Not OP. Because they're just books. If we burnt Harry Potter, Warhammer or Tolkien do we deserve prison despite the reverence that those novels get? Those books are special to some and not to...
Not OP. Because they're just books.
If we burnt Harry Potter, Warhammer or Tolkien do we deserve prison despite the reverence that those novels get?
Those books are special to some and not to others. Religious folk once again gets their grubby little mits on protections that go unafforded by regular, atheistic, humanist folk.
It's extremely preferential and as the title points out: the draft may be written in a general manner, but is clearly about the Quran and Bible specifically. Why not all texts, including secular,...
It's extremely preferential and as the title points out: the draft may be written in a general manner, but is clearly about the Quran and Bible specifically. Why not all texts, including secular, depending on context, then? Is it legal to burn queer books? How about biographies of vaccine scientists? Journalists' photos?
Clearly folding under extremists' pressures. Right wing extremists that actually just happen to align politically with the government who prepared this draft. They create the problem, offer a solution, then rinse and repeat (they'll just find something else to burn!) until 5 years later you have blasphemy law restored. Allegedly to protect Danes from some distant religious extremists, by giving power to local religious extremists.
These books are political and free speech is supposed to protect against state retaliation when criticizing politics. This violates the idea explicitly and directly.
It's always a travesty when a government polices people's freedom of expression to placate terrorists. How long until they decide that mean pictures and bad words also serve no other purpose than...
It's always a travesty when a government polices people's freedom of expression to placate terrorists.
The justice minister was adamant the proposed change in the law was not targeting verbal or written expressions or satirical drawings. But he said burning religious texts served no other purpose than creating division and hatred.
How long until they decide that mean pictures and bad words also serve no other purpose than to create division and hatred? The government should not be allowed to tell you how you can and can not express yourself. If I lived in Denmark, I would be stocking up on qurans, bibles, and torahs to burn specifically in protest against this law.
Besides the obvious insanity of giving in to the demands of terrorists, if they truly believe that this sort of ideological burning of books is offensive and inflammatory then why not protect all...
Besides the obvious insanity of giving in to the demands of terrorists, if they truly believe that this sort of ideological burning of books is offensive and inflammatory then why not protect all written works that can be equally as derisive and valuable. Why not limit this to acts in public or broadcasts if it's truly just to prevent inciting anything, then at least private expression is unaffected.
I also couldn't believe what I was reading when I got to the end of this article.
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.
I had no idea they had already crossed such a line. Europe's creeping erosion of freedom of speech on a governmental level is disturbing.
The fact that jail time is on the table for both of these is also a disgusting abuse of power that completely misunderstands the role of incarceration.
As much as I hate the United States, the one thing I can be proud of is that I'm allowed to say fuck the president, fuck every single supreme court justice, fuck every single congressperson, and...
As much as I hate the United States, the one thing I can be proud of is that I'm allowed to say fuck the president, fuck every single supreme court justice, fuck every single congressperson, and fuck the police. I can't imagine living in a country where I'm not allowed to express my displeasure at the current head of state, let alone those of other countries.
Yo man you’re allowed to say all of those things and more in Denmark too what are you on about. I’m against legislating around this as much as almost anyone here but stop comparing the country to...
Yo man you’re allowed to say all of those things and more in Denmark too what are you on about. I’m against legislating around this as much as almost anyone here but stop comparing the country to some dictatorship and while the US might have a admirable approach to freedom of speech it’s not like they are the pinnacle of handling it well.
I mean, Denmark was the country which legalized porn. Sure, after this law is implemented, there may be more freedom to be a racist provocateur in the US, which I guess ... hurray? But there's...
I mean, Denmark was the country which legalized porn. Sure, after this law is implemented, there may be more freedom to be a racist provocateur in the US, which I guess ... hurray? But there's other freedom of speech issues. Like, the US never really like having their war crimes exposed. And there's also a lot of bans against childrens books with trans stuff, not to speak of anti-trans-laws regulating what people can do with their own bodies. (not freedom of speech, admittedly)
I don't have many warm fuzzy feelings regarding my country. Still, I think § 110e makes at least some sense. To not screw up the relations to other countries, you can't burn their flags. So if you have issues with other countries it must take some other form than straight-out provocations. Meanwhile, you're free to burn Dannebrog. During the Muhammad Carricature crisis, Dansk Folkeparti tried ban the burning of Dannebrog, but was voted down. By the way, a detail I like is that the corrrect way to get rid of old Dannebrog flags is by burning!
While I think those laws that already existed are awful, they're essentially never enforced in most countries, so I hope that means they don't intend to enforce this one either. Obviously, it's...
