Apostate Muslims - this is why we protest the Quran
First of all, I hope it's ok to post links to sites that aren't in English because this is a really good opinion piece.
For context, there has been a lot of news about activists burning the Quran in Sweden and Denmark - Turkey has withheld Sweden's Nato bid because of it, and Russia has been accused of influencing events in order to attempt to destabilize western countries. So it's a whole thing.
I translated the article through DeepL and did some small edits and added occasional context in [brackets]:
Apostate Muslims - this is why we protest the Quran
It is an insult to apostate Muslims if the government gives in and criminalises the burning or desecrating of the Quran - we have fought to free ourselves from the Quran, now you want to protect the perpetrator.
I'm an apostate - ex-Muslim. It's hard to get there. Doing away with Islam can have completely incalculable consequences. And if the government gives in to the Islamic countries that want to restrict freedom of speech in Denmark with threats of violence and economic pressure, it will be much harder to break free from Islam and live a free life in the future.
Because it's not just about Quran burnings or Rasmus Paludan [very controversial far-right activist who has done Quran burnings in Denmark and Sweden many times]. It's about criticising Islam, which will not be tolerated. To signal this to the Islamic countries - that they should focus on legislation in their own countries - The Association of Apostates is therefore protesting on 22 August in front of the Turkish embassy in Copenhagen.
But it is just as much a signal to the Danish government.
The Association of Apostates is Denmark's first organisation for ex-Muslims, and we know how difficult it is to come to terms with Islam - because we have done it ourselves. But if criticism or mockery of Islam is criminalised as it is in Islamic countries, the apostasy process becomes even more difficult, because you also have the law against you.
A conformist who defends their abuser
Many Muslim apostates lead double lives: Outwardly, they live by Islamic rules. Some go to the mosque, pray and fast because it is expected and because they have to keep up appearances even though they have lost their faith. This is due to a fear of the incalculable consequences that an apostasy from Islam can have for the individual person.
It is not Allah's punishment that is feared, but rather the traumatic consequences of societal pressure or ostracisation. As a result, many often end up complying with Islamic traditions and expectations from family and friends.
This can range from marriage, which must be to a Muslim, to the circumcision of male children. To survive in this situation, many choose self-deception, trying to fit in with the group by denying reality and defending Islam, despite feeling no connection to the religion.
People who have been victims of domestic violence often describe that after the breakup, they find it difficult to let go of their partner. Apostate Muslims also experience this dependency. You end up as a conformist who defends your abuser. You keep the label of 'Muslim' because it is far more unsafe and full of conflict to call yourself an apostate.
The law is a slippery slope
In many of the Muslim countries that will now dictate legislation in Denmark, there is death penalty and imprisonment for apostasy and blasphemy. Gay rights are violated and women are treated as second-class citizens. As ex-Muslims, we see how Islamic dogmas and traditions are gaining more and more influence in Denmark.
Hijab, which represents discrimination and inequality between men and women, is promoted as the norm. But the reality is that for ex-Muslim women in Denmark, removing the hijab often has serious consequences.
The month of Ramadan is promoted in the same way as Christmas, even though for many ex-Muslims, Ramadan is a month where social control is heightened because Ramadan is about getting closer to Allah - a god you don't believe in.
If the government yields in regards to blasphemy or desecration of the Quran, it's just another step down that slippery slope. A slippery slope where ex-Muslims live under social control or in exclusion.
But fortunately, we live in a free country like Denmark, where there is room for critical thinking and where you have the right to believe what you do and do not believe. Where you have the right to draw what you want [reference to drawings of the Prophet that caused an international incident in the 2000s] and, in protest, burn, shred or make paper aeroplanes out of a book whose content you find repulsive or disagree with. Like when Poul Nyrup demonstratively tore the pages out of Fogh's book back in 2001. [Nyrup is a Social Democrat and debated Fogh of Venstre, a right-wing party, on TV during the election campaign]
Protect the victim, not the Quran
At The Association of Apostates, some of our members say that one of the things that bothers them about Islam is that Islam calls itself the religion of peace, but at the same time believes that you should receive 100 lashes if you have sex before marriage. Here, the members refer to the Quran's Sura 24:2 which reads: "As for female and male fornicators, give each of them one hundred lashes, and do not let pity for them make you lenient in enforcing the law of Allah, if you truly believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a number of believers witness their punishment."
