're putting on a public display purely to incite and antagonise people by destroying things they hold dear, then you're not merely exercising your freedoms but actively seeking to harm others.
It's all very grey area though, and any punishment should reflect that the harm is not physical and relatively low. This law almost definitely goes too far.
But then you could always pretend to be offended by something to get it banned. I understand that by your definition it would only include things done to spite other people but the line is thin. And it would create a dangerous precedent for the freedom of expression.
I might become offended by people wearing a tie. If it becomes well-known, should we ban ties?
I agree that in an ideal world, people shouldn't be assholes and burn Qur'ans just to antagonise people. But it should also be clear to the offended people, that this actually harms no one. It's like burning a dictionary. It's idiotic but harmless. If you expect to live in an open society, you have to realise that the book of your religion is just an object.
What I'm getting at is not the victim's view of it, but the perpetrator's intent. If you can prove that harmful intent, then there would be a crime. Granted, that would be incredibly easy to subvert and get around, and kind of rightly so - it can only be a relatively low level of non-physical harm.
But it is still harm, in the form of causing emotional distress. People aren't burning Qurans because they feel oppressed by Qurans or what they represent, they're not disposing of possessions they no longer want, they're doing it to upset Muslims. Burning a dictionary isn't the same, a better example would be throwing food down a disposal in front of a starving child.
That is a ridiculous comparison. The copy of the book they are burning represents no real unfulfilled need for the believer like the food does for the starving child.
It's not a perfect example, but I'm not sure there really is one. However it's a much better example than burning a dictionary.
The fact is, there are few similar symbols that a non-religious person would hold precious in the same way a religious person would theirs, so examples are not going to get this right. That doesn't mean that a religious person's sentiment should be disregarded entirely, not when the whole intent is to use that to cause them harm.
Why should society attach any value to a persons imaginary friend?
Society isn't. However society should have some respect for citizens and what they hold value to.
Respect is not laughing in someones face when they talk about their imaginary friend - no more.
though i disagree with their sentiment, i sort get their example. it is not about practical need, but more of the object's perceived value. the qran is valuable to its believer as much as food is to the starving. that was not a ridiculous comparison.
Anyoe who values a book as much as not starving to death is objectively an idiot.
and that is where conflict comes from. some value an imaginary god while others do not. it is idiotic to you, but not to them. again, i was not defending the idea, just the other commenter's example.
There are good reasons not to go by perceived anything when it comes to offense though. Offending people is very much not something that can be avoided for everyone simultaneously, unlike needs and desires in the real world like food, water,... which are much more predictable and much less incompatible.
If i went into the street and condemned people for whatever choices they make, without harassing them, that would be legal. You're not harming anyone by burning a book and you wouldn't hurt anyone either by just pissing them off. The problem is a very vocal part of the world have been brainwashed to incite violence when this specific area of their feelings get hurt.
It's only made a gray area because you can't tell them that they can in fact just learn to ignore it and practice their religion in peace and expect it to work. Their beliefs are not built upon letting others express their views freely if they react with violence when someone burns their printed holy word. Their actions would be justified if there was only one copy or a building was burnt down, but it's a worthless material thing, and the disrespect it signifies will not go away just because you disallow people to express it.
Sorry, long rant to say I actually agree that this law goes too far.
If you went to the streets with posters or speeches that talk about how you believe the teachings or religious organizations to be wrong that is perfectly legal.
If you cannot think of civilized ways to express critique and opposition, than it is your problem and not that of the people that rightfully fear the burning of symbols to escalate into violanece against the people, like it did many times in history.
If you think burning religious books in public should be legal you also think that burning a Torah in a former concentration camp, or in front of a synagouge should be legal. If these ideas make you uncomfy, then you should ask yourself, why you want muslims to be treated differently from other religions.
Your last point is wrong and I don't think you should assume those are my views. Behavior in concentration camps should obviously be policed, because it's significant and not recreatable and should therefore be preserved as a place for the people it is significant to. A privately owned printed book is not, so you should be able to attempt to piss other people off by burning it, if that is your perogative. If we're getting specific, I don't think you should be allowed to start a fire anywhere near buildings you don't own, unless it's to light a cigarette or w\e
Other than that, I agree you should find a civilized way to express your beliefs, but we shouldn't, for good reasons, police the way people express themselves. A law like this sets a precedent for religious organizations; that they can have their way if they (re)act violently. It will lead to more violence down the road so we need a better solution.
How is it your right to upset people? Freedom of speech is for speech towards the government, not everyone else. It isn't about what you're doing to the government, but to other citizens. You do not have a right to hurt or upset people, be it physical or non-physical.
We shouldn't police peoples' expressions, but we should police their harmful actions against other people.
The law in this article is wrong, absolutely. It goes way too far and protects the symbol, which like you say the religion could then expand their symbols to cover more things. I'm saying the symbol shouldn't be protected, however it would be reasonable for the law to recognise the harmful intent against others and police that.
So, if you were to privately burn books or destroy religious symbols, that would be fine. However if you did it in public in front of religious people, then that could only reasonably be done with intent to cause harm, so it would be illegal.
We do not agree on what constitutes harm. I believe you should be free to try to upset others by expressing your views any way you want as long as it doesn't harm them. Getting upset is not getting harmed.
I would say targetting individuals when trying to upset them should be policed, however this is not about individuals but a large group.
If you, say, bankrupted someone's company so they had to sell all their possessions and then went up to them and burned the Quran they got from their now dead father as a present as a child or that had been in their family for generations right in front of them, that would be something that should be illegal as targetted harassment.
However here we are talking about criticism of a religion by burning a symbol of the religion, not one particular person's possessions.