While I think those laws that already existed are awful, they're essentially never enforced in most countries, so I hope that means they don't intend to enforce this one either. Obviously, it's still preferable to not have these laws at all, but it at least gives me hope for their current right to free expression even if it is a bad sign overall.
Reminds me of this whole thing. When laws like this eventually resurface, they're being misused (or at least they're being used in a manner that I consider abusive). It would still be best not to...
Reminds me of this whole thing. When laws like this eventually resurface, they're being misused (or at least they're being used in a manner that I consider abusive). It would still be best not to have the law at all.
I’m in the US, so I have no idea what Muslim representation is like in the Danish government, but I would be very surprised if this law was spurred by any kind of “demand” from Muslims- let alone...
I’m in the US, so I have no idea what Muslim representation is like in the Danish government, but I would be very surprised if this law was spurred by any kind of “demand” from Muslims- let alone terrorists. I’m betting it comes from other Danes saying “we need to do something about our racists because it makes us look like an ignorant racist backwater in the international community and undermines our credibility on the global stage”.
They're citing national security as their reasoning behind this move. That's unfortunate. When you curtail people's civil liberties because of what terrorists might do, then the terrorists win. I...
They're citing national security as their reasoning behind this move. That's unfortunate. When you curtail people's civil liberties because of what terrorists might do, then the terrorists win.
I don't care how stupid, inflammatory, or ill-spirited a book burning might be. If you're willing to commit violence over it, you're a terrorist.
With that said, at least the law seems narrow enough in scope that it's hard to see how it could be abused in the future.
As a Dane, I can only say yikes. I hope it will end up like the jewelry law from some years ago. It was a piece of legislation made to curb immigration, and it has only been used ~20 times or so....
As a Dane, I can only say yikes.
I hope it will end up like the jewelry law from some years ago. It was a piece of legislation made to curb immigration, and it has only been used ~20 times or so. It's pretty racist in nature though, especially since it gets used on MENA refugees but not on Ukrainians.
Geneva - Denmark’s exemption of Ukrainian refugees from the controversial “jewelry law”, applied to asylum seekers from the Middle East and North Africa, is further evidence of Denmark’s growing efforts to make itself less attractive to certain migrants, in that it creates Class A and Class B asylum seekers, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor warned in a statement today.
The so-called “jewelry law”, passed by the Danish parliament in January 2016, gives Danish authorities the power to search for and confiscate cash, jewelry, and other valuables above 10,000 kroner – about 1.340 euro – from arriving migrants, allegedly to pay for their reception and stay.
The reason I am bringing it up is that this new law seems to have the exact opposite goal, however it seems equally symbolic. The jewelry law was to appease a growing right wing in the country, and this Quran burning ban is aimed at appeasing foreign majority Muslim countries.
Maybe I'm naive but I do not believe anybody will actually go to prison if this proposal becomes law.
It's about geopolitics and nothing else. Even the national security argument I do not buy.
It hinders nothing as they'll find something else to burn, again. The right wing government is just using this to move closer to reinstating the blasphemy laws.
It hinders nothing as they'll find something else to burn, again. The right wing government is just using this to move closer to reinstating the blasphemy laws.
It was the right-wingers who pushed to get it removed in the first place. With the Muhammad drawings and such, "religious criticism" was the default dogwhistle for racism against muslims. So even...
It was the right-wingers who pushed to get it removed in the first place. With the Muhammad drawings and such, "religious criticism" was the default dogwhistle for racism against muslims. So even though it had barely ever been in use, blasphemiparagraffen felt threatening to them. Also, Danes aren't all that religious; the right likely didn't really consider that it could be used to protect Christianity too.
Okay- I’m confused here now. I’m in the US - so I was assuming the racists on the street burning Qurans are right-wing “free speech absolutists”, and this law is intended to stifle acts of hate...
Okay- I’m confused here now. I’m in the US - so I was assuming the racists on the street burning Qurans are right-wing “free speech absolutists”, and this law is intended to stifle acts of hate and racism. That would make this law too socialist in their opinion, not too right-wing, correct?
The burning actually started with ex-Muslims protesting the institution of Islam, which led to complaints from countries like Turkey. Since then, it has transitioned to the racists being the one...
The burning actually started with ex-Muslims protesting the institution of Islam, which led to complaints from countries like Turkey. Since then, it has transitioned to the racists being the one burning stuff, but the point of the law is "national security" and trying to placate Turkey.
This sounds like an amendment to a law against trolling people in certain ways? I can see why that would make sense. In the US, you could burn any country's flag, but a very narrow prohibition...
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.
This sounds like an amendment to a law against trolling people in certain ways? I can see why that would make sense.