Should a woman who is critical of this content of the Quran also be punished by the government if she tore out the pages of the Quran in protest? Or burned it? If the woman had been subjected to the act prescribed by the Quran, should she just keep quiet and respect the holy scriptures?
I certainly don't think so. But that's what's being suggested in the government's proposal. [They want to ban burnings of the Quran in places like in front of embassies]
Interesting read and a perspective we don't hear very often. I think the value of ex-muslim voices in helping society draw boundaries that respect freedom can't really be overstated in this case. It's not all up to them, but it cannot be done without them. I'm glad people are standing up.
My thoughts exactly and I am happy that there is a space in the discourse for this perspective.
I would like to share this as well. However I think it's geoblocked and I don't think there are English subtitles anyway lol
But it is an interview in which a historian talks about the validity of the concept of islamophobia, and that it has been adopted by middle eastern coalitions in an attempt to subdue western criticism of their regimes by pulling a sort of racism-card, and they use it to assert influence in democracies in which they really ought to not have any influence at all. DeepL:
There was a thread about the interview on my country's subreddit - could be worth putting into a translator and checking out if you are interested.
In my opinion, a law banning the burning of the Quran is undemocratic through and through. One thing is when people like Paludan do it - this, I am against, because he's an alt-right braindamaged (literally) troll and seeks only to do harm. But you cannot take away his right to do it without simultaneously taking away the right of ex-muslims to do it. And the latter absolutely deserve this right.
Do they? Is it the right of individuals to intentionally torpedo their country's foreign relations unilaterally? That's the only reason I can think of why someone would do such a provocative act in front of a foreign embassy.
I agree that it's pretty stupid for a nation to insist that the citizens of other countries abide by their religious strictures. Turkey can get fucked for holding NATO membership hostage because of their own religious sentiment. But it also seems disingenuous to claim religious repression because you can't intentionally provoke a diplomatic incident, to say nothing of the inanity of earnestly and unabashedly putting forth a Slippery Slope argument.
I think if an individual not directly affiliated with the state is able to torpedo diplomatic relations on behalf of the state, we’ve got some far deeper and more serious issues to address than a couple of people choosing to be deliberately provocative and offensive asshats.
True enough. I did say I thought it was stupid for a culture to expect everyone to live by their rules. The burden of blame certainly falls heaviest on the Islamic nations that make a stink about it.
That still doesn't absolve the antisocial shitheads that decide to take their nation's diplomacy into their hands unilaterally, and it doesn't make the lousy argument in the letter from the apostates' group any more persuasive.
Is it them torpedoing their country's foreign relations?
Let me try a bit of "reductio ad absurdum" here - imagine the following scenario: I am the monarch of a country called Honzania. Our religion states that the word "torpedo" is prohibited to everyone except the King. The person who uses this should never be allowed to speak again. If the person is a foreign national and his country is unwilling to silence him, 100 innocent children have to be selected by lottery and executed. Now imagine someone on the internet asking - sure, Promonk probably wants to continue speaking after uttering "torpedo", but should he have the right to cause the death of 100 innocent children?
If I told the story right, you now see the problem in your argument, specifically the blame ascription part.
BTW, the real master of using this manipulative tactic is Russia. They ask something they have no right to a when they do not get it, they attack and blame the other party for it... look, we wanted peace, they are to blame for the war, there would be no war if only they had given us what we wanted. But when they are given what they wanted, it does not lead to peace, it leads to them wanting more. That is why this actually is a slippery slope - countries use this dirty trick to project power and it should be treated as such and opposed fiercely.
