I personally don't love book burning, and I don't love hateful actions toward a whole group of people. But yeah, allowing people to burn books in demonstrations, allowing people to draw pictures...
I personally don't love book burning, and I don't love hateful actions toward a whole group of people.
But yeah, allowing people to burn books in demonstrations, allowing people to draw pictures of whatever they want, etc. - definitely things that need to be allowed in a free society unfortunately.
Someone else commented that the person mainly doing this is also shouting at random Muslims on the street. Well, that's harassment so that shouldn't be allowed.
Ah good point, I expressed myself a bit poorly, and English is not my first language so I may struggle a bit with words. When I say "intent" I mean "the goal that is achieved through the act"....
Ah good point, I expressed myself a bit poorly, and English is not my first language so I may struggle a bit with words.
When I say "intent" I mean "the goal that is achieved through the act". This specific act (burning a book) is, in itself, harmless. What should be punished is the harassment, which is the most immediate harmful goal. Forbidding people of burning holy books is not only IMO a bad idea, but also won't prevent racists to find other ways to harass people.
That makes sense, I think I agree. I have a harder time getting onboard with policing thought; I'd love to see all forms of bigotry magically eradicated but you can't exactly punish people for...
That makes sense, I think I agree. I have a harder time getting onboard with policing thought; I'd love to see all forms of bigotry magically eradicated but you can't exactly punish people for believing bad ideas. There's got to be some outward action you can criminalize.
But there's still a lot of gray area regarding what constitutes "harassment." And maybe there must be. If I burn a couple Harry Potter books as kindling in my campfire, that's not harassing anybody. If I do the same thing at MuggleCon or in front of JK Rowling's house, is it? Maybe. You can't really codify that sort of thing in a law but I suppose that's what the courts are for. Let a judge suss out the intent behind the act.
I feel really conflicted about this. On the one hand, I agree that liberal democracies need to protect speech and make it as free as possible but on the other hand, I feel that as a society we...
I feel really conflicted about this. On the one hand, I agree that liberal democracies need to protect speech and make it as free as possible but on the other hand, I feel that as a society we should not accept inciteful and hateful speech. There are other ways to protest Islam than burning Qurans and painting pictures of Mohammed and I just don't know what the hell is wrong with people when they think it's okay to burn a holy book that brings faith to billions of other people. I'm not religious but I strive to live by the golden rule, to do unto others as I would have them do unto me, but I don't think it's okay to be so extreme and not expect any blowback or to just be so disrespectful to a class of other people. And yes, I do think that there's a lot of work to be done on the part of the major religions, I'm not giving them a free pass
I live in Denmark and this law seems to be mainly aimed at one idiot and his followers - Rasmus Paludan. He clearly is just out to provoke and I personally don't understand why his so-called...
I live in Denmark and this law seems to be mainly aimed at one idiot and his followers - Rasmus Paludan. He clearly is just out to provoke and I personally don't understand why his so-called "demonstrations" hasn't been stopped on regular harassment charges. His happenings is not just a burning of the Quran, but he also screams obscenities at muslim-looking people like calling women wearing a scarf whores and what not. Of course I can't speak for the entire nation, but I think it is fair to say the majority of us thinks he is a total idiot.
The problem is what we throw away in the process when trying to stop someone like him. For example woman in Iran have also protested against the religious tyranny of their government by burning their hijabs and copies of the Quran. What if some Danish muslims wanted to show their support by doing something similar in front of the Iranian embassy? Another example is a Danish artist who has made an artwork where she shredded a copy of a Quran and used the paper pieces to create a prayer rug. From my understanding is what her way of showing a protest against the religious tyranny the Quran is used for while also saying she still has the faith. I am sure there are many opinions on that kind of protests or provocative art. I think those are more worthy of support than what Paludan is doing, but it also become problematic if the law in a democratic society with free speech should have opinions about what kind of things it is okay to criticize using symbolic actions and what is not.
And there is the uneasy feeling I get by seeing this law only coming into effect once it started to become a diplomatic issue for NATO expansion. Our democratic rights are up for sale because we want to please countries that are actively suppressing their population. Why isn't it the other way around, us demanding those countries to do better on human rights issue?
I'm with you in that I'm against restrictions on freedom of speech for the many reasons you list and that there exist some form of "common sense" limitations. But where is that line drawn and...
I'm with you in that I'm against restrictions on freedom of speech for the many reasons you list and that there exist some form of "common sense" limitations. But where is that line drawn and should governments really be the one to draw it? And to what extent should individuals give up their personal freedoms for the sake of their county's international "fitness"?
I think violent reactions to the burning religious texts or other non-violent "anti-religion/culture/race/gender/etc." actions is never acceptable. We can explain the reason for the reaction, but that in no way is a justification of the reaction.