In the US, you could burn any country's flag, but a very narrow prohibition against trolling in person is somewhat reluctantly allowed. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words
I dunno, the fighting words doctrine came out of a… questionable case, and the doctrine has been narrowed since then, with no cases as far as I can tell upholding it.
I dunno, the fighting words doctrine came out of a… questionable case, and the doctrine has been narrowed since then, with no cases as far as I can tell upholding it.
Does anybody else find the number of people wanting to burn books in this thread disturbing? Yes- it seems like a dumb law. But it wouldn’t be needed if there were not a bunch of racist...
Exemplary
Does anybody else find the number of people wanting to burn books in this thread disturbing?
Yes- it seems like a dumb law. But it wouldn’t be needed if there were not a bunch of racist neo-skinheads out on streets publicly burning Qurans just to incite more racism.
Do stupid and cause problems and get stupid laws that try to prevent more problems because people are acting like children. Act like an adult and enjoy your freedoms. It’s not that complicated.
One of the dudes who burn books in Sweden is a muslim apostate refugee. He claim it is in protest against persecution in his home country. So although some book burners are racist asshats, others...
a bunch of racist neo-skinheads out on streets publicly burning Qurans just to incite more racism
One of the dudes who burn books in Sweden is a muslim apostate refugee. He claim it is in protest against persecution in his home country. So although some book burners are racist asshats, others use it as a legitimate way of protest.
It's not that a lot of us want to burn books, it's that we value the freedom of expression. I support your right to burn a bible just as much as I support your right to burn your country's (or any...
It's not that a lot of us want to burn books, it's that we value the freedom of expression. I support your right to burn a bible just as much as I support your right to burn your country's (or any other's) flag. I don't want to do either, but I don't want you to get arrested for doing them.
A travesty. Why not textbooks? And what's next? [More obvious] political manifestos?
Why do you say this is a travesty?
Not OP. Because they're just books.
If we burnt Harry Potter, Warhammer or Tolkien do we deserve prison despite the reverence that those novels get?
Those books are special to some and not to others. Religious folk once again gets their grubby little mits on protections that go unafforded by regular, atheistic, humanist folk.
It's extremely preferential and as the title points out: the draft may be written in a general manner, but is clearly about the Quran and Bible specifically. Why not all texts, including secular, depending on context, then? Is it legal to burn queer books? How about biographies of vaccine scientists? Journalists' photos?
Clearly folding under extremists' pressures. Right wing extremists that actually just happen to align politically with the government who prepared this draft. They create the problem, offer a solution, then rinse and repeat (they'll just find something else to burn!) until 5 years later you have blasphemy law restored. Allegedly to protect Danes from some distant religious extremists, by giving power to local religious extremists.
These books are political and free speech is supposed to protect against state retaliation when criticizing politics. This violates the idea explicitly and directly.
It's always a travesty when a government polices people's freedom of expression to placate terrorists.
How long until they decide that mean pictures and bad words also serve no other purpose than to create division and hatred? The government should not be allowed to tell you how you can and can not express yourself. If I lived in Denmark, I would be stocking up on qurans, bibles, and torahs to burn specifically in protest against this law.
Besides the obvious insanity of giving in to the demands of terrorists, if they truly believe that this sort of ideological burning of books is offensive and inflammatory then why not protect all written works that can be equally as derisive and valuable. Why not limit this to acts in public or broadcasts if it's truly just to prevent inciting anything, then at least private expression is unaffected.
I also couldn't believe what I was reading when I got to the end of this article.
I had no idea they had already crossed such a line. Europe's creeping erosion of freedom of speech on a governmental level is disturbing.
The fact that jail time is on the table for both of these is also a disgusting abuse of power that completely misunderstands the role of incarceration.
As much as I hate the United States, the one thing I can be proud of is that I'm allowed to say fuck the president, fuck every single supreme court justice, fuck every single congressperson, and fuck the police. I can't imagine living in a country where I'm not allowed to express my displeasure at the current head of state, let alone those of other countries.
Yo man you’re allowed to say all of those things and more in Denmark too what are you on about. I’m against legislating around this as much as almost anyone here but stop comparing the country to some dictatorship and while the US might have a admirable approach to freedom of speech it’s not like they are the pinnacle of handling it well.
I mean, Denmark was the country which legalized porn. Sure, after this law is implemented, there may be more freedom to be a racist provocateur in the US, which I guess ... hurray? But there's other freedom of speech issues. Like, the US never really like having their war crimes exposed. And there's also a lot of bans against childrens books with trans stuff, not to speak of anti-trans-laws regulating what people can do with their own bodies. (not freedom of speech, admittedly)
I don't have many warm fuzzy feelings regarding my country. Still, I think § 110e makes at least some sense. To not screw up the relations to other countries, you can't burn their flags. So if you have issues with other countries it must take some other form than straight-out provocations. Meanwhile, you're free to burn Dannebrog. During the Muhammad Carricature crisis, Dansk Folkeparti tried ban the burning of Dannebrog, but was voted down. By the way, a detail I like is that the corrrect way to get rid of old Dannebrog flags is by burning!