Welcome to the world of diplomacy, where making rational and ethical arguments and providing scientific evidence doesn't matter. Yes, Turkey is stupid, Yes, Russia is evil. Now what?
We still have to deal with them, and polarizing doesn't help. If we could somehow magically control the shape of the Earth, we could completely isolate us from stupid countries. Let them to their stupid thing and we do it right. But in reality, we're all stuck in the same boat, and if Henry gets extremely and completely over-the-top agressive everytime someone says "torpedo", it's simply not a good idea to say "torpedo" even if it is your god-given right to do so.
Unless your goal is to escalate the situation, which is the only reason I can think of for publicly burning the Quran.
No, thank you. I am not a diplomat, I do not want to be a diplomat and I prefer to call a spade a spade. I would personally not burn the Quaran but I will not pretend some rando doing that is responsible for "torpedoing" relations - those who try to enforce their rules in other countries are torpedoing those relations.
Also, I would not be so sure what escalates things. If some country asks what they have no right to ask and you give it to them, is that not escalating the situation? After all, you are rewarding their bad behavior, they got what they wanted, so why should they not ask for more?
Well, if you're self-proclaiming yourself as not being a diplomat, your opinions on diplomacy aren't worth much, wouldn't you say?
It's like fighting siblings. It's important to know who did what first and who's response was inappropriate, which misbehaviour led to the whole situation and what general patterns end up causing the same situations again and again. But this is a school night, the kids are way past their bed time and you have important grown-up stuff to worry about. So the only feasible goal for now is that the kids calm down and get to bed, and maybe we can find some time in the future to talk about things somewhat rationally.
To be clear, I would be very much against a law that prohibits Quran burnings because this is just way too specific. But, again, I've never heard of a Quran burning that wasn't exlusively meant to offend muslims, to polarize and provoke violence, and that should be illegal. (Although I'm not sure how practical that would be to implement and enforce legally.)
I think trying to destabilize societies should be illegal, even if the act on its own is entirely harmless.
No, I would not - why would I? Do you think people can have opinions "worth much" only if they do the thing professionally? Would you say your opinions about politics are not worth much because you are not a politician?
I don't find your "fighting siblings" metaphor fitting at all.
I grew up in a country where it was illegal to "destabilize societies" and it was used for all kinds of nasty stuff - mostly to suppress oposition and get rid of dissidents. I think something so vague and malleable should never ever be a law in a democratic country.
Well, yes, of course. Having professionals for all kinds of things has been a very successful strategy for at least thousands of years.
If you need a new kitchen, you ask someone who installs kitchens for a living. You could also ask someone who likes to do home improvement as a hobby, but you would never ask someone who explicitly says that they know absolutely nothing about kitchen appliances and how to install them.
I don't know why you think diplomacy is any different. It's something you can learn and gain experience in.
Can you explain why?
I didn't propose a law. Of course that rough idea would have to be fleshed out by professionals.
There are socalled free countries with laws against hate speech. Putting on a Nazi uniform and publicly burning Jewish scripture is illegal in Germany. I don't assume you would consider Germany a country that suppresses opposition and gets rid of dissidents.
Having professionals as a successful strategy [... etc.] is not mutually exclusive with opinions by non-professionals that are worth much, therefore your "of course" conclusion does not follow .
BTW, I am assuming you are also not a diplomat and therefore by your own logic, your opinions are not worth much, is that not right? Why should we even exchange them? Having a discussion with someone who states that opinions, both their own and mine, are not worth much seems like a fools errand. I am responding because I want to be polite but honestly, I feel zero motivation to continue.
I never explicitly stated I know absolutely nothing about diplomacy. If I did, it could indeed be concluded that my opinions are not worth much, but I did not and it cannot be assumed from the fact, that I am not a diplomat.
Because it does not match the situation we are discussing. Citizens of a free country are not (and should not) be in equivalent relation to their state as children are to their parents, changing the law is supposed to be permanent and not only until we calm dawn and can think about it rationally in the morning etc.