Why? Why should you be free to do this?
I believe you should be free to do whatever you like, so long as it does not impact others. When it starts to affect others, that's when your rights may need to be limited - because otherwise your rights will infringe upon theirs.
I am deeply offended by that statement. It has profoundly impacted my emotional wellbeing. Please be consequent with your own words and delete your comment.
yeah what this guy said basically
because it doesn't harm them. read my comment fully maybe?
I agree that their response - which itself is far more wrong than anything else here - doesn't justify the law, but that's not the argument I'm making. What I'm saying is that the burning of the Quran is done with harmful intent (to piss off Mulsims), rather than as a traditional protest against some oppressor. It makes sense for the law to recognise that harmful intent as something that is wrong - not because they're desecrating a religious symbol, but because they're doing it with malicious intent. However, the punishment should fit the crime, and there is no physical or direct harm. It really shouldn't be much more than a court-mandated inclusivity course or something.
intent to piss off is not intent to harm. you are not being harmed by being pissed off. it is not harmful. in a civilized society, claiming harm from a book burning is called being a little piss baby. they should grow up
That's debateable.
First off, harm isn't just physical, it can be verbal or non-physical. The only question is what level of non-physical abuse constitutes harm in a legal setting.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, there isn't really anything comparable in value for a non-religious person to how a religious person feels about their religious symbols. The closest example might be national symbols and war memorials, however those are protected by law - people have faced prison for peeing on war memorials, let alone destroying them. This is kind of taken for granted as the way things are, of course a nation is going to protect its own symbols. But just because we don't agree with a religious person's values towards a symbol doesn't somehow make it ok to use those values to abuse them.
Like I say, I don't think the symbols themselves should be protected, but it isn't right to antagonise others, and developing a law to establish that isn't necessarily a bad thing.
This law sounds bad though.
you don't see the irony in saying that you're not hurting anyone by burning things in public? Is arson okay because it was an accident?
Arson means it's deliberate...?
If I put on a public display to antagonise religious people, and they, based on their religion find harmfulx shoud that be banned?
The display itself wouldn't be banned, nor the act, but the intent to cause harm or distress to others. Proving that intent might not be easy in a lot of cases, but it would be hard to argue that a public book burning wasn't done to piss off religious people. A private book burning would be ok though.
In any case, burning books isn't exactly a good thing. At least, burning them because of what is written inside, feeding a book to fuel a fire is a different matter.
I'm not just talking about a book burning.
If the some religious organisation claimed an act (any act) caused harm or distress to them, should it be banned?
Like questioning their belief, or promoting other beliefs, or even worse, promoting non-belief?
Nowhere have I suggested anything like that.
According to them, promoting non-belief causes harm and distress to them. So should it be banned?
No. Because, like I've said over and over again, the act itself would not be banned. What should be prohibited is intentionally causing people distress - in which case, it doesn't matter what the act is, it only matters about the intent.
This is in fact a fairly high bar to meet. It would be very difficult in many cases to prove intent. Sometimes people make their intent clear, though, either directly with what they say or with the specifics of how they act.
Promoting non-belief would easily not be banned, because you're doing it for the purpose of sharing your beliefs - in exactly the same way a religious person preaches. Burning a cross in your back garden also would be fine, so long as you weren't directing it at a specific Christian with clear intent to upset them. Burning a cross in public would likely be wrong, though, as you can't reasonably argue that you weren't trying to target some Christians out on the street to upset.
Substitute religion and religious symbol as you see fit. I'd also draw a comparison to flags and war memories, those are already protected under law in the nation they represent. This makes sense, the people making the law say you can't descecrate their symbols, just like a religion makes its rules. The reason behind this is because it is disrespectful. Is it really that much bigger a leap to say that you shouldn't damage other peoples' symbols either - particularly when the only reason you're doing it is to be disrespectful?
Like, I don't think throwing a flag on a fire is inherently wrong, however burning a flag in front of a load of war veterans on Rememberance day is definitely wrong. One is just burning something, the other is done with clear malicious intent. But the law would say both are wrong here, yet none are wrong with other symbols. The law doesn't quite fit.
Again, malicious intent and causing distress according to whom?
Plenty of acceptable acts are labeled as done with malicious intern to cause distress according to religious organizations.
Do you think for example we should ban this as it was done deliberate intent to upset the protestors?
According to a court, the classic test they would use is "the reasonable man" - "would a reasonable person consider the actions likely to cause distress?" is the kind of question they would ask. Proving intent is quite a high bar, most likely it would rely on the perpetrator slipping up and basically admitting it was their intent, either with what they say or in how they do it. For example, destroying a symbol in private doesn't have any specific target, but doing it in public could only reasonably be done to incite people offended by it.
The religion would not have a say in this. They would not be able to just change their symbols and immediately have them covered. It would have to be genuine, such that your average Joe would know about it, as without a reasonable person knowing about it then you cannot prove intent (unless they admit it).
No, because there's more than enough plausible deniability there. They may have been doing it to offend people - and that seems quite likely to us - but they could also just really want to kiss. People like kissing, it's not prohibited in public and this isn't the only time they've done it. Thus you cannot prove the intent.
To take another example, Hinduism says the cow is sacred. The cow is a religious symbol. If I eat beef in front of a Hindu person, it is very likely to cause offense to them. However, I regularly eat beef, and I'm probably not doing it to offend them but just because I like it. Even if I was trying to offend them, you'd struggle to disprove it if I made that claim. On the other hand, if I made a social media post saying I was going to eat beef in front of Hindu people and make them cry and then went and did it, then I would have admitted intent to cause harm and would clearly be doing something wrong.
Again, the act would not be banned. Please re-read what I said and try to understand.