You can still say those things for your own country, just not for other countries
While I think those laws that already existed are awful, they're essentially never enforced in most countries, so I hope that means they don't intend to enforce this one either. Obviously, it's still preferable to not have these laws at all, but it at least gives me hope for their current right to free expression even if it is a bad sign overall.
Reminds me of this whole thing. When laws like this eventually resurface, they're being misused (or at least they're being used in a manner that I consider abusive). It would still be best not to have the law at all.
I’m in the US, so I have no idea what Muslim representation is like in the Danish government, but I would be very surprised if this law was spurred by any kind of “demand” from Muslims- let alone terrorists. I’m betting it comes from other Danes saying “we need to do something about our racists because it makes us look like an ignorant racist backwater in the international community and undermines our credibility on the global stage”.
Can any Danes here back me up?
They're citing national security as their reasoning behind this move. That's unfortunate. When you curtail people's civil liberties because of what terrorists might do, then the terrorists win.
I don't care how stupid, inflammatory, or ill-spirited a book burning might be. If you're willing to commit violence over it, you're a terrorist.
With that said, at least the law seems narrow enough in scope that it's hard to see how it could be abused in the future.
As a Dane, I can only say yikes.
I hope it will end up like the jewelry law from some years ago. It was a piece of legislation made to curb immigration, and it has only been used ~20 times or so. It's pretty racist in nature though, especially since it gets used on MENA refugees but not on Ukrainians.
The reason I am bringing it up is that this new law seems to have the exact opposite goal, however it seems equally symbolic. The jewelry law was to appease a growing right wing in the country, and this Quran burning ban is aimed at appeasing foreign majority Muslim countries.
Maybe I'm naive but I do not believe anybody will actually go to prison if this proposal becomes law.
It's about geopolitics and nothing else. Even the national security argument I do not buy.
It's strange, but it doesn't really bother me much that some fascists have their right to hatespeech hindered in some mild degree.
It hinders nothing as they'll find something else to burn, again. The right wing government is just using this to move closer to reinstating the blasphemy laws.
It was the right-wingers who pushed to get it removed in the first place. With the Muhammad drawings and such, "religious criticism" was the default dogwhistle for racism against muslims. So even though it had barely ever been in use, blasphemiparagraffen felt threatening to them. Also, Danes aren't all that religious; the right likely didn't really consider that it could be used to protect Christianity too.
Okay- I’m confused here now. I’m in the US - so I was assuming the racists on the street burning Qurans are right-wing “free speech absolutists”, and this law is intended to stifle acts of hate and racism. That would make this law too socialist in their opinion, not too right-wing, correct?
The burning actually started with ex-Muslims protesting the institution of Islam, which led to complaints from countries like Turkey. Since then, it has transitioned to the racists being the one burning stuff, but the point of the law is "national security" and trying to placate Turkey.
This sounds like an amendment to a law against trolling people in certain ways? I can see why that would make sense.
In the US, you could burn any country's flag, but a very narrow prohibition against trolling in person is somewhat reluctantly allowed. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words
I dunno, the fighting words doctrine came out of a… questionable case, and the doctrine has been narrowed since then, with no cases as far as I can tell upholding it.
I wonder what would happen if a state banned the use of the n-word.
Based on what happened in Brandenburg v. Ohio, it would be a legal smackdown.
Does anybody else find the number of people wanting to burn books in this thread disturbing?
Yes- it seems like a dumb law. But it wouldn’t be needed if there were not a bunch of racist neo-skinheads out on streets publicly burning Qurans just to incite more racism.
Do stupid and cause problems and get stupid laws that try to prevent more problems because people are acting like children. Act like an adult and enjoy your freedoms. It’s not that complicated.
One of the dudes who burn books in Sweden is a muslim apostate refugee. He claim it is in protest against persecution in his home country. So although some book burners are racist asshats, others use it as a legitimate way of protest.
It's not that a lot of us want to burn books, it's that we value the freedom of expression. I support your right to burn a bible just as much as I support your right to burn your country's (or any other's) flag. I don't want to do either, but I don't want you to get arrested for doing them.
I want my book to be protected by law too!
Will overcooking your pasta also be seen as blasphemous against pastafarians?
It already is. Give me al-dente or give me death!
I'm fairly certain this is already a crime against humanity.