I specifically stated that what I see as problematic is the vagueness of the"destabilizing society" concept - virtually anything can be labeled as destabilizing society because it is subjective. German hate speech laws are AFAIK not vague, they are targeted at pretty narrowly defined things, like denying Holocaust and they cannot be mapped onto things like any critique of government (or even absurd things like listening to punk music, wearing jeans and having long hair as a male). So, the way I see it, your example is in no way relevant to what I said.
I'm sorry I can't explain myself in a way that isn't frustrating to you. Feel free to ignore me. I suggest you do. This shouldn't be work. Do something more enjoyable.
That depends on the context. I won't share my opinion in a diplomat forum, because it would distract from valuable discussion. But I assume none of us here are diplomats, and I like to see myself as a somewhat diplomatic person, so I think my opinion isn't completely worthless here.
I'm confused. What does "I am not a diplomat, I do not want to be a diplomat and I prefer to call a spade a spade" mean if not "I don't have any interest in diplomacy"?
No. You can only have static laws if you have a static society, and you can't have a static society if there is progress (technological, social, political, scientific or any other kind).
Don't you think that being X does not necessarily correspond to knowledge about X? For example, I am not (and could not) be a professional cyclist. Yet, I would say I know a lot about professional cycling (BTW, I would also say that people most knowledgeable about pro cycling are not pro cyclists). Similarly, an undiplomatic person can have valuable insights about diplomacy. I am not saying I have those insights. I am just saying that if you think the opinions of people who are not X about X are not worth much, you will limit yourself unnecessarily because you will kind of preemptively discard/devalue the opinions of your discussion partners.
Unwillingness to adhere to the rules that apply to diplomats. Diplomats cannot call a spade a spade, I want to keep doing that. Which does not imply anything about my interests. Interest in being diplomatic != interest in diplomacy.
Your cycling example doesn't work because you are talking about two completely different jobs. If you know a lot about cycling, you could be an advisor to a cyclist. For example, if you know a lot about rubber, you can recommend better tires. That's valuable information even if you can't ride a bike. The cyclist does physical and mental training. They don't have to know anything about how stress propagates through their bike and what makes it more likely to break.
You can't subdivide diplomacy like that.
I really don't understand why we even have to discuss this. "I am not a diplomat, I do not want to be a diplomat and I prefer to call a spade a spade" literally means that you are not interested in any kind of diplomacy. If you know you are looking at a spade, you are going to call it a spade, and any kind of compromise is out of the question. That is probably the most undiplomatic position one can have.
But you are not just an undiplomatic person. You "do not want to be a diplomat". Someone who has no knowledge about cycling and does not want to learn anything about cycling is extremely unlikely to have valuable opinions about cycling.
I wish you would actually bring forward those on-topic opinions so we could stop this pointless discussion about the irrelevance of expertise.
Maybe we can drop the spades and start talking about Quran burnings, Muslim extremists and both national and geopolitical interests of Turkey, Sweden and other countries. How would you solve this situation?
If petulant burning of symbols, such as books or flags, is all it takes to destabilize a society, perhaps it’s not one worth investing deliberate effort in preserving it.
So basically societal darwinism? The fact that societies explode means they didn't have the right to exist in the first place? And anyone who's born in such a society should've picked a better one?
Also, what do you think happens when unstable societies get destabilized further? Will they eventually stop existing at 0 stability? Will the stability counter somehow wrap around to maximum stability?
There's a difference between intending to escalate and making a statement that says "we are not you". The 'you' may be offended but that's on them, not on 'us' One is responsible for oneself; one is not responsible for what another ('you', here) feels.
When human rights are at stake, which is the case in the Muslim societies we're discussing here, capitulation is not a good position to take.
As I already said, you can be ethically, rationally, scientifically and all other kinds of correct and still end up in a war if diplomacy fails you.
For the sake of argument, let's say I agree with everything you say. Now what? Does being correct relieve political and social tensions, locally, nationally or globally? How does burning religious symbols protect human rights?
Kinda? They're at least partly to blame. Certainly the baby-killers bear the brunt, but the trolls aren't unsullied heroes either.