That isn't to say that harassment should be allowed. Burning a Quran outside someone's house? Harassment, and should be punished as harassment. Burning a Quran in a public space? May be fair exercise of free speech. Burning a Quran in front of the same family at the public park each week? Probably harassment and should be punished as harassment. Violent reactions to any of these three Quran burnings? Unacceptable and should be punished as such.
I personally don't love book burning, and I don't love hateful actions toward a whole group of people.
But yeah, allowing people to burn books in demonstrations, allowing people to draw pictures of whatever they want, etc. - definitely things that need to be allowed in a free society unfortunately.
Someone else commented that the person mainly doing this is also shouting at random Muslims on the street. Well, that's harassment so that shouldn't be allowed.
Yes, the issue isn't the action, it's the intent.
Making the action illegal won't deter those people with ill intents, they'll just act differently.
So how do you make the intent illegal?
Ah good point, I expressed myself a bit poorly, and English is not my first language so I may struggle a bit with words.
When I say "intent" I mean "the goal that is achieved through the act". This specific act (burning a book) is, in itself, harmless. What should be punished is the harassment, which is the most immediate harmful goal. Forbidding people of burning holy books is not only IMO a bad idea, but also won't prevent racists to find other ways to harass people.
That makes sense, I think I agree. I have a harder time getting onboard with policing thought; I'd love to see all forms of bigotry magically eradicated but you can't exactly punish people for believing bad ideas. There's got to be some outward action you can criminalize.
But there's still a lot of gray area regarding what constitutes "harassment." And maybe there must be. If I burn a couple Harry Potter books as kindling in my campfire, that's not harassing anybody. If I do the same thing at MuggleCon or in front of JK Rowling's house, is it? Maybe. You can't really codify that sort of thing in a law but I suppose that's what the courts are for. Let a judge suss out the intent behind the act.
I feel really conflicted about this. On the one hand, I agree that liberal democracies need to protect speech and make it as free as possible but on the other hand, I feel that as a society we should not accept inciteful and hateful speech. There are other ways to protest Islam than burning Qurans and painting pictures of Mohammed and I just don't know what the hell is wrong with people when they think it's okay to burn a holy book that brings faith to billions of other people. I'm not religious but I strive to live by the golden rule, to do unto others as I would have them do unto me, but I don't think it's okay to be so extreme and not expect any blowback or to just be so disrespectful to a class of other people. And yes, I do think that there's a lot of work to be done on the part of the major religions, I'm not giving them a free pass
I live in Denmark and this law seems to be mainly aimed at one idiot and his followers - Rasmus Paludan. He clearly is just out to provoke and I personally don't understand why his so-called "demonstrations" hasn't been stopped on regular harassment charges. His happenings is not just a burning of the Quran, but he also screams obscenities at muslim-looking people like calling women wearing a scarf whores and what not. Of course I can't speak for the entire nation, but I think it is fair to say the majority of us thinks he is a total idiot.
The problem is what we throw away in the process when trying to stop someone like him. For example woman in Iran have also protested against the religious tyranny of their government by burning their hijabs and copies of the Quran. What if some Danish muslims wanted to show their support by doing something similar in front of the Iranian embassy? Another example is a Danish artist who has made an artwork where she shredded a copy of a Quran and used the paper pieces to create a prayer rug. From my understanding is what her way of showing a protest against the religious tyranny the Quran is used for while also saying she still has the faith. I am sure there are many opinions on that kind of protests or provocative art. I think those are more worthy of support than what Paludan is doing, but it also become problematic if the law in a democratic society with free speech should have opinions about what kind of things it is okay to criticize using symbolic actions and what is not.
And there is the uneasy feeling I get by seeing this law only coming into effect once it started to become a diplomatic issue for NATO expansion. Our democratic rights are up for sale because we want to please countries that are actively suppressing their population. Why isn't it the other way around, us demanding those countries to do better on human rights issue?
I'm with you in that I'm against restrictions on freedom of speech for the many reasons you list and that there exist some form of "common sense" limitations. But where is that line drawn and should governments really be the one to draw it? And to what extent should individuals give up their personal freedoms for the sake of their county's international "fitness"?
I think violent reactions to the burning religious texts or other non-violent "anti-religion/culture/race/gender/etc." actions is never acceptable. We can explain the reason for the reaction, but that in no way is a justification of the reaction.
That isn't to say that harassment should be allowed. Burning a Quran outside someone's house? Harassment, and should be punished as harassment. Burning a Quran in a public space? May be fair exercise of free speech. Burning a Quran in front of the same family at the public park each week? Probably harassment and should be punished as harassment. Violent reactions to any of these three Quran burnings? Unacceptable and should be punished as such.