Let's be honest here: I doubt very much that Turkey gives a flying shit about some Nordic types burning their fairy book. They just want some way to squeeze concessions from NATO, and since the US and many of the other members have considerable economic leverage that the Nordic countries do not, they'll blame the Nordics. In pretty much every other case, the Muslim world would simply be ignored, more or less.
Even laying aside the consideration that your baby-killing hypothetical doesn't really map, I'd say that yes, the Promonk that would intentionally say "torpedo" in the full knowledge of the likely consequences does in fact share some blame. Because that's the point: this isn't an accident, nobody is ignorant of the response they're likely to get by burning the Quran where they are. They are really only doing it because they know the consequences, and they want to force the diplomats' hands.
Is it acceptable for individuals with the ability to direct foreign relations to do so without a mandate from the citizenry? That's what we're talking about. These trolls are sticking their noses into foreign affairs without a shred of accountability, and either they're doing it to force a policy they don't like but the majority does (to stymie NATO expansion), or they're doing it because they're championing abstract ideal and think they're actually accomplishing anything besides just poisoning the well. I'm not so certain about the latter.
I'm not even sure I disagree with you in principle, but it is worth considering that the topic isn't as clear-cut and morally unambiguous as you all are making out. I'm just glad I'm not in a position to have to make a judgment.
That's kinda a huge part of it, isn't it? This isn't outrage about burning a Quran in your back yard, this is outrage about burning a Quran as a political/religious gesture in front of Muslims. It's kind of like very very deliberately eating bacon in front of a Muslim while intensely staring at them: At this point it isn't anymore about your freedom to eat or not eat pork if you want or do not want.
There is, IMHO, a line one can draw here where apostates, christians, etc, have to respect the religious freedom of Muslims, while also not being held hostage by muslim countries or muslim faith. I don't think the slope is as slippery as OP's article suggests. Giving Muslims the right not to have to watch Qurans being burned deliberately as a signal to those muslims doesn't get us one step closer to Sharia law; simply because if we consider both freedom from Sharia oppression and freedom from malicious book burnings to be valid aspects of freedom, then maximizing freedom means we will have neither Sharia law nor these kinds of Quran burnings. The slope slips into a valley, and on the other side, towards sharia law, it goes up hill again.
It's not that the book is held sacred. It's that religious feelings of people are protected, to some degree. Though granted, how freedom of expression is valued relative to freedom of religion affects where we strike that balance.
(Completely irrelevant side note, but Wikipedia's lemma Slippery Slope is first and foremost about Slippery Slope as a fallacy. Not a fan! It's one of those fallacies, second only to Appeal To Authority in frequency of misuse, that people toying with entry-level rationalism will throw at everything, and because it's so vague it often sticks, even if the original argument is sound. Calling something a SS fallacy means you have to argue why the slope isn't slippery. Just because a slippery slope was presented, doesn't make it a fallacy.)
I wouldn't say that Slippery Slope is a fallacy per se. More that it's not a very persuasive argument, but it feels like it is. It's like an inductive argument cosplaying as a deductive one, and as with any inductive argument, it's strongest when accompanied by something else.
Edit: before I forget, thank you for your comment. I was struggling to articulate the thought, but you put it beautifully.
Are they necessarily trolls? The article (the translation - I do not speak Danish) describes pretty convincingly that there might be other people who have legitimate reasons to protest Quran - at least I was convinced. The fact that some people (the trolls) might abuse certain freedoms does not mean we should not protect those freedoms. I don't like those trolls, but I value those freedoms.
You ask whether it is "acceptable for individuals with the ability to direct foreign relations to do so without a mandate from the citizenry" - but can it be any other way? If we accept that a foreign country can ask us to adhere to their rules in our countries, anything we consider normal could affect foreign relations. Do you adhere to sharia laws? (you said "let's be honest" so let's be honest - not burning Quran is not the only thing they are trying to push). If not, do you have that mandate from the citizenry?
Of course they are doing this one to get some leverage - that is one more reason why I think we should not let them. In negotiation, there is a difference between "ok, you have the right to ask this" and "no, you don't have the right to ask this, so if you want it, what do you offer in exchange?". It is about not accepting your opponent's framework.
On that part about blame - I disagree with you... and I think you used a bit of a trick when you assumed that you broke the "torpedo" rule intentionally (and by intentionally you mean in a trolling way, do I understand correctly?) - out of curiosity, what would you say in a scenario where this is not the case? For example, you love reading books, because you thirst for knowledge. Reading books is prohibited... but you read anyway, not to troll but because it is dear to you. Would you still agree that you are partly to blame? I would not. I believe certain things are inalienable rights and if someone prohibits that and ends diplomatic relationships with you (or kills 100 innocent children) because you do not adhere to their restriction of your rights, they are 100% responsible for the damage.
I assumed that the hypothetical Promonk did it intentionally because he was created as a parallel to the topic we're actually discussing, where the analogues really are being intentionally provocative. I think that's what I'm having an issue with. I see no particular virtue in exercising the right to say, "fuck you, I won't do what you tell me," if there's nothing else to it. That doesn't mean I'm in a hurry to take the right away, mind, just that I'm not going to applaud.
As for the letter, I'm still having difficulty seeing how being told they can't burn a Quran on the steps of the Turkish embassy is tantamount to the Danish government enforcing Islamic law on apostates. There's no chance of that happening. The Danes only give a shit because it makes life more difficult, and sure, fuck Turkiyë (or however it's spelled) twice over for being dicks about it, but I still think being an asshole is not laudable, even if you're being one to an even bigger asshole.
The thing is, I am not so sure they are all being assholes. I do not see into their heads. And that is the tricky thing about freedom of speech. If you allow it, you allow it to assholes as well. If you don't allow it, you don't allow it to those who have legitimate reasons as well. I prefer to err on the side of making sure not to take it from the decent ones. Tolerating assholes is the price I pay for having freedom of expression when I need it.
Also, labeling someone by some negative label (asshole, disruptive element etc.) is way too easy. I should explain why I might be a bit over-sensitive to the topic of freedom of expression. As I mentioned somewhere else in this thread, I grew up in a society where people were labeled as "destabilizing society" and punished for things like having long hair. You could get into trouble for the kind of music you were listening to (rock music = pro-American stance incompatible with the morals of a socialist citizen) or even wearing jeans. BTW, this made jeans "cool"; I still remember how my grandmother gave me a pair of those (smuggled in and bought on an illegal black market) when I was a kid - I think the US equivalent of coolness would be your grandma buying you a motorbike. And I think trying to prohibit Quran burning has the same coolness-adding effect.
You might rightly point out that stuff like wearing jeans is not comparable to not burning the Quran. The problem is that when you get to this level of repression, there is not much you can do about it. It is already too late. You can only at the very beginning.
Another commenter made an analogy that I think interesting: they said burning the Quran on the steps of an embassy is like knowingly eating pork in front of a Muslim while intensely staring at them the entire time. Yes, eating pork is your right, but in that instance your intention is clear, and it's not a laudable one in my estimation.
If you have a personal beef with Islam and want to make a dramatic gesture in regards to it, great. I'm not a fan of religion generally, so I'm all for it. But why specifically choose a venue you know will provoke a response that will affect millions? It seems arrogant to me to hold your own personal grudge above the best interest of the NATO alliance and its potential members, for instance. Again, I don't think I support taking that liberty away, but I don't think it's a travesty that the Danish Parliament is debating it.
Could you please answer to my question about the scenario where you doing something you have every right to do leads to some bad consequences by someone who does not respect that right? I think this is an important question, generally. Because if you accept that you can be blamed for something you have the right to do just because it played some role in a causal chain leading to something bad, then you are accepting an interpretation of blame that could lead to all kinds of ugly scenarios, like women being blamed for being raped because they were wearing miniskirts.
I think intentionality matters in determining culpability, if it even needs determining. A person who does a thing without the knowledge of what will happen because of it shouldn't be held accountable for the result.
In regards to the miniskirt scenario, I think that's actually an apt comparison, but probably not in the way you intended. There is no casual connection between a woman wearing a miniskirt and a man raping her. None at all. It can only seem like there is to people with no concept of consent who are looking to exculpate a rapist. The truth is that the rapist was likely to rape regardless of what his victim wore.
There's a vaguely similar dynamic at play in the Quran-burning scenario in that I think it likely that fundamentalist Islamic nations (and those rapidly slipping into fundamentalism such as Türkiye) will look for any excuse to try to force their laws and mores onto others. Is it then an ethically blameless thing to give them precisely the excuse they believe is most justified? It may be worthwhile, and then it may not. I think it probably depends on context and intention.
I'm sorry if I'm not giving you the sort of answer you want. I'm not much into making sweeping statements about universal truths these days. The older I get, the more I'm inclined to treat everything as contingent.
Really?
I will be honest - I am mostly writing this comment for people other than the OP - I have a favor to ask you. Until recently, I did not participate in or read online discussions (except very occasionally Hacker News). I started a few months ago and it feels like entering some kind of bizarro world, where I find myself constantly having to explain things I considered self-evident and obvious, like that there is a relation between financial reward and people's willingness to work or that trying to describe someone's opinion does not mean I defend that opinion.
I am looking for some kind of a signal that I am not alone here. If I am, I will probably just leave. So if you are reading this, please kindly write one sentence signaling whether the three points I have written above in this comment seem obvious to you or not.
You're right. I shouldn't have said it has no casual connection, but rather that it's completely irrelevant in determining culpability.
Whenever my online interactions make me feel like I'm going crazy I try to remember that commenting on a forum like this isn't like chatting with people at a party, though it can feel that way sometimes. It's really more like broadcasting to thousands of people. If something is self-evident to 9,999 out of 10,000 people, then the odd guy out is likely to be the one to engage with you about it. It's very easy to fall victim to sampling errors on the Internet.
Another thing I try to keep in mind is that just because someone writes something, that doesn't mean it's what they actually believe, even if it's written with vehemence. Debate and discussion is how we should try out ideas, find their flaws and their strengths, and refine them.
Best of luck to you.
Is there an equivalent to the US’s Logan Act in Danish law?
The Logan Act outlaws managing foreign relations for anyone not officially authorized by the government and has been on the books pretty much since the beginning of the US. However, it has somewhat infamously never successfully been used to convict anyone.
This is why the Swedish government shouldn't ban this on the basis of freedom of speech, they should ban it on the basis of national security. A handful of far-right (not just far-right, but far-right for Sweden/Denmark) clowns are now setting Swedish foreign policy which undermines the government.
Sure, they are not officially endorsed by the Swedish government, but it is seen that way in other countries – especially when most other European countries have made this kind of thing illegal. Foreign policy isn't about virtue ethics, it's consequentialism – the actual outcomes are what is important!
I think it's also worth considering this thought experiment – imagine someone dresses up in a Nazi outfit and burns a copy of the Torah. Do you support fully their right to do this? Or do you think it's rabid antisemitism which should be banned? I suspect a lot of people think this is wrong when perpetrated against some groups, but not others. I do not want to minimise antisemitism, which is (remarkably, especially given Europe's history on this) very much still alive and kicking today.
While still horrifying, I can't help but assume these numbers are inflated.
If I lived in an area where I knew the majority of my neighbors would want to literally see me killed for disagreeing with them, I'd probably lie for the poll just to play it safe.
Was born and raised in Pakistan, most people in big cities would disagree with these laws and I've never seen any Shariah punishment take place. As long as you don't disrespect the relgion and keep to yourself no one would really give a shit, most Pakistanis aren't truly practicing muslims and only follow Islam in name, or they preach whatever their local imam teaches them.
I think it's also a factor where the economy is so bad and people can barely feed themselves, so cases like this just trigger a mob mentality.